It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


World War III

page: 32
<< 29  30  31    33 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 11:45 PM
I also believe that weak US economy is limiting military options.

However weakness of US economy is fundamental and structural. I do not see any quick solution here.

Europe adds to uncertainty due to aging population and military cutbacks.

There is a view that Europe has fallen below the threshold on defence, in terms of manpower.

posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by GargIndia

Our economic struggles are our own fault for allowing them to begin and not stopping them immediately when all the new ABC departments were created, and our monies were thrown into a pit of fire. Not too sure about Euro's military situation, just that their government actualyl DOES control the military and can say you will not start a war with these certain people, as they did for syria

posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 08:14 PM
reply to post by kingofyo1

Bureaucracy is too big and taxes too high in Europe.

If USA does not recover, Europeans may find it hard to defend themselves, in the face of a united enemy like China + Sunni Muslims.

Turkey and Saudi have already started changing sides openly.

China has stolen all the weapons tech of Russia and some of USA, and has the industrial capability greater than Germany/Japan of WWII.

The lines are getting drawn, but the corruption in West is so high that the elite does not act and public is kept in a state of delusion.

posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by GargIndia

You can't just discount Europe. If Europe had to go on a warfooting it would have the industry available to catch up with and match the US in a short time frame. Look at how quick Germany went from being destroyed under Versailles and the depression to having the most advanced army in the world. And that's just one country. Some European equipment is already better than US made stuff, and that's with a fraction of the budget. Imagine the combined power of the European powers in 1939, the rest of the world wouldn't have stood a chance.

posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 08:38 PM
reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ

Theoretically yes!

Practically no.

Equipment is not a replacement of the soldier.

European nations are training too few soldiers as they have cut back their armies; and all-volunteer forces do not train a lot of people to be soldiers.

Conscription is necessary if a wartime availability of manpower is to be assured.

They run the risk of having equipment but no soldiers to use the equipment. Today's equipment is NOT easy to use, and requires a lot of engineering support.

India faces the same problem of limited 'military manpower' despite a massive population, as enough people are not trained.

Volunteer forces are good for 'professionalism' and 'morale', but these are not always enough for winning wars.

posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 08:50 PM
The Muslim countries and communist China have built up very large size militias. China is said to have a militia of 8 million people. These are people with basic military training (like shooting a gun, physical fitness etc.) and maintain affiliation with a militia unit while working in the civilian field.

India has tried to build a militia unsuccessfully (through territorial army and home guards).

Pakistan has also failed, as jehadi outfits promoted by Pakistan are low in discipline.

Iran has a very large militia force - probably more than a million. These are the people who are in Syria and Lebanon supporting Shia outfits there.

USA has the best militia force in 'National Guard'.

Please note that police forces are useless in war. India realised that in all large scale wars. The reasons are many - organization, equipment, training, ethos - that make the police useless in war. Police used to guard India's borders but was ineffective. This is the reason, a dedicated border force was created.

Police has become a means of giving employment to 'politically connected' people. Its effectiveness is doubtful in almost every country.

Europe has large bureaucracies but few soldiers.

edit on 30-10-2013 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 07:06 PM
reply to post by GargIndia

The war won't come out of the blue with all nations blindsided it by though. If war looks likely, nations will start building their military capacity again, and can conscript if need be, and should have a few years before anything serious breaks out to do so. The buildup prior to WW1 was ongoing for 2 decades, in WW2 it started in the mid 1930s and accelerated after 1938.

posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ

It is different this time.

Consider China - with a regular force of 2.5M and militia of 8M, it is already in a state of mobilization.

Pakistan, Iran, Middle east states are all in varying levels of mobilization.

It is the West and west-influenced nations who have not mobilized.

Why? Because many people have assumed that large scale war has become outdated; and people feel comfortable in the 'security' offered by nukes.

I think this 'nuke' induced security is a mirage, and war is as likely as ever. The only difference is that now war will be sudden and monstrously destructive.

The trouble makers of the world are armed to the teeth. It is the democracies that are lagging behind, bogged down by a number of problems. This has happened due to free trade, which has moved huge number of people around the globe, including spies. Free trade has favored the most violent and non-democratic states the most, who could keep their population in slavery and thus produce goods cheaply.

posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:14 PM
reply to post by GargIndia

People always say its different this time, in reality it rarely is. Nuclear weapons do offer a degree of security, 8m militia would count for nothing if they were incinerated in a few seconds. At present, there are no fully mobilized nations that can threaten Europe, and Europe evidently doesn't feel under threat or they'd focus their industries towards war material. The Euro nations have spies too, and are well capable of detecting a threat, and have a degree of security offered to them by their alliance with the US. A combined Euro/Anglosphere alliance would be too powerful for anyone to take on, particularly if Europe was on a warfooting and dedicated their big industrial capacity towards war.

posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 08:14 AM
reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ

Yes, NATO works at this time but fissures have started appearing.

The industrial capacity is there but financial capacity is limited.

The one scenario that comes to my mind - Chinese arms with massive Muslim manpower - has quite big implications.

Chinese are now building cutting edge weapons, and they cannot be discounted. If they build cutting edge weapons in very large quantities, the current equations will go for a toss.

posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 08:31 AM
reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ

USA cannot kill all of Chinese soldiers even if it launched all its nuclear weapons at once. True for vice versa as well.

It may be possible for countries like India and Pakistan who have very little underground infrastructure.

For USA, Russia and China who have massive underground bases, killing all soldiers is not possible.

A deluded egotistical ruler can plan a nuclear war and dream of winning a nuclear war. It is quite possible.

posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:50 AM
From a future-historical perspective, WWIII probably started in 2001, but the other key players have allowed the war to remain cold so far.

As happened in the last world war, one of the youngest, fastest rising and most powerful nations in the world went through a major struggle and economic trouble, then enjoyed a brief period of peace and prosperity, and when that was threatened they turned to the far right and tore through several nations easily. And like last time, a communist nation which is probably too big and inhospitable to ever be taken but not yet ready for a fight has kept its enemy close and even shared in the spoils of its enemy's conquests.

But unlike last time, it is doubtful that a foolish invasion of the East will be undertaken, or that anyone in Europe will lift a hand to restore stability before it is too late.

The world has also gotten considerably more complicated since last time in terms of the global economy- you don't have to keep your boot on the conquered and physically take their resources- through trade and banking agreements that most people don't even know were made while you were in power and which might not all seem wise or even possible to undo later you can wield a nation's economic and political influence for them, but nobody can actually point to anything you stole- they sold their resources to somebody else and got the best price ever for it- and you just benefited from the manipulation of the market indirectly- of course you bumped down their production and put 5% of them out of work, but those guys are gonna have to take one for the team because the guys who can still feed their families don't want another war.

So what happens now? We leave Iraq and Afghanistan more or less as we wish them to be- we might have had higher ambitions but this will do- so far everyone involved, has been very well paid (except for the veterans) and that won't end immediately. We also have less well known gains in Africa and plenty to jockey for as obsolete cold war regimes give way to new sponsored revolutions across the middle east.

Eventually China will take its turn in Afghanistan- that's China's road to the Middle East- a road they will need as they hope to outgrow the United States as a world power. The logical road for them includes a forward base in Iran and a heavy economic interest in Iraq in the future.

The United States might choose to take out Iran before China can get into Afghanistan, but that seems more unlikely every year. I can't rule it out just because our president has a Nobel "Slightly-Less-Violence-Than-Last-Year-But-Last-Year-Was-Really-Bad" Prize.

No doubt South East Asia has a war coming- I don't know enough about the area or the specific issues that have gone unresolved to say much about it, except that half the world's population and two of its great powers are in one corner of Asia with not enough clean water or work to go around, and it can't go on forever. The question is whether India wants that now or later- China has other fish to fry for now.

India could do the US a huge favor after we leave Afghanistan and whack Pakistan for some unrelated reason while covertly supporting the Karzai government- especially if Pakistan should be somehow destabilized by it's involvement in the Taliban resurgence that will come out of their tribal areas when we leave Afghanistan. It's bold and aggressive and probably not their style, but it does avoid a direct confrontation with China- not only buying time but strengthening India's position in the world relative to China at the same time- South East Asia could be sorted out later when it was more likely to go India's way.

India doesn't have to do that though, because they have interests in Africa that align better with America than China, and that will be safe for quite some time even if the Chinese do get as far as Iran, and there is every reason to believe that Afghanistan will eventually confound the Chinese as it has everyone else, especially since the US will be laying the ground work for exactly that- with 9 bases from which to leak weapons, train locals, and extend intelligence networks between 2014 and whenever the US finally leaves and China gets its turn.

There is also no reason to expect the Muslims to be all that receptive to the Chinese- communism is atheistic after all, and the Chinese are already having problems in their own Western territories with Uyghurs.

I think things will remain cold for some time, long enough that the WWIII label may never be applied. China will rule Afghanistan for a time in the 2020s-2030s, America will have to lose its arrogance and warm up to both India and the Arabs, and we will eventually get along better than anyone would expect now. Our media will make it easy for us. First they'll have to play Rambo III on TV a lot, but eventually they'll get some new stuff together for us to explain that IEDs are clever and not at all dishonorable when used against the Chinese and that it makes sense for Marine Jr to get shot protecting the people that Marine Sr was told to shoot indiscriminately. Yeah they'll hate our guts still, but we're Americans and we probably won't even get it, because they're taking the guns we give them so that means we're good right?

China will be put in its place almost as soon as they get out of it, but in the aftermath America will be like France and Britain after WWII- out of gas- no longer a truly global power in its own right. I don't think anyone will get themselves nuked, but if somebody does it will probably be America China and Russia. Either way that leaves India an unexpected front runner in the world without having to do the painful part of the world war- not unlike America last time out, but they would still potentially be facing future troubles with a bruised and desperate China if the nukes don't fly. Maybe they can soft-power their way past such a problem in this scenario though.

Then there are the Arabs- if China has been fought off in Afghanistan, maybe they've just been arming against contingencies involving China and Iran, or maybe they've already dealt with an Iranian or even Chinese invasion of Iraq or even Saudi Arabia... The US no longer controls the region and has been forced to aid them, the Chinese have been kept out, the Indians aren't an immediate threat- who knows what will happen next for them.

None of it will be completely conclusive either, since again, the world is a bit more complicated now. If you started the war for financial reasons and it didn't go well for your country, you theoretically could shepherd some of your acquisitions through the peace process and continue to enjoy them under the administration of a different country after losing the war. WWIII will not be another nationalist war, and it may even be the beginning of the end for nation-states themselves.

posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 01:12 AM
reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ

Count Belgium out
Our soldiers have an average of 3 bullets if you devide the bullets between the amount of soldiers here.

Even with blanks for practice, they where training in the ardennes and they had to shout PANG if they shot a adversery... just because of the ammo shortage.

Yeah baby, we gonna take over the world any day now

What a joke

posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 01:25 PM
reply to post by drneville

That's at the moment though, in peace time. I doubt any of the EU militaries are well equipped outside Britain and France. If a serious war was on the horizon, and Europe used its manufacturing capacity to create weapons, you can be sure they'd be far better equipped.

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 12:57 AM
reply to post by The Vagabond

Yours is a possible scenario, but I do not see it this way.

A great mistake has been made - pampering the communist regime of China by the world. This mistake will prove fatal.

There is no delay in WWIII. It will still happen, and is closer now than people imagine.

Keep an eye on the Chinese. They have built huge underground infrastructure for a reason.

posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:05 AM
reply to post by GargIndia

ohh ya,, too prove Man,, not some mythical, ArbrahamicHebrewChristian, God,,Divine Rule,,that rules the Fates of Nations.

on the overthrow of the House of Romanov.
ie Communism

posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 06:15 AM
reply to post by BobAthome

Yes, communism and maoism fantasy is still alive and kicking in China.

But the real problem is the gift of technology from the West to China that will prove fatal.

It is not the alien gods, but human greed and self-gratification that runs this planet. Nationalism and religions have been invented to keep a few in power. These few love to dabble in wars to keep the population in churn and refrain from questioning them. The only difference this time is the monster killing machines that national armies have become.

My fear wrt China is not the nukes, but the advances in communication, rocketry, and airplanes. The Chinese ambitions are rising with the technology. We shall see where that takes the world.

posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 10:15 PM
reply to post by GargIndia

well they got Hong Kong,,,how's that working?

lets say start around the time of the Clinton White House.
or does everyone forget the "Chinese Scandles",,,,?????

the Communist Chinese didn't,, why do u thk, the put that XO guy on trial,,,tsk,,murdered someone,,tsk.

wasn't he a Premier?

posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by BobAthome

China has been getting a free ride - Tibet in 1958, Hong Kong, Territory of Kashmir forcibly occupied or transferred by Pakistan.

China's objective of terrorizing Taiwan works, as Taiwan leaders have virtually capitulated.

So Hong Kong and Taiwan in pocket, attention is now on Japan and India.

posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 06:24 AM
reply to post by GargIndia

I don't think Taiwan is necessarily in the pocket, although they have become more nullified. But it shows the current limitations of Chinas military that they couldn't be confident of taking Taiwan, an island in their own back garden, if it came down to it.

new topics

top topics

<< 29  30  31    33 >>

log in