World War III!

Don't be disappointed when nothing happens guys.

I agree. I think that many people believe that WW3 is something that can be triggered comparatively easily by either U.S. "aggression" or by some madman or disaster ala 9-11. As Byrd pointed out, a World War is a major war involving a number of major powers and fought out on most of the land-masses on Earth (as WW2 was fought in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Pacific). I do not believe that the conditions presently exist to plunge the world into a World War. Perhaps this may change in the future, but I do not believe we will see WW3 any time soon.

For one of the major powers (other than the U.S.) to become involved would be an enormous deviation from what we are seeing. Yes, China and Russia may disagree with the United States' policies, but they have taken no action against them, nor have they threatened to. When the U.S. attacked Afghanistan, they did not act. Nor did they act when the U.S. and its allies invaded Iraq, even when many countries were against such an action. The major powers are well aware of what a world war would constitute. In WW2 Russia lost 20 000 000 people. They are not going to start a war for anything less than a major provocation.

If the United States attacked a country without consultation or apparent justification, then this may provoke a response, but many feel that this was exactly what happened in Iraq and the major powers did nothing hostile, they merely voiced their disapproval, as is their right.

The only incident I can see that would even come close to triggering WW3 is if everything went belly-up re: China and Taiwan. Perhaps if China attacked Taiwan and diplomacy failed, perhaps we may see a conflict between the U.S. and China and other countries may be drawn into it. But really, this is the only scenario I can foresee that might cause WW2. I also doubt that the United States will unilaterally attack Iran or North Korea. Yes, many people are against the U.S.'s decisions to invade Iraq and view it as American aggression. But, speaking as a non-American, when I consider what America could have done to Iraq (and its neighbours, if expansionist aggression were truly their agenda) I think that, if anything, they have shown amazing restraint.

I realise that my views may differ from those here presented. Please realise that this is merely my own humble opinion. I am happy to debate the issues if people wish.

Oh, that quatrain that Nostradamus supposedly wrote about the "two brothers" and the onset of WW3 ... totally bogus. Check out this link on Snopes to see how this has been manipulated. It's not alone, though. There were also bogus verses from the Qur'an circulating that spoke of the war in Iraq. Check them out here.

Best case scenarios for a world war:

Korean War - MacArthur during the battle of Inchon, drove NK forces into China and attacked, later on he had the NK forces once again in China, this time he proposed to Truman that he should be allowed to bomb China, possibly with a nuke.

Suez Canal - Egypt nationalizes the Suez, Britain and France plot action against Egypt, Israel plots action against Egypt, Britain and France warn Israel about what they are doing, then USSR steps in and says it will crush anyone who does not step down.

Cuban Missile Crisis - After stopping a freighter of Soviet missiles, Kennedy and Krushchev become gripped in a standoff over what should be done if a US spy plane is shot down, whether US launches against the Soviets in the air, and most of all: what to do if the other uses a nuke.

The one thing that I find missing in all of this talk of the events of 9/11 leading up to WWIII is the lack of an oppossing superpower. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea? None of these countries can match to what the USSR was.

I think that if the US invades Iran, that will trigger a massive war that will eventually lead to into WWIII. Vladimir Putin said that if the US invades Iran, the BRIC alliance (Brazil, Russia, India and China) would have no other option but to protect Iran by all means necessary to ensure global security against US domination. The other factor is because; Iran is building a natural gas pipeline through India and possibly China, which the US opposes. The US has no right to force Iran to stop their nuclear program, whether it is for peaceful purposes, or to eventually develop a bomb to protect themselves from foreign invaders, that’s why the US and other nuclear countries posses these weapons. Iran is no threat to the US, as they have stated, unless the US invade. Iran has never attacked the US on home soil, so there would be no other reason, except that Iran has the 2nd biggest reserves of Natural gas and 3rd biggest Oil reserves in the world. So invading would mean the US would be fight against Iran and BRIC, which would obviously escalate into a world war that we (Canada, US, etc) would lose seeing as they have more weapons, and manpower, nukes, etc overall. We can avoid this by the US not going to Iran, but it will come to that.

Vladimir Putin said that if the US invades Iran, the BRIC alliance (Brazil, Russia, India and China) would have no other option but to protect Iran by all means necessary

Could you please post a link showing us where you read this? The only reference I could find to Russia hinting at a military confrontation came from India Daily, which has been shown to be little more than an over-sensationalised tabloid.

I would also like to point out that manpower, although important, is not as significant as the application of advanced technology and superior training. If this were otherwise, I am confident that Israel would have been overrun a long time ago.

As to Iran possessing nuclear weapons, I think the major concern lies in the fact that Iran's leaders are not exactly the most stable, peace-loving individuals on Earth. Now, neither are America's leaders. However, the difference lies in the fact that America has had 40 years of nuclear discipline and understands well the implications of using nukes. Iran has not had such experience and may be more likely to use nukes irrationally. I also think there is concern in the fact that Iran is constantly referring to America as an enemy and threatening the destruction of Israel which, whatever you may think of it, is still an American ally. If Iran did develop nukes and began to throw its weight around or threaten its neighbours, I personally think we should attack them. I am not American, I am Australian, but I personally don't believe in national borders where people are suffering.

I can’t find the exact source; I read it at sometime last year. There are numerous articles, sources which say that Iran has joined the BRIC bloc with there $200 Billion gas pipeline with some of the BRIC’s nations, also on the basis which includes their energy will be protected from the US. The reasoning to create the BRIC (emerging Superpowers) was for trade and world/Eurasia military stability against US domination. The article I read, Putin said that if America tries to invade Iran, as a protective measure to secure all the gas deals which the US been bent on breaking, they would have to use all means necessary to control the stability of Eurasia.

You said....
“I would also like to point out that manpower, although important, is not as significant as the application of advanced technology and superior training. If this were otherwise, I am confident that Israel would have been overrun a long time ago.”

Well Israel has a lot of protection from many countries as well to compliment their technology. I will have to disagree with part of what you said. If you combined the Militaries of Russia, India and China alone, you have pretty much same technologies, some better and some not (as ALL US weapons are not superior than other countries owned developed weapons), the most nuclear weapons combined, about 3-4 times the US military manpower, bigger air force, etc… I know the US has developed the Patriot Systems and shared them with Saudis and Israelis, which has about a 50% accuracy rate. The US offered to sell the same ones they use to protect their own country to India, but it is developing their own, more sophisticated patriot type system. And manpower has to do a lot with it, pilots, troops, etc… you need the whole package. The US is already in Afghanistan & Iraq, and are having trouble to contain them ever since they went in.

And for you comment about how Iran views America as an enemy, America has the same rhetoric against other countries. The US is the only county to use nuclear weapons and it’s not very responsible of them to invade countries with little or no armies for resources and civilians deaths, which many consider to be murder. Doing this makes you look worse, and does not show any true military strength, show more weaknesses. If the US was all-powerful, I suggest they Invade China to spread democracy and liberate Tibet, Taiwan, etc. But they would lose. So imagine with India, Russia, and Brazil also with them.

The US is still producing and having the most nuclear weapons than other any Single country, and have created a huge Arms race around the world. Russia, China has ICBM and both of India’s ICBM (8,000 and 12,000km) are expected in 2008. Something also to consider. Just my view and you have yours.

These that might help answer a few things.

Running into a ‘BRIC wall’ with Eurasia?
www.energybulletin.net...

USAF: Indian Exercises Showed Need For F/A-22, Changes In Training
vayu-sena.tripod.com...

India to be superpower: Ex-UN Secy General
timesofindia.indiatimes.com...



[edit on 15-8-2005 by Darth Tinku]

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Darth Tinku]

Originally posted by Darth Tinku

The US is still producing and having the most nuclear weapons than other any Single country,

Uh we have? And we still do? We have not fielded any NEW nuclear weapons since the mid 90's at the latest....no need, we have enough.

Read this edsinger, there are alot more of these..do a search on it..

Bush looking to take a mini- step to nuclear proliferation
www.pasadenastarnews.com...

The nuclear weapons business is booming
www.taipeitimes.com...

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Darth Tinku]

Russia would like to be but hasn't the resources

What do you base that on?

Yes, China and Russia may disagree with the United States' policies, but they have taken no action against them, nor have they threatened to.

According to articles I have read Russia threatened to use force against the United States if it put weapons in space, and China threatened to nuke America if it got involved in the taiwain dispute.
So if America invade Iran, it is possible BRIC would attack America.

Vladimir Putin said that if the US invades Iran, the BRIC alliance (Brazil, Russia, India and China) would have no other option but to protect Iran by all means necessary to ensure global security against US domination.

The problem with this alliance is that they have very limited force projection. Millions of men, but no way to move, supply and re-supply them quickly. Basically USAF/USN aircraft would have millions of targets.

Also, don't forget Australia, Japan, Pakistan, Germany, France. India's diplomatic ties to China are far more tenous than India's relation to US and UK.

Originally posted by Omniscient
So many of the countries in the world are fighting...in my opinion this is already part of World War III. I think if we get into a war of North Korea, that's when the true part of the war will begin.

Just my thoughts.

Omniscient,

I must agree with the first part of your post. I'm not quite sure that I would bet the farm on the last part of the post. I would agree that it would not be a pretty sight to go to war with N. Korea but I think it will start here in the U.S. whenever a nuclear device goes off. It would not be very hard to find the host country of the madman that would do such a thing. There are so many new players on the stage who have the knowledge and guts to pull something like this off. The main reason I say it would not be N. Korea is becasue crazey Kim would not risk his playboy status and he knows that his country would be dust in the wind if he or any of his henchmen did something like this. I would put my money on the Middle East as far as bets go. Those people over there are truly crazey and do not have any value for human life. We can see good evidence of this every day in the presss and on the radio. If you think they will get 72 virgins for setting off a bomb vest, what do you think they would get if they set off a dirty bomb or even worse a thermonuclear device that takes out hundreds of thousands of people.?

I must admit that before today I had never heard of BRIC before. I find it somewhat disquieting that we may potentially be destroyed by a relatively unknown organisation (albeit one made up of powerful, high-profile nations):

"Oh, great, BRIC just declared World War 3".
"BRIC? What the Hell's a BRIC?"
"It stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China".
"Why don't they just say that, then? Anyway, Axis of Evil is a much cooler name".
"That is true. "BRIC" doesn't really strike terror into the hearts of its enemies in the same way, you know?"
"Too right! Say, it sure is bright outside for night-time" ...

Originally posted by edsinger

Uh we have? And we still do? We have not fielded any NEW nuclear weapons since the mid 90's at the latest....no need, we have enough.

But why field them in my country?

Regarding BRIC if push came shove I don't believe it hold up. India and China no way, not after China helped fuel Pakistan's nuclear program. Brazil and Russia, given current growing economic ties with Russia in South America possibly, but Brazilian Force Projection....huh. China and Russia I'm skeptical, they have fairly close ties through arms trade as well as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization but Russia can't afford a massive war that being a non-logistical ally of China would entail, they can't even handle Chechnya with the state their military is in. Russia defending Iran, Putin saber rattling; Russia can't risk estranging Europe. That is not to say that I think most European nations would deploy forces over a conflict in Iran, just that economically Russia can't afford to strain the relationship. Just my 2 cents.

I found this quote from a blog here:

intellibriefs.blogspot.com...

These deals come on the heels of the $100 billion China-Iran natural gas deal signed last fall. The deal could total $200 billion over 25 years. China will import 10 million tons of Iran LNG a year. The deal involves construction of 87 new LNG tankers in the next 5 years. Iran has the second largest gas reserves in the world. The Beijing deal flouts the US Iran Sanctions Act. Iran clearly hopes the major deal will lead to more bold moves by EU investors to flout the sanctions.

So according to this, China is heavily invested in Iran's natural gas, but I wasn't able to find any news that said Iran was officially part of BRIC.

More from this blog:

India also this month signed a $40 billion joint deal with Russia and Iran for long-term energy. It includes a 25-year import of Iran natural gas to India and development of Iran oilfields. India will get a 20% stake in Iran’s largest oilfield, Yadavaran and Jufeir that yields 300,000 barrels a day. China’s CNPC is the main operator of Yadavaran. Now India has 20%, Iran 30% and China 50% of that giant field.

Can anyone confirm these facts?

I can't see how America will be allowed to just "deal with" Iran without reprisal by the BRIC alliance. Isn't the concept of BRIC even dealing with Iran (or the Axis of Evil) illegal or forbidden to US allies according to Bush's doctrine?

Source: www.globalsecurity.org...

n 29 October 2004 Iran and China announced the signing of a deal on Chinese investment in Iran’s oil fields and the long-term sale of Iranian natural gas to China that could eventually be worth $100 billion. The gas deal entails the annual export of some 10 million tons of Iranian liquefied natural gas (LNG) for a 25-year period. The deal could eventually reach 15-20m tons a year, taking the total value to as much as $200bn. Delivery could not begin for at least five years, as Iran must first build the plants to liquefy the natural gas. This stunning development was widely considered a major blow to the Bush administration's sanctions on Iran. The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) penalizes companies investing more than $20 million in Iran's oil and gas sector.

Hey this is my first post here and I thought I would post a link I found a while back.

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

It was an interesting read, I don't know If it has popped up on this site before but if it is accurate then the U.S. fleet could be in for a world of #.
Is the website a reputable one or are they yanking peoples chains?

Originally posted by Captain_SensibleIt was an interesting read, I don't know If it has popped up on this site before but if it is accurate then the U.S. fleet could be in for a world of #. Is the website a reputable one or are they yanking peoples chains?

# 1

USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles.


The Stark did not have Aegis......Nor was there a Hawkeye in the air near the stark, common practice in wartime anywhere near a CVBG.

#2 Although a Sunburn is a deadly missle due to its speed (twice that of a Harpoon), it is not the kill all some like to think.

It worried the US Navy ...for a while......then came RAM. BUT that being said, the Sovermenny would have to get close to the CVBG, and that will not happen. Speed kills yes and the old CWIS was lacking.......but now it is not at the top of the list.....trust me.


Check this out if you like.......

You want to understand Modern Air & Naval Warfare?

more of a what if type thing...

with all this nukes in the u.s talk goin on and now the largest military drill ever occuring between russia and china.

think they are getting ready for somthing? If nukes did go off who knows the hell america would bring after.

obviously china has a problem with us espeacially over taiwan, would the best time to do somthin drastic be after a devestating attack on our soil?

i am in no way saying they are responsible for the attack, just saying do you think anyonewho can get the information knows somthin will be occuring in the near future in the form of a terrorsit attack. is there a reason its not being reported?

like i said i have no clue, jsut throwing it out there.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by whskybarjd67]

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Captain_SensibleIt was an interesting read, I don't know If it has popped up on this site before but if it is accurate then the U.S. fleet could be in for a world of #. Is the website a reputable one or are they yanking peoples chains?

# 1

USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles.


The Stark did not have Aegis......Nor was there a Hawkeye in the air near the stark, common practice in wartime anywhere near a CVBG.

#2 Although a Sunburn is a deadly missle due to its speed (twice that of a Harpoon), it is not the kill all some like to think.

It worried the US Navy ...for a while......then came RAM. BUT that being said, the Sovermenny would have to get close to the CVBG, and that will not happen. Speed kills yes and the old CWIS was lacking.......but now it is not at the top of the list.....trust me.


Check this out if you like.......

You want to understand Modern Air & Naval Warfare?

Cheers mate, thats very informative.

Originally posted by Captain_Sensible

Cheers mate, thats very informative.

Not a problem, its really an awesome simulation, I love it.