A World (Potentially) at War?

Warfish · 10-16-2012, 10:35 AM

Current Status:

The U.S. at War in Afghanistan, with strikes in over a dozen other Countries in the "War on Terror".

The U.S. fighting a Tech/hacking/Cold/Political War with Iran

The U.S. helped topple Egypt (politically) and Libya (Millitarily), leaving both unstable and their futures up in the air.

Iraq is Iraq.

Israel and Palestine/the Arab Nations

These we all know (or should).

But also, right now:

China and Japan have a conflict brewing that has very quietly grown worse and worse. An armed event is not an impossibillity at this point. Russia backs China, the U.S. backs Japan.

Turkey and Syria and almost at the point of an actual, strait up, War. Syria, of course, is backed by Russia and China as well. The U.S. nominally backs Turkey as a memeber state of NATO.

And of course the old favorite, North Korea and South Korea continue to be warm with a potential for soemthign bad. Russia and China back (tacitly and openly depending) the North, while the U.S. and Japan back the south.

The potential for a trigger-event that could cause a conflict that could grow into something very large is as high right now as I can recall it being in many, many years, since the end of the Cold War actually. The World, right now, is a seething cauldron of possible conflicts, with the U.S. and Russia/China almost always on opposite sides of the various disagreements.

And while I agree with ol' Bitonti's ideas that China doesn;t want to fight us any more than we want to fight them (economics), that does not mean some possible trigger event could not create a situation where a larger conflict could arrise.

I don't want to sound paranoid, because I'm not. But as a Student of History, especially Millitary History, we appear to be in a time of rising tensions and millitary conflict potential. And as histroy shows, a trigegr event can be as small as an assassination of a single leader or the rise to power of a leader with ambitions in the right nationstate.

The World has avoided a Third World War (although I'd call the Cold War tbh World War III, from the end of WWII to the end when the Wall Fell) since 1945. The U.N. (lol) exists primarily to stop such Wars from happening. Which, of course, doesn't mean it can stop War as the past 70-ish years show.

What do you think?

(If you have to tie it into current U.S. Politics, one pundit has claimed a Romney election will lead directly to a new War.)

brady's a catcher · 10-16-2012, 10:40 AM

Not aware at all of the Syria-Hungary tensions, will have to do some reading.

Postseason · 10-16-2012, 11:08 AM

Did you mean UN at the end there?

quantum · 10-16-2012, 11:15 AM

Maybe I"m reading too much into it, but there seems to be an underlying current of "every international disagreement will burst into war" in your post, WF.

I would disagree. I think its only when countries are really backed into a corner do they consider lashing out.

Jungle Shift Jet · 10-16-2012, 01:03 PM

Yes, lib pukes who can't find their azz with both hands are go-to guys for
China's war plans.

Must be close to lunch time, Hungary is substituted for Turkey..hankering for that Schlotzsky special

Don't worry, B. Hussein will always support the country or option that is more damgerous to America

AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite · 10-16-2012, 02:00 PM

Think concerns on Syria / Turkey are legit.

If Syria hits Turkish civilians in an over the border strike again, look out...

Trades · 10-16-2012, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quantum

Maybe I"m reading too much into it, but there seems to be an underlying current of "every international disagreement will burst into war" in your post, WF.

I would disagree. I think its only when countries are really backed into a corner do they consider lashing out.

I think the point is that there are many conflicts that we currently know of (how many are we not aware of) that could just as easily erupt as they could decrease. It could take just one to pull everyone into a war by inflaming their own conflicts in the light of the fire of the other.

Lets look at something that is very unlikely to happen such as an American ambassador being assassinated, oh wait. What do you think the reaction of any other country might have been if that had happened to their ambassador?

Warfish · 10-16-2012, 02:35 PM

I would mantain that sleeping on China's regional ambitions, i.e. Japan, Taiwan, and regional de-facto hegemony, would be very naive. The warming of that region is perhaps the most important of all to watch closely geopolitically.

To address Trades above, you're exactly right. For example:

Three events, all regional, but all with broader ramifications.
1. Syria hits civillian targets in Turkey resulting in largescale casualties. Russia and China block any attempt at U.N. intervention.
2. A standoff at sea between Japaneese and Chineese millitary vessels. Someone on either side fires, sinking the other with almost all hands.
3. North Korea and South Korea have yet another event, this time resulting in a large number of civillian casualties in the south.

All extremely possible events, and depending on the who and what of how they play out, they could (liek so many since WWII) be loud but lead nowhere, or they could spark something that has momentum, and the chance to build into something larger.

IHATEDOLPHINS · 10-16-2012, 05:21 PM

I think the only situation where hell would break loose is Israel bombing Iran

Would that inflame the whole Muslim world? (I think so)

That would probably bring us into a new war,you never know with Pakistan,hell they could attack India they both have nukes and that's game over

Trades · 10-16-2012, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IHATEDOLPHINS

I think the only situation where hell would break loose is Israel bombing Iran

Would that inflame the whole Muslim world? (I think so)

That would probably bring us into a new war,you never know with Pakistan,hell they could attack India they both have nukes and that's game over

What about if Iran attacked Israel?

quantum · 10-17-2012, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trades

I think the point is that there are many conflicts that we currently know of (how many are we not aware of) that could just as easily erupt as they could decrease. It could take just one to pull everyone into a war by inflaming their own conflicts in the light of the fire of the other.

Lets look at something that is very unlikely to happen such as an American ambassador being assassinated, oh wait. What do you think the reaction of any other country might have been if that had happened to their ambassador?

lots of huffing and puffing, apologies based on "oops we made a mistake", etc.

Look at us bombing the Chinese embassy in Serbia back in Clinton's days. Was there a war eruption I missed? no.

I just disagree its the tinderbox that WF implies it is.

MnJetFan · 10-17-2012, 09:35 AM

Does Iran have the nuclear force of Israel, would Saudi Arabia stand by and let Iran come closer to their borders. As usual the Middle East the cradle of
civilization.

IHATEDOLPHINS · 10-17-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trades

What about if Iran attacked Israel?

Good point.I should have mentioned that as well.

I think that would spark WW3 as well

SCITSCAT · 10-22-2012, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trades

What about if Iran attacked Israel?

not gonna happen... They are pussies, they are backing Hezbulah under the scenes and are so far away from a nuclear weapon, they're not even this stupid. They would be annialated.

dickkotite · 10-22-2012, 09:03 PM

if youre really a student of history, youd better watch out for a few high in govt(s) trying to trick the masses into buying into an unnecessary conflict ala the gulf of tonkin and the uss liberty scam

MnJetFan · 10-23-2012, 09:25 AM

Iran won't attack anyone, there is allot of huff and puff out of Iran but little else, The last war they had with Iraq got Iran no where of course a few chemicals helped Iraq win. But getting back to Israel they have enough nukes to blow most of the Middle East back to the Stone Age.

Trades · 10-23-2012, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MnJetFan

Iran won't attack anyone, there is allot of huff and puff out of Iran but little else, The last war they had with Iraq got Iran no where of course a few chemicals helped Iraq win. But getting back to Israel they have enough nukes to blow most of the Middle East back to the Stone Age.

A fire cracker could blow most of them back to the stone age.

10-16-2012, 10:35 AM	#1
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	A World (Potentially) at War? Current Status: The U.S. at War in Afghanistan, with strikes in over a dozen other Countries in the "War on Terror". The U.S. fighting a Tech/hacking/Cold/Political War with Iran The U.S. helped topple Egypt (politically) and Libya (Millitarily), leaving both unstable and their futures up in the air. Iraq is Iraq. Israel and Palestine/the Arab Nations These we all know (or should). But also, right now: China and Japan have a conflict brewing that has very quietly grown worse and worse. An armed event is not an impossibillity at this point. Russia backs China, the U.S. backs Japan. Turkey and Syria and almost at the point of an actual, strait up, War. Syria, of course, is backed by Russia and China as well. The U.S. nominally backs Turkey as a memeber state of NATO. And of course the old favorite, North Korea and South Korea continue to be warm with a potential for soemthign bad. Russia and China back (tacitly and openly depending) the North, while the U.S. and Japan back the south. The potential for a trigger-event that could cause a conflict that could grow into something very large is as high right now as I can recall it being in many, many years, since the end of the Cold War actually. The World, right now, is a seething cauldron of possible conflicts, with the U.S. and Russia/China almost always on opposite sides of the various disagreements. And while I agree with ol' Bitonti's ideas that China doesn;t want to fight us any more than we want to fight them (economics), that does not mean some possible trigger event could not create a situation where a larger conflict could arrise. I don't want to sound paranoid, because I'm not. But as a Student of History, especially Millitary History, we appear to be in a time of rising tensions and millitary conflict potential. And as histroy shows, a trigegr event can be as small as an assassination of a single leader or the rise to power of a leader with ambitions in the right nationstate. The World has avoided a Third World War (although I'd call the Cold War tbh World War III, from the end of WWII to the end when the Wall Fell) since 1945. The U.N. (lol) exists primarily to stop such Wars from happening. Which, of course, doesn't mean it can stop War as the past 70-ish years show. What do you think? (If you have to tie it into current U.S. Politics, one pundit has claimed a Romney election will lead directly to a new War.) Last edited by Warfish; 10-16-2012 at 01:11 PM.

10-16-2012, 02:35 PM	#8
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	I would mantain that sleeping on China's regional ambitions, i.e. Japan, Taiwan, and regional de-facto hegemony, would be very naive. The warming of that region is perhaps the most important of all to watch closely geopolitically. To address Trades above, you're exactly right. For example: Three events, all regional, but all with broader ramifications. 1. Syria hits civillian targets in Turkey resulting in largescale casualties. Russia and China block any attempt at U.N. intervention. 2. A standoff at sea between Japaneese and Chineese millitary vessels. Someone on either side fires, sinking the other with almost all hands. 3. North Korea and South Korea have yet another event, this time resulting in a large number of civillian casualties in the south. All extremely possible events, and depending on the who and what of how they play out, they could (liek so many since WWII) be loud but lead nowhere, or they could spark something that has momentum, and the chance to build into something larger. Last edited by Warfish; 10-16-2012 at 02:40 PM.

10-16-2012, 10:40 AM	#2
brady's a catcher R.I.P Goofy Maloof All Pro Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 6,682	Not aware at all of the Syria-Hungary tensions, will have to do some reading.

10-16-2012, 11:08 AM	#3
Postseason Veteran Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,086	Did you mean UN at the end there?

10-16-2012, 11:15 AM	#4
quantum GFY Snatchez! Hall Of Fame Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: LI Posts: 17,877	Maybe I"m reading too much into it, but there seems to be an underlying current of "every international disagreement will burst into war" in your post, WF. I would disagree. I think its only when countries are really backed into a corner do they consider lashing out.

10-16-2012, 01:03 PM	#5
Jungle Shift Jet Occasionally stoops to uploading hotties pix to boost his postcount All Pro Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Alive with a superior intellect in an erudite world of fine tastes that you will never, EVER acquire Posts: 5,032	Yes, lib pukes who can't find their azz with both hands are go-to guys for China's war plans. Must be close to lunch time, Hungary is substituted for Turkey..hankering for that Schlotzsky special Don't worry, B. Hussein will always support the country or option that is more damgerous to America

10-16-2012, 02:00 PM	#6
AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite is all out of fuCks to give... All Pro Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,445	Think concerns on Syria / Turkey are legit. If Syria hits Turkish civilians in an over the border strike again, look out...

10-16-2012, 05:21 PM	#9
IHATEDOLPHINS growing tired of rex ryan All League Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 3,028	I think the only situation where hell would break loose is Israel bombing Iran Would that inflame the whole Muslim world? (I think so) That would probably bring us into a new war,you never know with Pakistan,hell they could attack India they both have nukes and that's game over

10-17-2012, 09:35 AM	#12
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,302	Does Iran have the nuclear force of Israel, would Saudi Arabia stand by and let Iran come closer to their borders. As usual the Middle East the cradle of civilization.

10-22-2012, 09:03 PM	#15
dickkotite SAR1 is my son..... All Pro Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 8,330	if youre really a student of history, youd better watch out for a few high in govt(s) trying to trick the masses into buying into an unnecessary conflict ala the gulf of tonkin and the uss liberty scam

10-23-2012, 09:25 AM	#16
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,302	Iran won't attack anyone, there is allot of huff and puff out of Iran but little else, The last war they had with Iraq got Iran no where of course a few chemicals helped Iraq win. But getting back to Israel they have enough nukes to blow most of the Middle East back to the Stone Age.