By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Do You Think There Will Be A World War 3?

halogamer1989 on 21 January 2010

We are in WWIV. III being the Cold War. A war need not be hot, or overt for that matter...



Around the Network
mrstickball on 21 January 2010

Geopolitically, there isn't a balance of power that favors a regime that would challenge America and her allies.

You have countries like China and Russia which could possibly challenge the US in a WW3, but their interests aren't too similar to support a war against America. After all, China released a tactical nuke on Russia, so I don't think they'd be seen as allies.

Likewise, with China, you have other blocs of power in that region to counteract them, mainly other nations in ASEAN.

However, I think that we may see some regional wars that can have deadly consequences:

Iran-Israel. If Iran does get nukes, then there will be a deadly exchange. I read an executive report a few months back about game theory on such a war. If Iran attempted to strike Israel, there would be roughly 25 million dead civilians and leaders in a matter of a day.

Koreas: Although peace seems to be forthcoming (hopefully), there always exists the chance of an exchange. Even if it was conventional, millions would die. Seoul is just a few miles from the DMZ, and within artillery range from the DPRK.

US-Mexico: A less likely one, but I read a security report about US-Mexican relations. The author (who used game theory to predict most of the 20th centuries conflicts) states that by the mid part of the century, there will be a war between the US and Mexico, resulting in millions of deaths on both sides of the fence.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

halogamer1989 on 21 January 2010

mrstickball said:
Geopolitically, there isn't a balance of power that favors a regime that would challenge America and her allies.

You have countries like China and Russia which could possibly challenge the US in a WW3, but their interests aren't too similar to support a war against America. After all, China released a tactical nuke on Russia, so I don't think they'd be seen as allies.

Likewise, with China, you have other blocs of power in that region to counteract them, mainly other nations in ASEAN.

However, I think that we may see some regional wars that can have deadly consequences:

Iran-Israel. If Iran does get nukes, then there will be a deadly exchange. I read an executive report a few months back about game theory on such a war. If Iran attempted to strike Israel, there would be roughly 25 million dead civilians and leaders in a matter of a day.

Personally, msb, I think Mossad would take care of AMAD before he even got his Shahabs off the deck.

Koreas: Although peace seems to be forthcoming (hopefully), there always exists the chance of an exchange. Even if it was conventional, millions would die. Seoul is just a few miles from the DMZ, and within artillery range from the DPRK.

This situation is one to look at and is of great importance to the Asian sphere.  PACCOM would surely utilize its birds to see a fueling NK ICBM (if nuclear) and scuttle B2s.  NK would then fire on Seoul and Kim would then proceed to fry.  In a conventional scenario with arty over the DMZ (more likely) then Pyongyang would feel the full force of PACCOM.  Same outcome.  In any instance the guys at Osan would be tripping over their feet.

US-Mexico: A less likely one, but I read a security report about US-Mexican relations. The author (who used game theory to predict most of the 20th centuries conflicts) states that by the mid part of the century, there will be a war between the US and Mexico, resulting in millions of deaths on both sides of the fence.

Plausible.  Depends on the scenario.  There is a war there now but it is covert. I would take the ramifications of blowback into acct with a future regime (esp. if is a Chavez-like generalisimo or some nut).

 

Btw, hope all is well out in OH.

 



mrstickball on 21 January 2010
halogamer1989 said:

mrstickball said:
Geopolitically, there isn't a balance of power that favors a regime that would challenge America and her allies.

You have countries like China and Russia which could possibly challenge the US in a WW3, but their interests aren't too similar to support a war against America. After all, China released a tactical nuke on Russia, so I don't think they'd be seen as allies.

Likewise, with China, you have other blocs of power in that region to counteract them, mainly other nations in ASEAN.

However, I think that we may see some regional wars that can have deadly consequences:

Iran-Israel. If Iran does get nukes, then there will be a deadly exchange. I read an executive report a few months back about game theory on such a war. If Iran attempted to strike Israel, there would be roughly 25 million dead civilians and leaders in a matter of a day.

Personally, msb, I think Mossad would take care of AMAD before he even got his Shahabs off the deck.

I never said that Israel gets hit in a game theory scenario. I just said 25 million civilians would die in a day. 25 million dead Iranians. The report stated that, at most, Israel may suffer ~1 million casualities IF Iran managed to score a hit....And in every scenario, Iran got sent back to the stoneage.

Koreas: Although peace seems to be forthcoming (hopefully), there always exists the chance of an exchange. Even if it was conventional, millions would die. Seoul is just a few miles from the DMZ, and within artillery range from the DPRK.

This situation is one to look at and is of great importance to the Asian sphere.  PACCOM would surely utilize its birds to see a fueling NK ICBM (if nuclear) and scuttle B2s.  NK would then fire on Seoul and Kim would then proceed to fry.  In a conventional scenario with arty over the DMZ (more likely) then Pyongyang would feel the full force of PACCOM.  Same outcome.  In any instance the guys at Osan would be tripping over their feet.

I don't believe NK would pre-empt with nukes. I do think that they would engage conventionally, then when we beat them back (after they've obliterated Seoul), they may then try to launch as a last-ditch effort. At that time, I'd hate to be north of the DMZ as it would probably be desert after what we do.

US-Mexico: A less likely one, but I read a security report about US-Mexican relations. The author (who used game theory to predict most of the 20th centuries conflicts) states that by the mid part of the century, there will be a war between the US and Mexico, resulting in millions of deaths on both sides of the fence.

Plausible.  Depends on the scenario.  There is a war there now but it is covert. I would take the ramifications of blowback into acct with a future regime (esp. if is a Chavez-like generalisimo or some nut).

The scenario was a really interesting one. Essentially, the issue would be due to Azaltan movements in Mexico and the US demanding land back. The US doesn't cave, and a conventional war starts. In the scenario, the US wins, obviously, but a lot of people die due to guerillas north of the border.

Btw, hope all is well out in OH.

Its cold :-p

 

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Mise on 21 January 2010

If we can't figure out something to remove our dependencies to critical resources like oil and drinkable water, then we will eventually end up in another global war - started by the strongest faction at the time.

And some unlucky bastards will most likely live thru it.



Warning: The preceding message may or may not have included sarcasm, cynicism, irony, full stops, commas, slashes, words, letters, sentences, lines, quotes,  flaeed  gramar, cryptic metaphors or other means of annoying communication. Viewer discretion is/was strongly advised.