Read: Worst Case War Scenario, WWIII: East Asia....

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Ive heard and it seems plausible that world war 3 will not be one war with several fronts, like the other two world wars. But several massive wars across the world. Well heres a theory for a realistic situation and (I DONT WANT THIS TO BECOME A USA OR CHINA OR W/E BASHING SESSION, ONLY INTELIGENT CONVO) im curious as to your input. (Taking in regard the drafts and such that’d be put in place) in your opinions what do you think about the prospect of a SIMULTANEOUS Chinese invasion of Taiwan, a North Korean invasion of SK, a surprise strike by Pakistan into India (maybe... they hate each other, and India is in terrible shape from tsunami), and the 2 front war on terror the U.S is facing....




posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
The War on Terror will be over before any WW3 starts (at least we won't be dealing with petty insurgency).

If North Korea invades South Korea, they'll be repelled by South Korea alone. I don't think there's any real need for America to stay around except to keep leverage on the South. If they want military help, they'll have to listen to us from time to time.

If China invades Taiwan, well, that won't even lead to a ground war. Chinese troops will most likely not get into Taiwan. American naval and airpower will be all thats necessary to put a stop to China's efforts.

Pakistan and India probably wouldn't lead to any wide conflict. The American side, and the Chinese/Russians want to play nice with both Pakistan and India. The best thing would be to stay nuetral for the world powers, or perhaps to play both sides to keep a stalemate.

The only real WW3 scenario I can think of would be over oil. It would require a devestating thing like Peak Oil to draw the world powers into a major conflict.

I believe America wants a large scale conflict with China in the near future (sometime around 2020). I believe that America may be counting on something like Peak Oil to give the excuse. The reason is that China is too much of a threat economically, and then will become a threat militarily. Of course we'll want to put a stop to that. The best time is around 2020. America will have fully applied the FCS program.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Even better. The US becomes entrenched in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and maybe other middle eastern countries fall into the conflict.

At this time Russia, India,China, and North Korea all take the opportunity to expand their borders.

Russia begins invading countires of the old USSR citing terrorist concerns and foreign puppetry. (Starting with Cech, Ukra)

India strikes Kashmir and possibly Pakistan itself leading to a most horrific war.

China takes the opportunity of all threats in the world being preoccupied to massively invade Taiwan.

North Korea then strikes South Korea since no one is able to smack the kid back into line. Japan fearing a invasion after South Korea begins building its military and pre-emptively strikes Korea.

The UN begins to distentigrate and the Nato is rendered uneffective.

Small wars (past and present) all across South America and Africa are now able to flare into large wars and sometimes mass genocides.

IF something like that happened which to me is entirely plausible given current circumstances. It would be the end of all super powers. Most if not all countries would be decimated. No one would come out of a mix of wars like that unscathed.

In the end the world would lie in shambles with no major military anywhere capable of defending versus any real organized force. Mercanary units could thrive.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Face it, the big wigs who manipulate the chess pieces to maximize their profits are perfectly happy with their scenario of sustained low level conflict. Think of the picture as Viet Nam, except it lasts 100 years. While keeping a basic kind of peace, some confllict for whatever useless purpose will keep the United States occupied as a Hessian force. The object is to reduce us to utter despotism gradually, while we watch football and celebrity gossip. It is simply a money moving series of events, not total war. In fact most people want to live in natural peace and harmony. It is the perpetrators and propagandists who line their pockets with what comes to an illusory wealth. When the war makers go to hell, it will not be the classic vision of Dante. Oh no, they will view the world that could have been, and live in the world they created.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by SkipShipman]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Even better. The US becomes entrenched in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and maybe other middle eastern countries fall into the conflict.

At this time Russia, India,China, and North Korea all take the opportunity to expand their borders.

Russia begins invading countires of the old USSR citing terrorist concerns and foreign puppetry. (Starting with Cech, Ukra)

India strikes Kashmir and possibly Pakistan itself leading to a most horrific war.

China takes the opportunity of all threats in the world being preoccupied to massively invade Taiwan.

North Korea then strikes South Korea since no one is able to smack the kid back into line. Japan fearing a invasion after South Korea begins building its military and pre-emptively strikes Korea.

The UN begins to distentigrate and the Nato is rendered uneffective.

Small wars (past and present) all across South America and Africa are now able to flare into large wars and sometimes mass genocides.

IF something like that happened which to me is entirely plausible given current circumstances. It would be the end of all super powers. Most if not all countries would be decimated. No one would come out of a mix of wars like that unscathed.

In the end the world would lie in shambles with no major military anywhere capable of defending versus any real organized force. Mercanary units could thrive.


None of this is going to happen, and I can prove it with a few simple statements.

Even if America was tied down in all of those Middle Eastern nations, it wouldn't matter. We'd still have carrier groups to stop China from taking action against Taiwan. Russia CAN'T support wars against the old satellite states. If they did, there will always be 70,000 Americans, and many more Europeans ready to take action. Russia taking action envokes NATO. Pakistan and India are heading more towards peace then war.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   
If America truly becomes entrenched those carrier groups will be needed there. Moving them to protect Taiwan over our hundreds of thousands of deployed troops would be insane. If we attack Iran and Syria you can bet Turkey will get involved in Syria. If Syria is attacked they will almost assuredly attack Isreal in retaliation (even just a missle or two). Isreal will not back down from any threat so it would most likely move to strike back. If Isreal strikes any muslim country outside of Palestine you can bet your ass Egypt and Jordan will get involved.

Egypt and Jordan are on basically friendly terms with the US but they wont stand by and watch Isreal attack anyone. If they came into the mix the US couldn't afford to deploy anything beyond subs away from that region.

With America tied up it would be doubtful if the EU or Nato would be willing to risk direct confrontation with Russia. Nato without the US has done little to nothing. The EU bickers to much internally to come to a conclusion about directly involving themselves with Russia.

Pakistan and India are being forced to be nice at the moment by the big boys. Once Russia, China, and the US are off their backs economically and militarily it would take little to nothing to reingnite a conflict there.

And everyone knows no matter what the outcome would be Kim Jong Il is crazy enough to attack South Korea, and his troops are brainwashed enough not to question it.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xerrog
. If Syria is attacked they will almost assuredly attack Isreal in retaliation (even just a missle or two). Isreal will not back down from any threat so it would most likely move to strike back.


Isreal wont back down eh? Just like they didnt back down when Saddam was shooting SCUDs at them?

If the US wants them to bake down they will.


Another thing all this talk of Russia expanding its borders expanding to where? Perhaps its old goal Europe now that its unified under the EU I doubt it. France and the UK have enough nukes to make Russia think twice about the cost of that.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Syria and Iran are sitting ducks. No one else would get involved. If America attacked, we'd do it individually. Syria can not fight a two front war. It couldn't even fight an offensive war on its own. Attacking Israel isn't even an option.

More to the point, a war with the Middle Eastern powers wouldn't take long at all. At most weeks. The combined forces of America and Israel would send all of the Muslim nations back to their own little countries without much effort.

China can not cordinate an invasion of Taiwan with this. Weeks isn't enough time for China to prepare. It wouldn't even take much naval power for the Middle East. We wouldn't need to send all of our carrier groups. Besides Iran, none of the nations have anything even resembling a navy.

The EU is perfectly capable of handling Russia with minimal effort. Not even France would sit back and watch Russia start reclaiming old territories. The bigger problem is that Russia lacks the capability to do this. I think Chechnya has shown their capability. Many of those old satellite states, while not a match for Russia, could leave a nice scar. Russia economically is too weak to risk anything, as well. The EU might not have to fight if Russia tries something. The threat of economic sanctions is enough.

Pakistan and India just really don't want war. India is trying to build its economy up. A war would destroy their hopes of becoming a world power. They are just now gaining some credibility. Neither Pakistan or India could withstand a long fight with one another. They both rely on foreign weapons.

North and South Korea? That's a joke. As I said, the South is perfectly capable of repelling an invasion of the North, and even invading. I honestly doubt North Korea would act. Old Kim isn't nearly as crazy as people make him out to be. He talks big because he knows there isn't a real threat to him, and hasn't been for some time. America won't invade, they just want to dick around. War would gain nothing for America. He makes threats to get attention.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Xerrog
. If Syria is attacked they will almost assuredly attack Isreal in retaliation (even just a missle or two). Isreal will not back down from any threat so it would most likely move to strike back.


Isreal wont back down eh? Just like they didnt back down when Saddam was shooting SCUDs at them?

If the US wants them to bake down they will.


Another thing all this talk of Russia expanding its borders expanding to where? Perhaps its old goal Europe now that its unified under the EU I doubt it. France and the UK have enough nukes to make Russia think twice about the cost of that.


Actually the U.K & France have only (combined) 488 ready-to-launch missiles and a futher 62 fighter based weapons. Compared to Russians 4,442 >, these are the known operational ones, with a futher 4,200 warheads able to be fitted to what the strategic command sees fit.

As for Russia's role in this so called future World War, it will not be of major conquest of the former Soviet Republics, theres to much problem there sooner or later they would have all killed themselves. As for the statement about the situation in Chechnya the was no problem in the actual invasion it was just the after shock of the insurgents which caused major problem and a lengthening of the crisis. Which I am certain will be similar in Iraq, except not as intense and well organised.

I doubt that Russia would even think about launching some kind of offensive agaisnt western/eastern Europe. Russia's economy is already growing well-enough to prove succesful without having to resort to war.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by imAMERICAN
and India is in terrible shape from tsunami), and the 2 front war on terror the U.S is facing....


What is this terrible shape you speak off?

As far as I know the tsunami hit only the coastal villages, made up of mostly fishers. All the important cities have been untouched, and so are the technological centers.

Besides Pakistan and India have been on good terms lately, actually the best they have been.

Surf



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   
India is not damaged severely by the tsunami...its the only tsunami
stricken country that has refused foreign aid and is helping other
tsunami stricken countries..
But its navy is stretched out in relief OPs..Lakshwadeep (1000k of
western shores)..Andaman & Nicobar (1800k off eastern
shores)...Srilanka and Indonesia(Aceh)..Over 35 ships, 25
heli/aircraft, and over 6000 personnel..largest ever peace ops by the
Indian armed forces..

Here's my scenario:

Its based on the post Dec 13 2001 parliment attacks...
Indian Parliment attacked by terrorists..fat slobby politicians realise
that the war on terro has come to their doorsteps..
wave their arms in anger..
allow armed forces to do 'whatever necessary' to end insurgency..
music to Indian army/AF/navy commanders who have been wanting to carry out crossborder precision strikes to:
1. Obviously to end insurgency that has been bleeding India for the
last decade.
2.Show India's prowess in special ops..They have the capability just
never got the go ahead due some "stupid" peace talks now and then
(notice for Israel its the other way around..precision strikes first-
then peace talks)

Stage I: INDO-PAK War

-India carries out strikes in POK (pak occpied kashmir)..with Jaguars,
Mirage 2000 and MiG27M carrying LGBs ...
-Simultaneously special op forces inserted at various points along the
border capture miltant posts and target paint more sites for aerial
assault..
-Then a battalion moves into POK under the cover of Mi-17 attack helis
and does a mop up of all terror camps....
-The Indian forces then withdraw back into their own territory while
MiG-29s and Su-30 MKIs maintain air superiority...
All this done from say 00:00hrs to 9:00hrs...
India happy...END ..?? NOT!!
-Pakistan fuming over unprovoked violation of territory/airspace..
-Launches full scale assault at retreating indian forces and continues
assault into IOK...(Indians instructed not to retaliate unitl pakis
infringe indian territory)..
-Once Pakis push into IOK..India retaliates and is prepared for such an
attack
-India forces the pakis over the LOC again and now hold positions deep within
POK..
-Pakistan more infuriated, opens fronts down south in Punjab,
Rajasthan, and Gujarat
- Long battle ensues there, but eventually India prevails...
-Army commanders disobey orders to retreat and push deep into
pakistan... (in th 1971 war they were ordered to retreat due to
ceasefire and consider that a big mistake)
-Frightened Paksitan uses tactical nuke(s) on advancing Indian army to
try and scare then back..
-It doesn't work, India pushes on carries out conventional bombing of
all pak installations at a scale equivalent to the bombing of
afghanistan, thus totally crippling Pakistans defence structure..
-Pakistan implores China and USA its only allies to prevent any further
loss of face/land....

Stage II: Enter the Dragon

-china obliges by moving forces to Indian border and increases
insurgency in eastern Indian states.
-The move works, India panicks and slows down the tempo in Pakistan.
-Indian forces begin a slow and organised withdrawalto border positions
while redepositing forces on the Chinese border...
-The US trying frantically to diffuse the situation, is glad that it
has averted 'nuclear' war by preventing India from replying to
pakistan's nuke attack by using nukes themselves..
-China now viewing the entire situation a completete botchery of
relations with India tries to make the best of it by moving into Nepal
and a few eastern Indian states in which they've started insurgency
ops.
-India now caught in a pincer war frantically engaes China in the
eastern front.
-China, taken aback by a 'war-ready'/warring Indian Force realises that
it may need more troops to maintain control of its newly acquired
territory.
- It diverts more of its east coast forces to be deployed in the Indian
theatre..while simultaneously encouraging Paksitan to hurt the
retreating India as much as possible
-Pakistan, feeling complacent that India will not respond to a military
nuclear strike, drops another nuke on receding Indian forces..
-That pinches India a little too much, caught in a pincer war with two
countries, nuked 2 times already, India orders a complete nuke rsponse
to Pakistans actions.
-India still avoiding civilian population, completely destroys Pakistans
military structure by carrying out 15-20 precision sub-kiloton strikes
at various bases,industries etc... There are obviously 1000s of
civilian deaths too
-Pakistan now under the danger of losing its sovereignity and control
of it nuke forces(Indians have been hunting for the nukes and the C&C
centres)..now decides it has nothing to lose and launches a nuke at
Bangalore..India's IT city..making waves in the international tech
front..
-That now prompts Russia, who was supporting India completely in the
PAk conflict but is some what hesitant to take sides in the Indo-China
conflict, to drop around 20,000 paratrooper troops into Pakistan. This
is to attain control of the remaining nukes that Pakistan has..
-The US afraid that terrorists organisation might use the opportunity
to swipe a few remaining warheads, does the same..
-Now Paksitan is occupied by 3 countries all at once out of which 2 of
them don't really like each other..

Stage III: The East

-Meanwhile Japan just re-awakening its military status sees the current
situation as its best opportunity to pinch China on the east Coast,
does so..
-North Korea sitting impatiently until now as events aorund it unfold,
freaks out at the Japanese move and launches a missile,unarmes(but no
one knows that) over Japan and into the Pacific..Just to scare Japan
into receding...
-The US already caught in South Asia views the NK act as dangerous, and
it decides(based on its intel) that NK is poised to strike somewhere
(Japan SK, USA)..
-The US informs the japs and the S koreans who immediately boost
defences..NK takes this act as a precursor to an invasion and does the
unthinkable..Fires mortar and artillery shells into SK positions..The
Korean war has begun
-In a day, 200,000 koreans die, along with 15000 US troops(In Indo-Pak war uptill now 100,000 have died in comparision..
Japan sensing that NK will start chucking nukes everywhere liek Pak did..Invades NK from the North...NK manages to get on nuke off before it loses control
-Where does the nuke go?..Not any city, but it wipes out a US carrier
fleet just off the coast of taiwan..

Stage IV : Taiwan

China, now realising that India is not worth it..withdraws from India
(Not Nepal) and uses the taiwan nuke attack to transfer 100,000 troops
into taiwan in matter of hrs...Taiwan manages reduce that figure to

85,000 no less..China is now in control of Taiwan, and surprisingly the
Taiwanese people welcome them, in order to avoid more blood shed..
-The US caught with its pants down, never expected China to move so
many troops over to Taiwan, especially with China being entrenched in
India..
The loss of a carrier fleet is too great, sothe US also drops troops into

NK which is , like PAk, filled with troops from 3 countries, namely
Japan,China and the US..
SK stays out of NK, thanking its stars that it wasn't nuked..
-The US tries to gauge whether taking Taiwan back will be feasible, but
with the taiwanese not wanting any more bloodshed, and the chinese well
dug in(they've planned for this for years) it seems inadvisable..
-The US is not going to walk away from this defeated though..
they lost a carrier fleet, lost taiwan; US needs to regain some ground..

Stage V :Nepal & Tibet

-The US devises a daring plan:
initially trynig to hold India back from going to war, the US now coerces an already furious India to liberate Nepal, promising air support..
- B-2s,F-117s, and F-22s fly countless sorties, from Diego Garcia,Europe and Missouri, into the region pounding away on Chinese defences in Nepal Tibet, and a pro-China Burma..
Cruise Missiles from ships/subs in the bay of bengal complement the air assault at night..
while Indian troops pour across the borders, first securing Nepal and then moving into tibet..
-All this happens in the cover of darkness, the 1st ever joint Indo-US
military ops in history..
-By daybreak India has "liberated" Nepal & Burma while it is deep
within Tibet.
- China is SHOCKED..they never pre-calculated such a move...
Russia is also quite perplexed...

This is all that I've theorised until now; Now im tired and I've
included every major power in this except the EU..(Britain is in, where
the US is..)
Maybe you guys can pick up from here? I'll add more later..


how was it so far?..pretty realistc IMHO ..at least the Indo-Pak bit


EDIT: OMG I didn't know my point format would make it so lengthy


[edit on 17-1-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
What would happen with turkey then if theres a major war in the middle east. I would guess that Turkey will back Israel. Which makes Syria and Iran pissed so they may attack turkey. Turkey would be able to stop theire offenses and turn on the offense themselves. After that Turkey, Israel and US are the very clear winners.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
^^That wouldn't turn into a WW..a regional conflict but no WW..



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Hey Tomcat! welcome to the board! (Tomcat is a friend)

Daedalus, your scenerio sounds plausible...

But all world wars seem to have been staged by the banks who profit from the loans for wars.....

So Iraq style wars are more profittable in the long run...





posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
But an Iraq style war would never go global, any middleeastern conflict would never go global, IMHO only the above scenario involving asian countries would ever have the risk of flaring into a WW.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I would like to commend "Disturbed Deliverer" for some clear strategic thinking and comments.

Daedalus3,
Your scenario is an entertaining fantasy but nothing like that is happening.
Russia-China-India is the new axis of evil? I suppose if evil means making contingency plans to oppose US expansion. If you had any serious contacts with those countries or had spent serious any time in them, I think you would quickly realize that the recent arms sales and cooperation between those countries comes from convenience not love.
With the big power (the US) saying that it reserves the right to act unilaterally and doing just that, it is logical for the defensive instincts of the other players to move them closer together. None of those countries has any interest or desire for a direct confrontation with the US. China isn't even interested in a direct confrontation with Taiwan and the present regime in India is in absolutely no mood to tangle with Pakistan. Even if they were in the mood, they are smart enough not to.

Expanded conflict is most likely to take place in the Middle East not the Far East and that expansion would most likely be a US move.
Syrian and Iran don't want a direct confrontation with the US either. They are more than happy just to survive while doing what they can to quietly oppose the US in Iraq.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I would like to point out to you lot (who are talking about the Europian conflict involving Russia, that the EU is PURELY of a trading purpose!! It has NO army what-so-ever! Appart from individual nations it would be NATO that would be fighting against Russia in a WW if Russia ever invaded any Europian countries, since that is what NATO was originally designed for, and the EU is NOT millitary!! Is is 100% Economical, with no millitary what so ever! The EU is not a millitary orginisation! How many times must I say it on all of these WW3 threads?!

Fighting Purposes? Somebody said that oil is the only thing they can think of that wud be fought over... Yes oil is a thing that is likely, another thing that WILL be fought over, as it is alot more important than Oil - is WATER, water is supposed to become very rare sometime soon (not as soon as oil, but soon)

Nukes? The Deployment of Tactical Missiles is extreamly unlikely, it will only happen in very extreme circumstances, I think we all know why... But even without Nuclear Missiles being used, a REAL World War 3 would truely tear countries appart and a new way of life will probally emerge from the mists...

My Thoughts of the Areas for the Wars would be In Asia, Middle East and the Edges of Europe and Africa, I serriously doubt that there will be any blood Spilled on any of the American Continents or Austrilasian soil during this war. As long as Nuclear Weapons are not deployed.

EDIT: Typo's

[edit on 17-1-2005 by The_Squid]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kenshin


Actually the U.K & France have only (combined) 488 ready-to-launch missiles and a futher 62 fighter based weapons. Compared to Russians 4,442 >, these are the known operational ones, with a futher 4,200 warheads able to be fitted to what the strategic command sees fit.





While not equal to the arsenal of Russia or the US but losing 488 of you biggest cities is one heck of a deterent I would think.




Squid your right about the EU as a military (well for now) But when they have countries like the UK, France, Germany ect.. that would all fight for the same goal, so it does in away have a combined army if needed. They might not all fight under a EU flag but would be pretty much the same thing in any such event.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
The EU does have a limited military:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Plus, its obvious that if one nation were to get attacked, all of the EU would step in now. It doesn't need to be official or written down.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Kenshin


Actually the U.K & France have only (combined) 488 ready-to-launch missiles and a futher 62 fighter based weapons. Compared to Russians 4,442 >, these are the known operational ones, with a futher 4,200 warheads able to be fitted to what the strategic command sees fit.





While not equal to the arsenal of Russia or the US but losing 488 of you biggest cities is one heck of a deterent I would think.




Squid your right about the EU as a military (well for now) But when they have countries like the UK, France, Germany ect.. that would all fight for the same goal, so it does in away have a combined army if needed. They might not all fight under a EU flag but would be pretty much the same thing in any such event.



Um, like its said here, and like i always say, 100 nukes, 1000 nukes, the when you have several hundred of them, it doesnt matter how many the other side your fighting has... 400 nukes-even 100 or 50 into Russia can decimate the country beyond your imagination... and how the whole Russian expansion into Europe got started... i dont really think that would ever happen..no matter where the U.S was tied up-we would threaten a nuclear response which would stop the ruskies in their tracks. but also, everyone makes Europe out to be so strong, but really only France and the U.K have sufficient military capablitities (sorry for spelling) to thwart off Russia...





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join