I have always wondered if there world would get too a point were it gets too hectic.

History states that it has always been a hot zone, with the typical good vs bad ect... When you add other factors into it with U.S backing Isreal ect and syria and iran with their brother nation. Maybe its me not being able too see the larger picture but there is always a bigger picture too this. So it brings me too the World war 3 issue. We all know how WW2 started... Turn a blind eye and eventually it will consume the others into its stryfe blood. I suppose anything is possible intodays age. Thx for reading.

Please add any open mind comments and disscutions

Well, I personally believe that unless the whole Middle-East gets a big nuke on its head that "Yes" this could be the start of WW3. Its just gone on too long.

I think a nuke is a little too Extreme. Alot of people think ww3 is a nulear war when it may not really be the case because all countries know the true horror of a nuclear war (no one wins). In the case of a fluke nuke I would head too the hills.

Would China and Russia really help Iran or Syria, if any nukes went off i would reckon it would have to be from Iran first then a response from Israel would follow, now would the nukes stop there or would anyone else get involved in it, would it not be best thing to let them nuke themselves and not get involved nuke wise anyway.

If nukes started flying our way would we deploy our secret technology? As we surely have secret technology of some cool stuff i bet.

Personally, I think World War 3 was in it's early stages when the terrorist attacks on September 11 happened. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan, there was un-rest between Israel and Palestine, Hamas had suicide bombers in Israel, then the invasion of Iraq, then the two Israeli soldiers captured, rocket attacks by Hezbollah, Israel responds, meanwhile you have suicide bombings going on in Iraq and Europe, Iran's nuclear program, Venezuala and Cuba expressing support for Iran, China and Taiwan dispute over independence, India and Pakistan tension, and North Korea's missile tests.

What you have here is political and military conflicts going on all over the world. There is the risk here of more terrorist attacks in Europe and North America on a larger scale because Iran has recruited over 5,000 suicide bombers to carry out attacks. You have the unstable situation between Lebanon, Israel, and Hezbollah despite the cease fire. You have Iran and their August 22nd deadline that could be a surprise attack on Israel. You have the potential for China to invade Taiwan. Japan may deem it necessary to attack North Korea.

Soon, what started as a terrorist attack in the most powerful country in the world may escalate into World War 3.

What you may have soon is the United States fighting wars along side England and other European nations, Japan, Taiwan, Israel, South Korea, and possibly India vs countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Somalia, North Korea, China, Pakistan, possibly Russia, and terrorist groups Al Qaeda and Hezbollah.

This has great potential to explode and I believe if it's going to explode, August 22nd is the date. We need to see what Iran's true intentions are with their "response" to the Western package to end nuclear development.

posted by salsa

I have always wondered if the Middle East would get to a point were it gets too hectic . . it has always been a hot zone with US backing Israel . . It brings me to the World War 3 issue . . Thx for reading. Please add any comments and discussions [Edited by Don W]

posted by dstarsfan879905

I think World War 3 is in it's early stages . . The US invaded Afghan . . then the invasion of Iraq . . the two Israeli soldiers captured . . Israel responds . . meanwhile . . Iran's nuclear program . . Venezuela and Cuba support Iran . . China and Taiwan dispute . . India and Pakistan . . North Korea's missile tests . . terrorist attacks on a large scale because Iran has recruited over 5,000 suicide bombers . . unstable situation between Lebanon, Israel, and Hezbollah despite the cease fire . . Iran and the August 22nd deadline . . the potential for China to invade Taiwan . . Japan may attack North Korea . . What you may have is the US fighting along side England . . EU nations . . Japan, Taiwan, Israel, South Korea and India vs Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Somalia, North Korea, China, Pakistan, Russia, and groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah . . I believe if it's going to explode, August 22nd is the date. [Edited by Don W]

There are many “flash points” around the world. Because the world is still debating how strong the UN can be and should be, we mostly just pee on fires. Nationalism versus internationalism. I happen to believe internationalism is the only way to “save” the Earth for habitation by humans. But that’s for another thread.

North Korea is 100% under the hegemony of China. It is true that people who should know say NK has enough fissionable material to make 2 to 10 bombs. Making bombs is a very technological task that NK may not be able to perform. The missiles they have tested so far have proved to be no threat to anyone but fishing boats off Japan's west coast. I do not regard NK to be a threat.

China is not an aggressive power. I do not regard China to be a threat. India and Pakistan OTOH, have a long standing dispute over Kashmir, but many Kashmiri want to be independent of both. I do not believe either India or Pakistan would use nuclear weapons in this situation. The UN Charter provides for self-determination which I’d like to see offered to the Kashmiri. Scratch India and Pakistan as threats.

Japan’s Constitution - written by the US - forbids offensive weapons. I think a good majority of Japanese still prefer that. I feel sure any responsible Japanese government has made secret provisions to deal surgically with the NK problem if the need ever arises. Like the British Commandos that attacked the heavy water plant in Norway in WW2

South Korea is like China and Japan. Not going to aggress anyone. China on the Taiwan issue, however, is not the same. Taiwan has always been obsequious to China. The Japanese took it around 1900 and China got it back in 1945. The Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-chek lost to Mao Zedong in 1949. The Nationalists fled to Taiwan. As far as the PRC is concerned, Taiwan is Chinese territory and everyone else better butt out. The US backed the Nationalists but now that China and Wal-Mart seem well matched, our support for Taiwan will be like Wal-Mart’s falling prices! Going down! No WW3 over Taiwan.

Russia is reaping the harvest of losing the Cold War. Note they have reduced their defense spending to $19 Billion. We claim they have underestimated it by 50% but even so, at $38 Billion, they have the best of both worlds. With EU on the west, China on the south, they really don’t have any enemies.

Lebanon is wrecked. 40% of Lebanese will exit the country as soon as they can get visas. Lebanon was created in 1922 and it looks like it will not “live” to see its first centennial. It was part of the region formerly overseen by Damascus, which was also created in 1922. But Syria is viable whereas Lebanon is not in the new globalized world. Forget Lebanon.

Syria can only use asymmetric warfare against the US and Israel. That will continue as long as there is no acceptable settlement of the Palestinian question. That can be settled anytime Israel and the US want to do so. And only then. So that sore will fester on.

I’m satisfied the US really wants the region to remain in turmoil to prevent the 90% poor populations from going socialist and nationalizing the oil fields. Turmoil is our best and cheapest way to prevent nationalization.

Cuba and Venezuela have to walk a tight rope because, as we did in Haiti, or Panama, or Granada, or Nicaragua, or Guatemala, the USMC will take over when ExxonMoibil says to do so. They pose no threat to the US. It’s Columbia that may do us in by cutting off the cocaine if we’d get out of there and let them do their thing.

So, that leaves only Iran. Iran is in a contest with al Qaeda to see which will be spokesman for the militant Islamic movement that is abroad in the world. That movement is in turn motivated by resistance to the “invasion” of western culture primarily American, into their old and established way of life. How far they - Iran or al Qaeda - will go remains to be seen. There is not much we can do about either, as we have carelessly exposed to the world. We cannot pacify Iraq and we can't catch Osama bin Laden. Israel can't stomp Hezbollah. Or Hamas. So, where we once looked unstoppable, it is not obvious that asymmetric warfare will do it. Another casualty of our Second Punitive Expedition to Iraq.

Our borders are so vast, so impossible to defend, that if either Iran or al Qaeda wanted to nuke us, they could have done so almost anytime since the Nine Eleven Event. Hence, I am of the opinion neither wants to do that. I am unable to fathom their motive, other than what I wrote just above. Maybe that’s all it’s about?



[edit on 8/13/2006 by donwhite]

There's hardly a signifigant period in world history in which there wasn't a war going on somewhere. War the natural state of humanity.

posted by Number23
There's hardly a significant period in world history in which there wasn't a war going on somewhere. War is the natural state of humanity.

Argument of the missing middle. Conclusion does not necessarily follow the premise. Until 1945, we did not have nuclear weapons, either. Then is then, but now is now is getting more dangerous to our health.

Fallout, of the radioactive kind. The prevailing wind blows west to east. China could cause us fits by exploding a half dozen H-bombs in the Gobi desert. 72 o r 96 hours later, fallout would be decimating SF and soon, W-DC. How does Star Wars - the forever boondoggle - protect us against that?
Hmm?

The only way this will devolve into anything nuclear is if Israel is sufficiently threatened to think they have to nuke someone. I doubt anyone in the area can actually accomplish that, thankfully.

The worst thing that could happen is the US is dragged in on Israel's side in an actual war with the neighbour STATES in the region (not Hezbollah or other organizations) and Iran and Russia and China start really giving other states yard-sale prices on military hardware (similar to the deal Israel gets from the US).

The "secondary" superpowers would see it in their best interest to mire the USA down in a conflict that could cause them to lose military and economic strength. It's all been done before. The USA did it when they were a superpower along with the USSR in Afghanistan...

ww3 EVERYBODY PANIC

come on, please

you can't predict a world war

also, more powerful nations (china, japan, korea, united states, britain, germany, etc) would most likely start a world war, simply because they can field more troops who are better supplied.

Originally posted by donwhite
China is not an aggressive power. I do not regard China to be a threat

'Do not underestimate China...prod a sleeping dragon at your own peril'
(my grandfather's thoughts on international politics...may you rest in peace x.)

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by Number23
There's hardly a significant period in world history in which there wasn't a war going on somewhere. War is the natural state of humanity.

Argument of the missing middle. Conclusion does not necessarily follow the premise. Until 1945, we did not have nuclear weapons, either. Then is then, but now is now is getting more dangerous to our health.

Fallout, of the radioactive kind. The prevailing wind blows west to east. China could cause us fits by exploding a half dozen H-bombs in the Gobi desert. 72 o r 96 hours later, fallout would be decimating SF and soon, W-DC. How does Star Wars - the forever boondoggle - protect us against that?
Hmm?

Wow! Way to slam in your agenda!

If anything, nukes have been the most stabilizing force in human history. Absent nukes, does anyone think Stalin wouldn't have invaded western europe?

posted by Number23
“ . . nukes have been the most stabilizing force in human history. Absent nukes, does anyone think Stalin wouldn't have invaded western Europe? [Edited by Don W]

Me. You hear various numbers but I offer that the USSR took 25 million KIA in War 2. Not all soldiers but civilians too. The USSR had sustained damage like Lebanon just took. Almost no stone standing on another stone. Or brick.

Russia had suffered huge losses in the pre-1917 part it played in the First World War. I recall 3 million as the KIA then. Suffered against the Germans and Austrian-Hungarians on the Eastern Front. Sometimes I think total casualties get transformed into KIA without much to support that, but we do know the Russian Army mutinied. It takes a lot of hard times for any Army to do that. (The French Army did, too.)

Russians (primarily) had sustained widespread destruction and the decimation of its young men two tines in 21 years, one generation. Women on the home front are not happy when 2/3rds of the men of marrying age are killed. And the population does not grow that fast to replace them. Stalin knew how much help the US aid to the USSR had been. He would never admit it in public, but US aid surely made the life of the average Soviet soldier a lot more effective in fighting the Germans again. We sent the USSR 7,000 P39s and P63s which were great tank-busters and close support fighters.

I do not think the USSR would have started a war in Europe in the 1940s, despite the US having discharged 14 of the 16 million men under arms in 1945. We were just beginning to make B29s and B50s in numbers when W2 ended. Yes, I admit Stalin could have forced the US into a second Dunkirk but we would have just re-run D-Day in a couple years and then, we would not have made the error Napoleon or Hitler made. And Stalin, like Saddam, would have been out of a job.

I reluctantly admit we would most likely have used atomic bombs if Stalin had started W3, which until 1949 we had the monopoly. We could have re-run W2 but I doubt we would have. The public would not have stood for the casualties. Post1949 you are right about each side having the bomb negated any serious consideration of war, but I do not think Stalin would have moved, as recited above.



[edit on 8/15/2006 by donwhite]

I dont reguard China as an aggressive power in the near future(5-10 years) but say in the next quarter of a century or so with all of the territorial and resource disputes with its neighbors I think that could change if the circumstances are right domestically in China; be it an energy crisis or internal unrest with the population. They are actively involved with Middle Eastern countries with arms trade in the past(Iran, Syria, and Israel) though now it appears to be mostly with Iran and missile technology. If a war escalates in the next 5-10 years in the Middle East to a full fledged regional conflict, and China feels its energy supply is in danger, say hello to WW3. But I dont think the way things go now, that it will escalate to any larger than it is now.

donwhite...some of the best, well thought-out posts I've ever read on ATS. Seriously. Thanks!

posted by undecided2
donwhite . . some of the best, well thought-out posts I've ever read on ATS. Seriously. Thanks!

I am flattered. Thank you for letting me know.

As a left wing socialist who is anti war and pro gun control who votes Democratic and a non-believing person on top of all that, it is not easy for me to get much agreement with some of my POV. But I like to throw my ideas into the mix.
Thx.

posted by ludaChris

I don’t regard China as an aggressive power in the next 5-10 years but in the next quarter of a century or so with all of the territorial and resource disputes with its neighbors I think that could change . . “ [Edited by Don W]

Our only military encounter with China came in late 1950, when the UN say US was pushing the North Koreans out of their own country. China warned us not to come too close to the Yalu River which was their boundary. We ignored that and 500,000 so-called Chinese Volunteers crossed the Yalu and drove us back south to 50 miles below the current DMZ. We in turn pushed them back north to the DMZ and by then, both sides had decided that was “good enough.” We had stopped aggression, they had protected their border.

History. After our allies, the Nationalists, lost to the Chi-Coms in 1949 and into the late 1960s we have “faced off” in the Taiwan Straits. Our Seventh Fleet has flaunted its muscle often to protect the old Nationalists on Taiwan. OTOH, the Nationalist occupied islands of Quemoy and Matsu have been the site of several artillery duels. These islands are so close to the mainland and so far from Taiwan that any serious military man would give them up as indefensible unless you want a trip wire and a war that could follow.

China has almost no aggressive capability. I hope Cina can resist the US efforts to force China into building one, because then we’ll use that as an excuse or justification to enlarge our oversized and unaffordable military establishment. Note: my criticism of the “military” is not directed to nor does it include the men and women in uniform, but it is aimed at the civilians who are appointed over them, from the Secretary down. Nay, say from the Commander in Chief down.

[China is] involved with Middle Eastern countries with arms trade in the past, Iran, Syria, and Israel though now it appears to be mostly with Iran and missile technology.

What country has been the largest arms dealer in the World? I have not seen 2006 numbers but it was the US by far. So why is it “good” for the US to sell arms abroad and “bad” for China to do the same thing? Why not both of them get out of the arms business and get into the food and medicine business? I’d betcha any sub-Saharan starving African would rather have a 100 pound bag of rice and a carton of antibiotics than an AK47 and a bag of bullets.

If a war escalates in the next 5-10 years in the Middle East to a full fledged regional conflict and China feels its energy supply is in danger, say hello to WW3.

Why would the US feel the need to “go to war” over who gets the natural gas from Uzbekistan? Or the oil from Turkmenistan? I don’t see the need to escalate a “regional conflict.” If that is what it means to be a super power then put me down for not wanting to be one.



[edit on 8/15/2006 by donwhite]