Imagining WWIII without the United States

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   
It's hard to talk about WWIII without focusing almost entirely on the US, China, and Russia, probably in that order. But that won't always be the case, and in fact I would contend that at the point when that is not the case, a world war becomes much more likely. I don't believe that because I think the US is keeping order, I just think that removing a major player opens the board up in seldom considered ways that increase the chances of both aggression or war by miscalculation.

So allow me to briefly suggest a few plausible scenarios whereby the US could lose enough clout on the world stage for such considerations to become relevant, and invite you to offer your own scenarios or just your own thoughts on what WWIII might be if the US were not such a major factor.

For this post, I will start with the "furthest to fall" type scenarios, where the initiating event affects all nations, not just the US, but the US suffers the worst because it has the most complex vital systems to lose. A global economic collapse, a solar flare that upsets or completely destroys communications or even power infrastructure, a super volcano that renders airpower and in fact most aspirating engines useless in a conflict region, etc etc.

What happens if America suddenly needs a lot of manpower to solve its own problems and isn't able to use all of its fancy electronics or logistical resources overseas, while every other nation on the planet is also in desperate circumstances?

For one thing, I think this might be one of the few scenarios where North Korea really would risk invading the South. I wouldn't be shocked if they immediately saw it as their only chance to break out from under our boot heel and moved the minute they saw we couldn't respond short of a nuclear wear, then hold Japan hostage at nuke point in hopes that we will let it stand, and without the US, the only ones who really have much say in what will happen are the Chinese, and it's probably in their interest to let it happen. North Korea punches itself out in the process of overrunning South Korea, problematic people in the NK govt can be killed by the Chinese and it will be blamed on SK, then China can protect Japan from their newly enriched and reigned in puppet- they win all around without much of a "world war" on that particular part.

Taiwan goes almost immediately as well.

But without the US meddling over there, almost any motivation that the Chinese and Russians had to play nice with eachother is out the window too. The Russians might reasonably fear that a suddenly expansionist China that has already dealt with Korea Taiwan and Japan will begin to eye that vast wasteland and pacific coast with lots of resources and relative few Russians in it, and the Chinese might feel it is time for them to be the only 600 pound gorilla in Asia. It's definitely too risky for Russia to start anything unless they see it coming either way, but Chinese manpower and proximity to the theater means that the worse the technological situation is the more likely they are to move on Russia.

Then there's South East Asia- with China to its North and India to its West and no more Marine Expeditionary Unit drinking with the bargirls and boygirls of Bangkok and waiting to be needed. India will probably try to fill the vacuum we leave there and China probably won't like it. That part of the war might remain cold for a bit, but if either side decided they needed more water or a puppet state as a buffer zone...

And if Russia and China are in a staring contest, and China and India are in a staring contest, and there's no US for India to turn to, it makes sense for Russia and India to align. This is bad news for every country whose name ends in ISTAN, because Russia and China will need a secure line of logistics between themselves and a plan to keep China out of the Middle East if it comes to that.

Which brings us to the Middle East. Iran is safer with no US, assuming Israel doesn't feel cornered into preemptively nuking everyone who doesn't like them, but they may be in the awkward position of having to choose between Russia/India, the closer powers with whom they have older ties, or China- the side that may seem to have a better chance of winning the war, depending on the specific situation. Iran could actually go neutral- maybe even have a revolution if thats what it took to stay neutral. Or they could invade Saudi Arabia and the other smaller Persian Gulf states either on their own behalf- perhaps even to gain security for a neutral position- or they might do it on behalf of whichever alliance they chose.

The Sunni states could fall, they could unite against Israel or against Iran if provoked. I imagine Syria Palestine Lebanon and Israel as ending up in a very messy war, Iraq ripping itself apart and being partially absorbed by Iran and Turkey as part of a sort of Molotov-Ribbentrop deal between distrustful neighbors who are both resisting Russian pressure against their neutrality.

I imagine Europe mostly just trying to hold itself in order in such a chaotic global situation. Financial interests would probably dictate a passive support for China, and their strategic interests would dictate preparation against the possibility of future Russian aggression in Europe. Support for Turkish/Iranian neutrality would probably be high on their list then, so if Iran grabbed the oil they would probably whole-heartedly embrace that too. Could Iran then force them to stand aside and let Israel be overrun without any assistance? Might they even take some role to prevent Israel from launching a "Samson Scenario" nuclear attack?

I haven't been examining this scenario for a long time or anything, but I guess my initial assessment is that if the US falls, everyone needs to try and establish a new balance of power, and it could lead to a series of semi-related alliances designed to balance out a growing Chinese sphere of influence, creating a cold war with many hot spots that could eventually turn into an all out war between Russia/India and China, with Central Asia and South East Asia caught in the middle, the western middle east destabilized, and Europe playing a supporting role to an Asian alliance.

Thoughts?




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   
I think a EU country will be foolish enough to try China, even though the only country capable would be a restriction free Germany (which will not happen). Would be a very short story indeed...



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
i just want to touch on the topic you mentioned in the first few paragaphs, et.al, whatever would cause the usa to be out of the picture in a global way. a preacher, back in 1958, who was an avid student of what is called eschatology (the study of bible prophecy), was concerned that it didn't appear to mention the usa. so he prayed to get an answer as to the condition of the usa during the events of last days prophecy.

he got up to his bathroom mirror to shave and suddenly began to have a vision. he made sure to clarify that he was not a prophet and that this was just a vision he had of the future, concerning the usa. anyway, he said the usa will have an earthquake that is so big, so devastating, that it will be off the richter scale and that coverage of the event, would be broadcast on tv, 24 hours a day with ongoing, live coverage. it would spawn several other earthquakes as well, and they would all be bad, but not as bad as the first one.

now mind you, this vision was in 1958, when tv was pretty new and didn't stay on the air past 11:00 pm at the latest. so that gave a concept of timeframe. in other words, it at least wouldn't happen until tv broadcast 24 hours a day. next, news broadcasts were not what they are now, and it is unlikely there would've been any news studio capable of broadcasting around the clock with ongoing live coverage. in other words, no satellites or all the modern tech for broadcasting from the scene of an event was in evidence at that time, so these things would also be necessary components in order for the event to be broadcast live.

he also said that it would occur in a place that isn't known to have fault lines, which i found odd since pretty much everywhere in the usa, has fault lines. this, however, would isolate the possible locations of the event. he said as a result of this devastation and social ills that would be brewing at the time, that the usa would become a third world nation. he mentions each social problem and explains its impact, so it was not a short vision.


i just thought you might want to ponder that one. personally, i hope he's wrong about the earthquake and third world nation



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   
While I don't put a great deal of faith into one-off religious predictions, especially from people who outright admit not being a prophet, that is going in one of the directions that makes the most sense for me.

I think there is specifically a lot of room to discuss the different levels of impact and different available reactions for different nations if Yellowstone were to erupt catastrophically.
America would effectively be put down overnight, but others would have some lead time knowing that they had air quality and crop production problems on the way in conjunction with a major economic recession or depression caused by the sudden destruction of a major market.

A quake on the new Madrid fault is another interesting initiating event.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   
And nobody suspects Germany!... Verrrry good, verrrry good!



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:38 AM
link   

The Vagabond
While I don't put a great deal of faith into one-off religious predictions, especially from people who outright admit not being a prophet, that is going in one of the directions that makes the most sense for me.

I think there is specifically a lot of room to discuss the different levels of impact and different available reactions for different nations if Yellowstone were to erupt catastrophically.
America would effectively be put down overnight, but others would have some lead time knowing that they had air quality and crop production problems on the way in conjunction with a major economic recession or depression caused by the sudden destruction of a major market.

A quake on the new Madrid fault is another interesting initiating event.


one day, after recalling the vision he had written about, i pulled up a fault line map of various places in the usa. even detroit michigan has fault lines, although you never hear of them having earthquakes. i think that little bit of info is the most identifying feature of them all, so occassionally check more places to see if i can isolate possible areas.

anyway if the usa was out of the picture in the global game, yeah things would get weird out there.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


I think Germany's warmongering days are probably over. A Germany capable of dominating the European balance of power seems to have been a temporary departure from the norms of history.

If a major war is ever waged in Europe again, I think the most obvious candidates for an aggressor are Russia invading South-Eastern Europe, Britain deploying troops to support continental governments against popular revolution and trying to reduce them to puppet states in the process, and pirates or terrorists from the middle east/africa raiding Southern Europe under much different conditions than todays.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I will bite while staying within your premise .



The Vagabond
What happens if America suddenly needs a lot of manpower to solve its own problems and isn't able to use all of its fancy electronics or logistical resources overseas, while every other nation on the planet is also in desperate circumstances?


In short once the cut backs to US defence spending are complete you will reach the same avenue via a different route. The US military wouldn't be able to mount operations much beyond the peacekeeping operations undertaken by the NZDF around the world. Also the US military will be unable to defend South Korea or match China naval power. Hence the US government opts out of the conflict.


For one thing, I think this might be one of the few scenarios where North Korea really would risk invading the South. I wouldn't be shocked if they immediately saw it as their only chance to break out from under our boot heel and moved the minute they saw we couldn't respond short of a nuclear wear, then hold Japan hostage at nuke point in hopes that we will let it stand, and without the US, the only ones who really have much say in what will happen are the Chinese, and it's probably in their interest to let it happen.


North Korea would nuke Busan South Korea only deep water port before moving South. It is conceivable that North Korea could nuke ports in Japan as an additional insurance policy.




But without the US meddling over there, almost any motivation that the Chinese and Russians had to play nice with eachother is out the window too. The Russians might reasonably fear that a suddenly expansionist China that has already dealt with Korea Taiwan and Japan will begin to eye that vast wasteland and pacific coast with lots of resources and relative few Russians in it, and the Chinese might feel it is time for them to be the only 600 pound gorilla in Asia.


I would see the Russians allying with China due there desire to unseat US influence around the world , a goal shared by China. Russia also has a naval faring tradition to call upon. People ignore the strategic value of the central pacific , China would occupy the Philippines , Wake , Guam and other locations. The central Pacific is like the key that unlocks the roads to Australia and New Zealand.


And if Russia and China are in a staring contest, and China and India are in a staring contest, and there's no US for India to turn to, it makes sense for Russia and India to align. This is bad news for every country whose name ends in ISTAN, because Russia and China will need a secure line of logistics between themselves and a plan to keep China out of the Middle East if it comes to that.


India and China would go to war as competing world powers. China advantages in manpower and industrial capacity would see them come up trumps.


Which brings us to the Middle East. Iran is safer with no US, assuming Israel doesn't feel cornered into preemptively nuking everyone who doesn't like them, but they may be in the awkward position of having to choose between Russia/India, the closer powers with whom they have older ties, or China- the side that may seem to have a better chance of winning the war, depending on the specific situation
The Sunni states could fall, they could unite against Israel or against Iran if provoked.


Iran would nuke Israel and invade Southern Iraq. Israeli and Iraqi forces could fight along side each other as allies out of necessity. Fuel shortages , lack of spare parts , logistical considerations and a doctrine not geared towards Mobil warfare would prevent Iran from undertaking a middle eastern blitzkrieg. In the not to distance future Turkey will go to war against what will be the Islamic extremist regime in Syria. The Iranian backed tide of Islamic extremism will gobble up Iraq and possible Egypt.

An Iranian backed insurgency would bring down the Saudi Regime long before any of there conventional military forces reach that country.


I imagine Europe mostly just trying to hold itself in order in such a chaotic global situation. Financial interests would probably dictate a passive support for China, and their strategic interests would dictate preparation against the possibility of future Russian aggression in Europe.


The EU/UK nations budgetary issues will see them slash there defence budgets. My read is that they will retain combat capability's in there Air Forces and gut there armies and navies. So like the USA they would opt out because they have no means of mounting a response.




posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
If the US were to leave the world stage say do to some massive national disaster then the world would become a very dangerous place. It would take something of that magnatude because even if the US delcarted it was isolationalist and cut its defense budget by half it would still be easly the most powerful nation on Earth. So it would take something that would require a complete absence of US forces outside of the US for a few decades.

AT first not much would happen. However a global armes race both conventional and nuclear would begin. Japan would quickly become a nuclear power and begin expanding its military at a quick rate. North Korea might try the South but they would still lose and South Korea would also become a nuclear power over night. This would follow across Asia with no USN to keep every body in line. China would redouble its military efforts because at first all those Pacific States with now quickly building militaries would be united against it to start. Russia would also have to repond because the only China and Russia have had in common was trying to counter US dominace. Without that all the other issues they have would quickly escalate. India would follow etc.

The middle east would be a mess. Iran would hit the Arab states right off and at some point the Isrealis would jump in and you would have multi front war. Africa would completely collapse as well because without the fear of US intevention national wars could be fought with Russia and China flooding the market with cheap weapons and supporting different sides.

In Central and South American nations would now deal with those border disputes with weaker neighbots without fear of intervention.

Europe would the wild card. If Russia began real military expansion one of two things could happen, the EU would expand to counter or Russia and the EU would join up.

Anyway you slice it wars would break out all over the place and the chance of nukes flying would shoot up. Until somebody came out on top and that would be a long hard fight.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

The Vagabond
So allow me to briefly suggest a few plausible scenarios whereby the US could lose enough clout on the world stage for such considerations to become relevant, and invite you to offer your own scenarios or just your own thoughts on what WWIII might be if the US were not such a major factor.


I just want to say that the U.S. could lose, and is already losing, much of its clout due to social and economic collapse that is already happening today. From what I can tell, a lot of people under 30 are living with their parents and most of them with families are single mothers with kids who are exhuasted. I wish I had the energy to find facts and figures to get a clearer perspective.

I do know that people under 30 are projected to earn 50% or less of their parents' income, the first time that has happened in American history. In addition to that, the last time I checked, the congressional approval rating was less than or around 10%, and we have an entire city like Detroit that has to declare bankruptcy.

Back in 2005, Hurricane Katrina wiped out New Orleans, and we rebuilt the city. But could we rebuild another city today? I'm not sure on the economics of it, it might provide jobs, but the damage has to come out of national coffers that are already suffering enough as it is.

What are the rates of people on food stamps or government assistance? I am guessing at or above 50%. Is it realistic to assume they could survive without them? I doubt it. We are already going to have to start scrapping some of our military equipment to survive, in my opinion.

I think that if the U.S. was to participate in a World War today, we would be a joke. Even military commanders commented that our units are being trained to fight against insurgents, not modern military. I'm not even sure if we could win against Syria by herself.
edit on 28pmThu, 28 Nov 2013 20:14:56 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
The U.S. seems to be somewhat of a buffer ( yeah I know understatement of the century) when I look at ancient history, territorial maps, the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great etc..., there was a helluva lot of turmoil and nothing stayed the same for long, if the U.S. were out of the equation, could you think of the utter chaos that would be occurring, remember how the U.S. tried to keep it's nose as a nation out of WWII ?

That didn't last for long and imagine the outcome....



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   


I watched this hypothetical documentary. It has some good ideas as to what would happen. To bad its not on youtube, its only on netflix



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by phinubian
 


That buffer statement is kind of true, yeah, even in World War II the U.S. seemed to be somewhat in support of the Nazi party, much more against communists. I imagine something similar to you, without the U.S. in the next world war, it just seems like it would be ruinous.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


Can't see an "America not included". What you say however makes sense. China must be eyeing up Russia's resources.
edit on 28-11-2013 by EA006 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
A world without the USA is not that unthinkable. The US has been isolationist in the past and there is no reason to think they would not do it again. Prior to WWII the US Army was pathetic, they used to use cardboard tanks in their exercises. The US used to use it's navy and their "Leathernecks".

The US reduces all their commitments overseas. Reduces the army and navy by 50%. They begin to pay off their national debt.

The obvious flashpoint would be in SE Asia. With no US, China would invade Taiwan and bully the Philippines and Vietnam over territory. Japan, S. Korea and probably Australia would go nuke. India would continue with it's slow and steady military build up.

Russia may begin sabre rattling against Ukraine, the Baltic States and Belarus.

The ME would deffo kick off.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Don't forget that whatever happens here, we still have a lot of natural resources that are untapped. No one on the world stage would leave us alone for long. Sooner or later, you would have encroachment from the other world powers, possibly under the guise of "aid," and then they wouldn't leave.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I doubt Eueope would get involved unless it absoluty had to. Europe doing the smart thing and buddying up to China and Inida so it will likley just remain netural and sell arms and supplies to both sides. Even Russia would most likley leave us alone. Britain or France could JUST about go toe to toe with Russia so with Germany/France and Britain all backing each other it just wouldnt be worth it, not when it will have China to deal with.

If Merica got involved though, which it most likley could not resist from doing the it would drag the UK along (Unfortunatly) and possibly france.
edit on 3-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


This is what it would be like if America were unable to get involved for whatever reason.

So, if America were out of the picture except as possible spoils of war ... then what?

I think two things could remove America - epic natural disaster or a complete dissolution or attempted dissolution of the country. I could see either scenario under present conditions.

Also, Europe would be in poor shape to get involved with a few exceptions. France and Britain and Germany have some military power, but by and large, most NATO nations have been largely content to develop their social safety nets and rely on the US military as the bulk of their national security. They would have to militarize quickly to be a major player in the game or suck up to another big player to remain untouched.

edit on 3-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I know hence why i said if usa stayed out then EU would likely stay out and come out on tops.

It would likely just be a ME and asian centerd world war.

EU has no beef with any of the Asian players and its only friction with the ME seems to be cause its support of USA foreign polcily, remove the usa you remove the friction with most the ME except maybe Iran and they cant do much.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

crazyewok
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I know hence why i said if usa stayed out then EU would likely stay out and come out on tops.

It would likely just be a ME and asian centerd world war.

EU has no beef with any of the Asian players and its only friction with the ME seems to be cause its support of USA foreign polcily, remove the usa you remove the friction with most the ME except maybe Iran and they cant do much.


Ah, but the EU has some large internal problems.

They are colonized by many muslims who have not integrated into European cultures. This is evidenced by the many riots that happen all across Europe from France to the Netherlands. Those disaffected muslim youth will run amok if things in the EU break down to any degree, and any breakdown of the US economy which would occur in the US were removed as a player would cause large scale economic breakdowns across the world. You can't just remove that large a piece of the pie and expect it not to cause widespread effects. This wouldn't be just a military vacuum but an economic one, too.

I think that some of the EU member countries would be hard pressed to keep their own internals together, and if the wrong one fell to internal uprising (think European Arab spring), you then have the potential to have nuclear armed muslims in Europe as well.
edit on 3-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join