World War 3

[Dodeca]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If America Strikes Iran things could get really bad. What would be the immediate consequences of such an attack. Where will the balance of power be after such a war.

[Aronnax]

Michel Chossudovsky's perspective is incredibly skewed for a variety of reasons. Iran isn't even on the top 15 list of US oil importers. Iran's oil is more of a strategic necessity to Europe than the US (look out Iran, France is coming for you, they need that oil!). The US isn't going to launch a land invasion of Iran due to an absence of political will, terrain and international politics.

[Ray9]

Chossudovsky, like his father demonstrates all the characteristics of a classic Jew hater. His history is replete with anti-semitic rhetoric and his disdain for the United States and its allies most likely stems from that. World War Three could well start in the Middle East but it would, in all probability, be sparked by an Arab state launching nukes into Israel.

[Pandemonium]

Michel Chossudovsky's perspective is incredibly skewed for a variety of reasons. Iran isn't even on the top 15 list of US oil importers. Iran's oil is more of a strategic necessity to Europe than the US (look out Iran, France is coming for you, they need that oil!). The US isn't going to launch a land invasion of Iran due to an absence of political will, terrain and international politics.

Yet, anecdotally, America isn't a country known for engaging in smart decisions. The war drums are beating now similar to the invasion of Iraq.



*Cough* The Americans lost their pride when they were kicked out of Iran during the revolution.

[Aronnax]

Yet, anecdotally, America isn't a country known for engaging in smart decisions. The war drums are beating now similar to the invasion of Iraq.


The "war drums" are not being beaten in a way that resembles the buildup for the Iraq invasion. The public attitude towards another foreign war isn't close to what existed in 2003. The boiling blood over the WTC attacks has cooled, unless there's another attack of similar magnitude a land based invasion isn't going to happen. Airstrikes might, but even that is unlikely.


*Cough* The Americans lost their pride when they were kicked out of Iran during the revolution.

Most Americans aren't even aware that they were "kicked out of Iran during the revolution". In order for your pride to be hurt you have to be aware something significant happened.

[Pandemonium]

The "war drums" are not being beaten in a way that resembles the buildup for the Iraq invasion. The public attitude towards another foreign war isn't close to what existed in 2003. The boiling blood over the WTC attacks has cooled, unless there's another attack of similar magnitude a land based invasion isn't going to happen. Airstrikes might, but even that is unlikely.

Didn't a plane fly into a building a few days ago? Its a slow build up.

---------- Post added 02-20-2010 at 10:35 AM ----------


Most Americans aren't even aware that they were "kicked out of Iran during the revolution". In order for your pride to be hurt you have to be aware something significant happened.

Thus it is not most Americans that I am referring to.

[Aronnax]

Didn't a plane fly into a building a few days ago?


It wasn't piloted by a Jihadist, creating a death toll of 3000.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 04:37 PM ----------




Thus it is not most Americans that I am referring to.

"Most Americans" are the ones you have to convince in order to get a war moving forward.

[Dodeca]

It wasn't piloted by a Jihadist and create a death toll of 3000.

Are you saying 9/11 happened 3 days ago.

Didn't a plane fly into a building a few days ago? Its a slow build up.

[Pandemonium]

It wasn't piloted by a Jihadist and create a death toll of 3000.


Now your just picking and choosing.


"Most Americans" are the ones you have to convince in order to get a war moving forward.

Hence, the beating of the war drums. Fear propaganda about a nuclear armed Iran.

[Aronnax]

Now your just picking and choosing.


I'm picking and chosing motivation:

"Hey those foreigners killed 3000 people with airplanes, lets get em'!"

vs

"Hey, some local guy killed a tax man with an airplane...wait, how does that connect to Iran?"


Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 but the connection was much easier for the leadership to draw. In order for the public to accept a physical invasion (opposed to airstrikes) there would have to be something similar to an atomic attack on US soil.

The attitude of the average US citizen is something you're having a hard time grasping. Most citizens are war weary right now, opposed to 2003 where the memory of a fast clean win in Iraq was fresh in everyone's mind.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 04:54 PM ----------

Are you saying 9/11 happened 3 days ago.

This (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is what we're talking about when we say "recently".

[Pandemonium]

I'm picking and chosing motivation:

"Hey those foreigners killed 3000 people with airplanes, lets get em'!"

vs

"Hey, some local guy killed a tax man with an airplane...wait, how does that connect to Iran?"


All you need is one charismatic leader and your good to go.


Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 but the connection was much easier for the leadership to draw. In order for the public to accept a physical invasion (opposed to airstrikes) there would have to be something similar to an atomic attack on US soil.

The attitude of the average US citizen is something you're having a hard time grasping. The US public is really tired of war right now, opposed to 2003 where the memory of a fast clean win in Iraq was fresh in everyone's mind.

Air strikes on nuclear related facilities has been alluded to quite an amount in the media of the last few months. Iranian leadership don't seem to be of the type that won't retaliate to an attack on their soil. A false flag event could be a possibility after air striking Iran. That would provide enough reason to mount a ground invasion even if there is no public support. The scenario would turn into a positive feedback loop.

[Holiman]

I hear no drums as a matter of fact I think there is STRONG sentiment about getting out of afghanistan as soon as possible. A military strike is possible most likely by Isreal but I doubt anything will happen anytime soon.

[Arkeph]

Here's (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) something to think about. A naval blockade is, of course, an act of war. The Strait of Hormuz is the most important oil transit chokepoint in the world (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Iran has the capability to block oil traffic through it by sinking their own ships or someone else's.

I don't know all of the details of why the US is so hostile toward Iran (it certainly isn't the repressiveness of Iran's government, which Egypt and Saudi Arabia easily match). Israel's government and strategic interests seem to be the biggest reasons.

A naval blockade is highly unlikely, in my opinion, as is a massive air strike on Iranian infrastructure. However, I do think that the US government has been searching for a pretext to take an active role in Iran's internal affairs.

[Causa Mortis]

This douchebag is a left wing equivalent of Glen Beck. CLinton recently stated that direct military action at this time is highly unlikely.

That the US has contingency plans to attack Iran is meaningless. The US probably has a contingency plan to invade Canada. Its not going to happen.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 06:22 PM ----------

Yet, anecdotally, America isn't a country known for engaging in smart decisions.

And yet America has been at the forefront of academia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._States), economics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), athletics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), innovation (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), hell, even in invensing entirely new forms (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) of worthwhile achievement (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). And, oh yeah, the whole world has basically copied or is moving towards the whole limited government, free speech, free markets, free trade, democracy stuff.

Most of the general criticisms of "America" are slave criticisms.


The war drums are beating now similar to the invasion of Iraq.

Yeah, except they're not. They're trading verbal daggers. Talk of sanctions and of getting Russia on board...not on unilateral action.

We fucked up on Iraq. We admit it. We're not doing it again.

*Cough* The Americans lost their pride when they were kicked out of Iran during the revolution.

Yeah my ego was badly bruised because of this. I'm still reeling over Yugoslavia too, and that whole Russian blockade of Berlin!!!! Wow I'm angry

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 06:24 PM ----------

Here's (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) something to think about. A naval blockade is, of course, an act of war. The Strait of Hormuz is the most important oil transit chokepoint in the world (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Iran has the capability to block oil traffic through it by sinking their own ships or someone else's.

I don't know all of the details of why the US is so hostile toward Iran (it certainly isn't the repressiveness of Iran's government, which Egypt and Saudi Arabia easily match). Israel's government and strategic interests seem to be the biggest reasons.

A naval blockade is highly unlikely, in my opinion, as is a massive air strike on Iranian infrastructure. However, I do think that the US government has been searching for a pretext to take an active role in Iran's internal affairs.

If you wanted to do it with force it would not be difficult. There's really no answer for cruise missiles to take out airfields and long range air defenses, then B-52s that fly well over any short or medium range air defenses. Alternatively, you can just use B-2s.

It could be done with force, its just that we'd really, REALLY prefer not to.

[Dodeca]

Yeah, except they're not. They're trading verbal daggers. Talk of sanctions and of getting Russia on board...not on unilateral action.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 06:24 PM ----------

If you wanted to do it with force it would not be difficult. There's really no answer for cruise missiles to take out airfields and long range air defenses, then B-52s that fly well over any short or medium range air defenses. Alternatively, you can just use B-2s.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Russia rebuffs Israel over tougher sanctions on Iran
Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:32:43 GMT
Font size :

Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov

Russia's Foreign Ministry has announced that Moscow is against imposing "crippling sanctions" on Iran over its nuclear energy program.

"The term 'crippling sanctions' on Iran is totally unacceptable to us. The sanctions should aim at strengthening the regime of non-proliferation," Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Friday.

He made the comments in opposition to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had asked Russia to help slap biting sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

"What is needed now is biting sanctions that have the power to influence the regime, bitter sanctions that have to hit, in a convincing way, the (Iranian) oil industry, imports, exports and refining," visiting Netanyahu told reporters after holding talks Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, as part of his efforts to garner support for tough sanctions against Iran.

However, the Russian side rejected the idea saying, "We have always favored the resolution of problems regarding the Iranian nuclear program through dialogue and, if possible, interaction with Iran."

Israel, along with the West, accused Iran of pursuing military ends through its nuclear program — a charge Tehran has repeatedly denied.

The Islamic Republic says its nuclear program is solely aimed at the civilian application of the technology.

Meanwhile, Russia's foreign ministry official said Moscow is committed to supply Iran with the S-300 air defense system according to the existing contract between the two states.

"There is a contract to supply these systems to Iran and we will fulfill it. The delays are linked to technical problems with adjusting these systems," he said.

Israel and the United States have repeatedly asked Russia to scrap the deal. However, Ryabkov has warned against politicizing Russia's arms exports to Iran.

[Causa Mortis]

Let accept your hypothetical and the US goes to war with the alleged cassus belli of nuclear proliferation. Russia isn't going to contest that. China has no ability to contest that, except by selling treasuries which would hurt them just as much.

WW3 is not imminent.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 09:27 PM ----------

Edit:

In order for WW3 to happen, a few things need to occur:
1. China would need another 20-30 years of economic growth at its current breakneck pace. Note that all of the previous "miracles" boomed for 35-45 years and then flatlined. Maybe China is different.
2. China would have to develop a blue-water Navy capable of contesting the USN. As in, they find a real answer for 11 fleet carriers, 60 attack subs, and a few hundred modern surface vessels. They have a hell of a long way to go.
3. China deconstructs its economic ties to the US, and either internalizes demand, or finds a new economic fuck buddy.
4. Russia has a boom in real physical productivity along the lines of China and has a resurgence of nationalism so that someone a hell of a lot more radical than Putin is in power.
5. India fails to continue its growth, loses ties with the west, or aligns with China. All of which are unlikely.

[eagleseven]

Iran is being supplied by the Russians, and is currently constructing oil pipelines to China (through Pakistan). I have little doubt that both the Russians and the Chinese will defend Iran, if need be.

Unlike Iraq, Iran isn't diplomatically isolated in the least. They're playing for the other team.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[RBM]

Iran is being supplied by the Russians, and is currently constructing oil pipelines to China (through Pakistan). I have little doubt that both the Russians and the Chinese will defend Iran, if need be.

Unlike Iraq, Iran isn't diplomatically isolated in the least. They're playing for the other team.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This 'playing for the other team' gets a whole lot closer to the heart of the political game. Given politics in the US in this era there is little substantive difference on this topic between the parties. It is a matter of strategic interest for both parties to keep the US Empire intact.

The intact state of the US Empire is a vision of corrupted thinking by both ends of the political spectrum. It is merely one possible vision for a state, and is a matter of choice.

Choices often have unintended consequences.

[LaoTzu]

I highly doubt there will be a war. There has already been wide public discussion on it in the US; and the fact that nobody remembers it can tell you how much support there was for the idea.
There will always be wars in the planning. Planning means nothing. There were plans to nuke Bagdhad in the Gulf War... There is a lot of posturing going on, and nothing more.

The only way things get crazy over there is if Israel thinks they can take matters in their own hands. It worked against Iraq back in the day... but circumstances were quite different... they can't expect nothing to happen should they try the same against Iran.


Until you see the major powers moving men and materials... there is no need to worry :)

As for Russia selling arms to Iran... the US would too, were it politically viable ;)

[thanks for the reminder too... a local radio host actually said that WW3 would be guaranteed should Iran get the bomb... I was going to send him a 'fuck-you' letter...]

[SShack]

I think the way things are these days we'll actually only realize we're in WWIII in retrospect. Wars just aren't approached the way they used to be.

In fact I sometimes wonder if in 100 years we'll identify what we're going through now as WWIII.

[eagleseven]

This 'playing for the other team' gets a whole lot closer to the heart of the political game. Given politics in the US in this era there is little substantive difference on this topic between the parties. It is a matter of strategic interest for both parties to keep the US Empire intact.

The intact state of the US Empire is a vision of corrupted thinking by both ends of the political spectrum. It is merely one possible vision for a state, and is a matter of choice.

Choices often have unintended consequences.
In short:

The US is attempting to retain what remains of its hegemony/empire.
Russia is attempting to regain what it lost in the early 90s.
China is attempting to construct a Chinese empire to replace the collapsing American hegemony.
India is desperately attempting to counteract the Chinese takeover of Asia.


Pretty much every major world conflict we see in the headlines are proxies for these four rival empires. Thankfully, these empires have refrained from open warfare due to their nuclear weapon stocks.

[Causa Mortis]

In short:

The US is attempting to retain what remains of its hegemony/empire.
Russia is attempting to regain what it lost in the early 90s.
China is attempting to construct a Chinese empire to replace the collapsing American hegemony.
India is desperately attempting to counteract the Chinese takeover of Asia.


Pretty much every major world conflict we see in the headlines are proxies for these four rival empires. Thankfully, these empires have refrained from open warfare due to their nuclear weapon stocks.

BSGs, non falsifiable

[eagleseven]

BSGs, non falsifiable
Since when can you apply the scientific method to international relations?

China Intensifies Tug of War With India on Nepal (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Indian Army raising two divisions close to China border (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
India Worries as China Builds Ports in South Asia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
India, Myanmar: Reluctant brothers in arms (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Rift Grows as U.S. and China Seek Differing Goals (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
FACTBOX-Ties binding China and Iran (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
As U.S.-China Tensions Rise, Military Ties Suffer (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Perilous U.S.-China games (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
China Dumping US Treasurys; What’s the Message? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Mader]

International relations are generally based on money and power.
Sometimes national pride, but mostly, money and power.
China cares about money and power, period
Russia cares about money and power, period.
Iran, a bunch of fruitcakes.

Obama is not going to take us into Iran. It is illogical. Iran has been lying about nuclear development for years and we have consistantly said, Okay, Dokey, we trust you. We will fight Iran if they attack us or Israel.

[Causa Mortis]

Since when can you apply the scientific method to international relations?

China Intensifies Tug of War With India on Nepal (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Indian Army raising two divisions close to China border (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
India Worries as China Builds Ports in South Asia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
India, Myanmar: Reluctant brothers in arms (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Rift Grows as U.S. and China Seek Differing Goals (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
FACTBOX-Ties binding China and Iran (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
As U.S.-China Tensions Rise, Military Ties Suffer (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Perilous U.S.-China games (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
China Dumping US Treasurys; What’s the Message? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

When the Chinese build a blue water navy capable of rivaling the US/UK/Jap coalition, give me a ring. Until then, they have no real power because they have no capacity to project power and are reliant on energy imports and export markets for consumer goods.

China is enormously benefitting from the globalization that's taken place since the 1980s. They're not going to do anything to derail that.

Paranoid news makes for great infotainment. That said, its not very serious. The Chinese have never deviated much from realpolitik, they would not start now, not when they're within ~20 years of being able to economically rival the US/EU.

Regarding treasuries, the Chinese had to sell them to maintain their de facto peg. They've had a surge in inflation recently, which pressures for devaluation. Ergo they've needed to sell Yuan. Alternatively, they may be deciding to allow the market to set exchange rates, which is something we should welcome.

[eagleseven]

When the Chinese build a blue water navy capable of rivaling the US/UK/Jap coalition, give me a ring. Until then, they have no real power because they have no capacity to project power and are reliant on energy imports and export markets for consumer goods.
According to our intelligence, China intends to have multiple carrier-battlegroups by 2020. Though they currently do not have the ability, the desire is there.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

China is enormously benefitting from the globalization that's taken place since the 1980s. They're not going to do anything to derail that.
No doubt. Rather, they want to control it. Do we really want a world where China makes the rules of trade and international relations?

Paranoid news makes for great infotainment. That said, its not very serious. The Chinese have never deviated much from realpolitik, they would not start now, not when they're within ~20 years of being able to economically rival the US/EU.
I am suggesting that they are using realpolitik to gain the economic advantage sooner rather than later. Much like during what we now consider the Cold War, both the US and China are utilizing local conflicts to hinder the other's growth. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Pakistan.

In no way am I expecting for there to be open conventional conflict between any of these empires in the near future, but rather their military movements are external signs of unspoken tensions. This is why I cited them.

[Causa Mortis]

According to our intelligence, China intends to have multiple carrier-battlegroups by 2020. Though they currently do not have the ability, the desire is there.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

They're planning on 2. The US alone has 11 fleet carriers. Nowhere near capable of rivaling the US/UK/Jap alliance.


No doubt. Rather, they want to control it. Do we really want a world where China makes the rules of trade and international relations?

So does Iran. Neither has the productive capacity to produce the blue water navy/ultra modern air force that it takes.

[eagleseven]

They're planning on 2. The US alone has 11 fleet carriers. Nowhere near capable of rivaling the US/UK/Jap alliance.

So does Iran. Neither has the productive capacity to produce the blue water navy/ultra modern air force that it takes.
Which is partially why the US remains a superpower surrounded by great powers?

[Causa Mortis]

Which is partially why the US remains a superpower surrounded by great powers?

Its a superpower because it has a very large, well developed economy. Excessive military spending slows growth, ergo excessive peacetime spending is "bad" because it reduces standards of living and productive capacity and therefore ability to make war.

[Dodeca]

They're planning on 2. The US alone has 11 fleet carriers. Nowhere near capable of rivaling the US/UK/Jap alliance.

So does Iran. Neither has the productive capacity to produce the blue water navy/ultra modern air force that it takes.

More than likely this confrontation would be land based. Iran is on the same continent as Russia and China. Plus China could have land based artillery sink the fleet carriers. They do copy allot of there technology.

[eagleseven]

Its a superpower because it has a very large, well developed economy. Excessive military spending slows growth, ergo excessive peacetime spending is "bad" because it reduces standards of living and productive capacity and therefore ability to make war.
Where was our original disagreement, again?

[Coxswain]

If there will be a global war, it will be because the effects of globalization, prolonged unemployment, diminishing resources for current technologies, you know... the regular stuff. The pretext will not really matter, one will be found. There is a good paper from the Harvard Biz School that makes the case for some interesting parallels between 1914 and 2014.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Things will be tough all over.
------------------
China... meh... when they invaded Vietnam in '79 they advanced 8Km and got a royal spanking. The general's desperate requests for air support were denied because HQ was terrified (and rightly so) that Viet combat seasoned pilots would totally trounce them (maybe even make some runs into China proper). So they declared victory and returned with some chickens as spoils of war. On the other hand, they will have to do something with the millions of college grads (mainly male because of female infanticide) that have no work and will NOT have work for the mid-term future. For all the saber rattling and gung-fu movie like posturing, they never effectively challenged Taiwan.
-------------------
Navies - this ranking reveals current positions of world's top Navies. It takes A HUGE effort to build and augment a nation's Navy. Not just the ships ... the manpower and training and weapons make all the difference - and they cost a LOT.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Krazy P]

I think war is a possibility, and more likely than not it will not include the U.S. except indirectly.

There is a puzzle regarding Iran's recent storage of enriched uranium. Moved from a bunker to a open, above ground structure. Easy to hit. It is their entire supply.

[RBM]

I think war is a possibility, and more likely than not it will not include the U.S. except indirectly.

There is a puzzle regarding Iran's recent storage of enriched uranium. Moved from a bunker to a open, above ground structure. Easy to hit. It is their entire supply.

If true, that's a pretty serious puzzle, indeed.

[thod]

You cannot destroy the radioactives with a bomb. All you can do is spread them around. I doubt a conventional explosive would have the power to disperse them into the upper atmosphere thus the pollution would be local. The question to be asked is would this be an atrocity. The land may never recover, like Chernobyl. The pollutants would find their way to the sea eventually and create problems for the beaches and fisheries of surrounding states. There will be lots of casualties, but all civilian. If someone were to spread radioactive dust over a portion of the US, then it would certainly be seen as an atrocity to those in the US.

Perhaps this is the reason, a poisoned apple. Should someone choose to destroy it, they will lose the moral high ground to images of dead and defamed kids. By all means destroy the refinement centrifuges, but we want to keep the material intact.

[LaoTzu]

Only certain types of metals are used in nukes. 'If' Iran has weapons grade, they wouldn't be housing it out in the open.