World War Three

[merid]

If you were to pick a country or region that would spark WW3 where would it be?

I personally do not think we will reach that point. As countries progress technologically a greater understanding comes as to the world around, the more people want to maintain the status quo.

[thecraig]

What would constitute a World War in your opinion?

I am surprised you left China off of your poll.

And there will of course always be war. It is the nature of humanity. Hunger, pride and greed have all been causes of war in the past and will continue to be in the future. Only when all three of these are "solved" will there be any hope of stopping war.

[merid]

World war would be akin to the level shown in the previous world wars. I realise the presence of NATO and the UN in Afghanistan would imply that we are already in a world war. However in the scope of this question it would be a war with every continent fighting eachother.

I left China off for the reason that I don't believe that they would go to war. Their history has been more isolationist, therefore I do not think that they are capable. Hindsight I should have included the option.

I agree there always will be war, but the nature of it I think will change.

[Santana28]

yeah, definitely china, russia, iran, pakistan, the future iraq, a couple balkan nations, some african nations, a few asian nations against the "imperialists."

[Antares]

I don't know about China; it's got too many internal wars to deal with. Judging from the attitude of Chinese newspapers, the CCP is in quite good relations with the West (I don't know how the West view this matter). At least they're not bashing Capitalists and European socialists like they're doing for the evil Tibetan lamas. I think the most conceivable wars would be the Koreas or India vs. Pakistan. I don't think the US masses would allow another war to happen unless it's of absolute necessity (invasion; that probably won't happen).

[TheLastMohican]

I don't know about China; it's got too many internal wars to deal with. Judging from the attitude of Chinese newspapers, the CCP is in quite good relations with the West (I don't know how the West view this matter).

I suppose these newspapers are controlled by the government, yes?

The Beijing Olympics are not popular. There is talk of the U.S. boycotting.

[merid]

The Beijing Olympics are not popular. There is talk of the U.S. boycotting.

The Chinese government is not popular. It is pointless to politicise the Olympic games. It is not the government that spends four years training themselves to compete.

[Antares]

I suppose these newspapers are controlled by the government, yes?

The Beijing Olympics are not popular. There is talk of the U.S. boycotting.

They are. But if the Chinese government doesn't like something, you can bet they're bound to whack you over the head with it. There's no way the news can call the Tibetans 'evil' without some government bias.

[acyckowski]

The Chinese government is not popular. It is pointless to politicise the Olympic games. It is not the government that spends four years training themselves to compete.

You're quibbling. TLM used a current news item to indicate the general attitude of the West towards China.

Yesterday, Senator Clinton made a Presidential boycott of the Olympics a campaign item. She belives it is imperative to use this symbolic gesture to demonstrate our indignation about a laundry list of China's sins against humanity. This is the International Diplomacy equivalent of giving the finger.

Regardless of how silly/serious you consider an Olympic boycott, I don't see how you could hold a Third World War and not invite China.

[merid]

Regardless of how silly/serious you consider an Olympic boycott, I don't see how you could hold a Third World War and not invite China.

It was merely a statement on politics.

As for not including China I really don't think it would happen. Also take into consideration how non-violent they are towards other nations, apart from Tibet. The fact that China has the largest standing army and they are arming themselves does not mean that they intend to use those weapons. Will America drop another nuclear bomb? I would say no.

[TheLastMohican]

The Chinese government is not popular. It is pointless to politicise the Olympic games. It is not the government that spends four years training themselves to compete.

I agree. It's dumb. But my point is that China has plenty of tensions with the west.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 1 minutes and 11 seconds later...

They are. But if the Chinese government doesn't like something, you can bet they're bound to whack you over the head with it. There's no way the news can call the Tibetans 'evil' without some government bias.

What, are you implying that the Tibetans are not pure evil?! :stunned:

[Antares]

What, are you implying that the Tibetans are not pure evil?!

What? Are you implying otherwise? I'm in the same country as those... AHHHH! :scared:

[thod]

China has always regarded itself as the middle of the Earth. There is nothing outside China but ghosts. It has very little interest in the conquest of Europe or the US. At best these places are sources of minerals and new gadgets for entertainment. Assign some minor official to trade with the savages that live there.

Chinas army may be large but that does not make it formidable. If they marched them into India they would not be able to supply them with food or bullets. It is defense oriented with little mobility outside China. As in Korea, faced with a million Chinese soldiers you nuke them. You cant win in a fire fight, but large numbers simply mean you fry more bodies instead of trees.

The reality of nukes is that everything is killable and there are no defenses. The US sailing around in it carrier fleets are a prime target. A single nuke takes out the whole fleet. The tidal waves alone will sink any ship 30 miles away. The future is not carriers but small submarines. Undetectable and dispersed they present poor targets whilst being immune from surface effects and protected by the water. The US is building carriers because they can carry more systems and do well in non nuclear battles. This makes them excellent for projection of power.

[acyckowski]

Sorry, got them confused with the OTHER China that sent millions of troops into South Korea. Toss in historical enmity with Russia, Japan, and a sense of cultural superiority, I just don't see how they're not involved if this WW touches the Asian continent or waterways.

Historically, China tends to take the long view....they don't prepare this year for something they want to do next year, they started preparing a generation ago. They are building themselves up into a military and economic superpower for SOME reason, I don't think it's about spreading the message of Confucius.

[TheLastMohican]

What? Are you implying otherwise? I'm in the same country as those... AHHHH! :scared:

Their barbed tails and crooked horns are a giveaway. When they are carrying their flaming pitchforks, there's no mistaking them from a mile off.

[Antares]

Historically, China tends to take the long view....they don't prepare this year for something they want to do next year, they started preparing a generation ago. They are building themselves up into a military and economic superpower for SOME reason, I don't think it's about spreading the message of Confucius.

Nope. Not Confucius. I think it's another word that starts with C though. I always thought they were overdoing the Olympics. There are posters and banners EVERYWHERE, along with their ugly panda mascots on one of the gold pins I received as a gift. Gold is good. Cartoon characters on gold is just childish. I'll melt that some day and make a gold keychain.

[integratedvelocity]

In the near future, I don't think there is any reason to be worried about China. I recall hearing that they only have a few weeks worth of oil stored, and you can bet the first thing the West would do is to cut off their oil supply. In contrast, the US has several months (even years?) of oil.

I would doubt that there is going to be a third world war. As countries become more interdependent economically (no one has a comparative advantage in everything), there will be less incentive to go to war. A government will have problems when they single-handedly destroy their citizens' purchasing power parity.

[thod]

Historically, China tends to take the long view....they don't prepare this year for something they want to do next year, they started preparing a generation ago. They are building themselves up into a military and economic superpower for SOME reason, I don't think it's about spreading the message of Confucius.

They don't have a good record though. From the Japanese kicking them in WW2, the Europeans forcing them into trade deals and taking land, Mongols and Tibetans sweeping in and taking over etc. Consider Kublai Khan who was Chinese by then. Lets attack Japan, his whole fleet sank. Invade Java, success only to have all his troops die of tropical disease. If history is anything to go by, China's great plan will be to attack Antarctica, riding camels, dressed as red indians.

[Santana28]

In the near future, I don't think there is any reason to be worried about China. I recall hearing that they only have a few weeks worth of oil stored, and you can bet the first thing the West would do is to cut off their oil supply. In contrast, the US has several months (even years?) of oil.

I would doubt that there is going to be a third world war. As countries become more interdependent economically (no one has a comparitive advantage in everything), there will be less incentive to go to war. A government will have problems when they single-handedly destroy their citizens' purchasing power parity.

i was thinking more along the lines of russian, iran, and china colluding to take back control of the entire middle east oil supply as a means of crippling the rest of the world and exerting their dominance. kinda like what the US is trying to do :) china may not be very offensively minded, but they will certainly take advantage of a good scenario if it presents itself. wait for Russia and Iran to take the lead, and China to provide the logistics and manpower.

[blueback]

Russia v Europe, just because they're the only ones with enough pull to get the rest of the world involved.

However, I think there is a reasonable probability of another world war happening but not through one of those options. If Peak Oil happens and the world is caught by suprise then the US might use it's military presence in the mid-east to control 60% of the world's remaining oil. Since China and India will be in desperate need of oil they might very well attempt to challenge the US's control of the mid-east. Europe might side with America or it might try to take the oil for itself. That has the potential to drag the rest of the world into the fight.

[thecraig]

WWIII could happen given any event that sufficiently destableizes the current geofinancial system and/or drasticlly and suddenly creates a power vaccuum.

1. I am not a global climate change alarmist, but if there were sufficient climate change to cause worldwide food shortages and suddenly desserts are blooming and forests are turning into desserts, some countries that were once well fed are now starving...

2. Pandemic disease wipes out a large population of the USA and europe or #3...

3. A madman gets control of 5 nuclear warheads and manages to detonate them in New York, Chicago, LA, Washington DC, and Houston TX. US econimy crumbles, world markets take serious hit/crash. The US can no longer afford to Police the world and pulls back forces from all foreign countries back to home creating a power vaccuum. Powers worldwide rush to fill vaccuum...

4. Somebody develops and demonstrates willingness to use a weapon that makes the Military powers that be obsolete.....

Just some ideas.

[ChfMojoRising]

I don't see how China could be dismissed given a seemingly strained relationship with America. I've heard it projected that the next "super power" is likely to be China as well. Given this, any direct fighting between the two could potential bring the world in.
Also figure:
China has been known to steal classified info from the US
are violently attacking an ally, Tibet

Hold strong economic sway over the world value of the dollar (debatable, but is strong leverage against us)

Have changed to course of events in the Korean and Vietnamese war against America thru violent means (at least, encouraging violence)

Also, given the ideological differences in governance, it seems possible to me to have another commie vs capitalist-pig war some day~ at least a cold one~ but in the event of a hot war, the battle would be too big not to include everyone.

[ShaiGar]

Europe vs USA

[meanlittlechimp]

I think the most likely event will be ignited between the US and an East Asian Nation.

[acyckowski]

I would doubt that there is going to be a third world war. As countries become more interdependent economically (no one has a comparative advantage in everything), there will be less incentive to go to war. A government will have problems when they single-handedly destroy their citizens' purchasing power parity.

Well, I didn't say they'd win....





acyckowski added to this post, 1 minutes and 11 seconds later...

Europe vs USA

...and about time, too. I'm tired of fighting in miserable backwaters. I hear Northern France is a lovely march.

[thod]

China has been known to steal classified info from the US

Thats the way the game is played. Everyone is spying on everyone else. You cant trust what the other guy says so you have spies for independent verification. They steal tech secrets too. The US does it. Take To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. for example.

are violently attacking an ally, Tibet

So when is the US going to hand back California, Texas etc unlawfully taken from Mexico.

Europe vs USA

Not a chance. They are too alike and they agree on most issues.

[ChfMojoRising]

Thats the way the game is played. Everyone is spying on everyone else.

This is true~ but Chinas exploits seem to go public, at least more so than anyone else's. I figure that causes more tension than if the public didn't know at all (or at least is kept secreted enough to seem unreasonable)

So when is the US going to hand back California, Texas etc unlawfully taken from Mexico.

Probably when Mexico decides to fight us for it and also beats us silly~ (of course, I don't believe that to happen.) But, we're not actively attacking them for control of their religion, forcing them from their lands.

[ShaiGar]

...and about time, too. I'm tired of fighting in miserable backwaters. I hear Northern France is a lovely march.


And I'd like to see the FFL against the US Rangers/Marines/Delta Force.

[acyckowski]

And I'd like to see the FFL against the US Rangers/Marines/Delta Force.

If nothing else, it would make for a great reality series on the Military Channel.

[ShaiGar]

Hell yes. The french, the only nation in the world willing to have a 1/10 death rate in their special forces training... and people say they're pansies.

[sriv]

I would rule out the possibility of ww3 being nuclear because everyone is afraid to use nukes on each other UNLESS extremists get their hands on it in which nuclear war will be imminent. War between Pakistan and India will never end. It will go on and off because of the mentality there. It probably will not create a ww3 situation, just local warfare. I think China is too conservative to go to war right now. It seems like the defensive powerhouse non-interventionist that America once was taking california, texas, nevada, arizona from Mexico. China is even using dollar diplomacy on US. The same tactics we used on multiple other countries back in the time.

[acyckowski]

Hell yes. The french, the only nation in the world willing to have a 1/10 death rate in their special forces training... and people say they're pansies.

The French are pansies. The Foreign Legion is made up of....well, foreigners.

[TheLastMohican]

The French are pansies.

It's bold to come out and say it like that, but...I agree. ;)

[dissident]

us and Israel vs. the rest of the world in my opinion. Our foreign policy is not the correct way to be going about things.

[Uberfuhrer]

You're forgetting the poll option "Me vs. the world."

[ShaiGar]

You're forgetting the poll option "Me vs. the world."

uh uh. Me vs. You vs. The World

[acyckowski]

It's bold to come out and say it like that, but...I agree. ;)

Perhaps, but if I were overly concerned about how the French would feel about me calling them pansies, I probably wouldn't be on this forum in the first place. ;D

[Sylvanus]

us and Israel vs. the rest of the world in my opinion. Our foreign policy is not the correct way to be going about things.

US and Israel aren't even foramally allies. We have signed no treaties saying we will back them up if we go to war.

I said India vs Pakistan, but I changed my mind as I thought about it. My theory is that Iran will get bolder just like Iraq did, and they will get their pee-pee's smacked, just like Saddam did, but it won't amount to a very big war. But India and Pakistan are right next to each other, and they hate each other and they both have substantial forces. They will fight, but it won't spread. No major players have a vested interest in either surviving or failing.

I don't know if we will ever go to war with China. We may hate their domestic policy, but they sell us loads of stuff for low prices. The only thing that may change this, is that as their economy grows, the prices will go up so we will rely less and less on their stuff, and it won't matter as much to us if we lose out on trading with them. Then they will get all hegemonic and of course everybody will be picking sides if that's the case.

[Riverratt]

With the way Muslims are taking over in Europe, thru breeding, and massively unchecked immigration.....

It is quite possible in 50 years or so, for the US to face down an "Islamified" Europe, with Russia as an US allie...shades of WWII all over again, with the deference of France, Great Britain and Spain as being the instigators. Instead of Nazi's marching all over, it will be the Jihad, as these islamified nations, go on "jihad" against all unbelievers....

Don't laugh, their birthrates far outstrip the "locals" it is only a matter of time, before they have enough clout, to start electing imams to political positions.

And with the military capabilities of France and Britain at these imam's disposal....lets just say, it wont be pretty. These nations, including Spain, is already buckling to them in many ways.

The numbers don't lie.....it will happen. :thumbsdown:

IMHO the Chinese are more interested in our money, than taking us over, as time goes on, they seem to be getting less and less militant, with the exception of the Taiwan issue.

India and Pakistan, is a largely a local issue, with "outsiders" being "unwelcome"

North Korea, is less than a paper tiger anymore, a few years ago, the South Koreans had some military exercises, near the DMZ, the North Koreans went on Alert, and rushed its military to the DMZ, to "face down the capitalists pigs"... It was a joke, what did not break down, on the way, or ran out of gas, ran out of gas, or broke down on the way BACK to the bases..It took the North Korean's MONTHS to pull back to the bases...:stunned: An army that has a hard time driving 50 miles or so, will have an impossible task "in attack" mode.

IMHO, the modern, and VERY well trained, and VERY well equipped South Korean military, could whip the NK Army single handed with ease. The only issue their is with China.

In summery, I do believe we are in for WW III, and it will be Muslims, against the "rest of us".

If you pay attention to "THEIR" news now, you will see that they already view it that way, we don't, we still view the world thru the rose colored glasses of political correctness, where things are NEVER seen as "black and white", but in shades of grey, and moral relativism. But they do not, it is all or nothing to them, but a few more 9/11's and we might wake up to the true nature of this threat.

[blueback]

Right. Do you expect the tens of millions of muslims in America to rise up and attempt to destabilize us from within while the muslim hordes in other places around the world put nuclear bombs in passenger jets and send them towards America?

I get the clash of civilizations thing, I even agree with it, but I think you're taking it a bit too far. Granted there are a bunch of muslims who hate the West, but most muslims are just normal people who want to live their lives. It's not like they become violent extremists just because they're born muslim.

[thod]

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called "religious rights."

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their "religious rights," they also get the other components under the table.Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2. 7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halaal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" -- the Isla mic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world. And all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, "The Haj"

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.


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

Islam was born in blood and requires it. Your premise is that if you are tolerant of Islam it will tolerate you. This is not the case try preaching Christianity in these places you will be arrested or attacked. Its 100% muslim and nothing else tolerated. Those few that do stay have to pay 25% of their income in infidel tax.

[Riverratt]

Right. Do you expect the tens of millions of muslims in America to rise up and attempt to destabilize us from within while the muslim hordes in other places around the world put nuclear bombs in passenger jets and send them towards America?

I get the clash of civilizations thing, I even agree with it, but I think you're taking it a bit too far. Granted there are a bunch of muslims who hate the West, but most muslims are just normal people who want to live their lives. It's not like they become violent extremists just because they're born muslim.

No, but I do expect trouble from Europe. and NO, they wont need to put it on a airliner, they will have the euro-fighter to do it, that aircraft is entering service right now.

Unless all these Muslims, that are taking over Europe, are of a "different stock" than the currently known "bloodthirsty" kind, that kill, maim, and explode nearly everywhere else Muslims are in the world in any strong numbers are.

Heck, just take note, about 99% of this world's current conflicts, are....

Muslim vs "somebody else"

It will happen, it is just a matter of time, their is no way around that fact......

[merid]

Muslim vs "somebody else"

Sounds to me like you really don't like Muslims. Have you ever thought that the somebody else might just be the cause?

As for countries adapting to Muslim culture I can see it. Recently the Archbishop of COE said we should have sharia law incorporated into ours. I personally think it is ridiculous. If you move to a country then you are moving to a culture and have to adapt to it. I wouldn't move to France if I couldn't speak french.

[OddFactor]

I think it depends on the person elected this fall.

[Antares]

In summery, I do believe we are in for WW III, and it will be Muslims, against the "rest of us".

Not exactly the 'rest of us'. I agree with your view on China's attitude; it's likely that she'd just sit and watch while the world fights on and earn money selling weapons to whom she perceives to be the winning side.

[Theodoric]

I think its probably going to come down to some kind of South East Asian war, probably India vs. China with Iran and Pakistan thrown into the mix. With their exploding economies they will start a huge resource grab. Probably at first attacking smaller countries but later escalating. Maybe add some Russian influence, along with Japanese nationalism and N. Korea taking advantage of the new instability in the region.

China also has been eying Taiwan for some time now. There is a reason why they have been building up their submarine divisions. A large scale war would be the perfect excuse and time to invade and start consolidating power while at the same time removing any threats: economic, political, or military wise. Throw in the Chinese animosity for practically every other country in Asia, Russia and Japan the most prominent, and you have the makings of the next world war.

I highly doubt the Middle Eastern countries will cause a large scale war. At present, they are either incredibly poor in both resources and militarily (Libya, Jordan) or are so well off and dependent on other countries that a war is not in their best interest (Saudi Arabia, the UAE). The few that are extremist are so short sighted and only interested in creating as much destruction as possible. Should Iran ever gain nuclear capabilities they will then finally be faced with either using their weapons and facing retaliation from every other country, or just sitting there saying 'We got Nukes too!'.

Africa right now not only has nothing, but no one is even interested in it, so the only thing we will see there is what has happened for the past century, ie massive starvation and internal conflicts.

Lastly, Europe and the US don't have the will or interest in getting into yet another large scale war. The worst thing that we could have happen is that due to US weariness and European pacifism most troops will be pulled back to their home countries, creating power vacuums across the world and prompting countries to pour billions into their own military.

[errrzarrr]

after reading all the post I only can say:
F*CK RELIGIONS!
They only push us to war and "justified" crimes.

[Riverratt]

after reading all the post I only can say:
F*CK RELIGIONS!
They only push us to war and "justified" crimes.

Their is allot of truth in that statement....

Just one question I would like to ask the gentle readers of this forum...

How many people have been killed, in the name of god???? The answer would probably be shocking. And yet, all religions talk about is how "peaceful" they are.

[errrzarrr]

Their is allot of truth in that statement....

Just one question I would like to ask the gentle readers of this forum...

How many people have been killed, in the name of god???? The answer would probably be shocking. And yet, all religions talk about is how "peaceful" they are.
How many? oh!!! COUNTLESS amount of people.

[merid]

You have to take into account those that commit war in the name of religion as an excuse. It is all good saying that religion causes wars but no one has pointed out that that is the case.

[ShaiGar]

I doubt wars over resources are going to remain very popular. It's more intelligent to look to other forms of resources instead.

[antisocial one]

What do you say about this.

South America vs. North America

From current situation it does not seem impossble.

[merid]

I doubt wars over resources are going to remain very popular

If resources are found on the moon or mars, I think there will be a space race to exploit them. It is human nature.

South America vs. North America

Depending on how it occured, I doubt it would be a world war.

[thod]

If resources are found on the moon or mars, I think there will be a space race to exploit them. It is human nature.

The Moon's surface contains helium-3 at concentrations on the order of 0.01 ppm.[19][20] A number of people, starting with Gerald Kulcinski in 1986,[21] have proposed to explore the moon, mine lunar regolith and using the helium-3 for fusion. Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any mining equipment would need to process large amounts of regolith,[22] and some proposals have suggested that helium-3 extraction be piggybacked onto a larger mining and development operation.[citation needed]

Cosmochemist and geochemist Ouyang Ziyuan from the Chinese Academy of Sciences who is now in charge of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program has already stated on many occasions that one of the main goals of the program would be the mining of helium-3, from where "each year three space shuttle missions could bring enough fuel for all human beings across the world."[23]

In January 2006 the Russian space company RKK Energiya announced that it considers lunar helium-3 a potential economic resource to be mined by 2020,[24] if funding can be found.[25][26]


This will be the next gold rush with robotic miners under remote control.

[Metafire]

I voted for "there will be no other world war", but I just thought about one possibility: Japan will invade China with battle robots. Then Japan will attack and conquer Russia. Then Europe. And finally nipponized Eurasia will defeat America. Don't underestimate the power of Sushi!

[MrEPenguin]

Probably some sort kind of war between Asia, the mid-east, & Europe. With a few African and South American wars thrown in for good measure.

[errrzarrr]

I doubt wars over resources are going to remain very popular. It's more intelligent to look to other forms of resources instead.

You need to read Robert Malthus and his theory about Population growth vs. Resources, then. I recommend it!

and he gives me another reason to think that abort and population control is not a vain whim, but a OBLIGATION. And I wonder why X-tian religion try to FORCE people, goverments and medics to not use condoms and not practice abort.

[Beery Swine]

None of the above. Mid-east Islam vs the world. Maybe America vs the world. Mid-east is dumber but America has the technology.

[Hagbard]

My vote goes to China+Allies vs. USA+Allies.
Probably over access to natural ressources, after a long
and profitable cold war.

[thod]

The US decides its time to divert attention from its failing economy and use its oversize military.

It invades Iran and Syria. Cue the redneck, "we'll show those towel headed sand n*****s that God is on our side". It becomes bogged down in these places.

Seeing the pattern Saudi decides that it is next and cuts off all oil to the US. The US responds by invading it in an attempt to control the oil fields. These are promptly destroyed by small groups of 'terrorists' blowing up the well heads.

The call for Jihad goes out in the Muslim world seeing their lands so invaded. The north African and Egyptians join in on the East and Pakistanis from the west. The US now spread so thin decides to use nukes to stop them.

Oil pressures at home means they drill the arctic reserve and try to run a pipe through Canada. The Canadians wishing to remain neutral object and dont allow it. The US invades Canada to grab its resources.

The Russians see their chance and supply arms and nukes to the Muslims to help destroy the Yanks. They succeed and the American forces supply lines are cut.

After negotiations the captured troops are returned and the US goes into a sulk. Nobody will trade with it and its embargoed. They shout we are independent now and free from foreign oil, its great in the land of liberty.

[Aronnax]

Fighting a modern war consumes and destroys more resources and infrastructure than you can recover, it's far more cost effective to trade. I don't see the developed armies getting involved in a large military conflict again. Perhaps currency and information warfare but not armed conflict, there's too little to gain and too much to lose.

[meanlittlechimp]

The US decides its time to divert attention from its failing economy and use its oversize military.


I could actually see what you said coming to bear if McCain wins. Everything except for the invasion of Canada - I think they'll fall in line with whatever we do. Even if they didn't, the US isn't as keen on attacking white people for trivial reasons. It's not as easy to dehumanize them. We would have never dropped napalm on the Swedes (like Vietnam), even if they elected a communist.

I could see the Russians and Chinese allying if the US gets more imperialistic. The Chinese need the oil far more than the Russians do, since they're growth rates are so high and the fact Russia is a major oil exporter (unlike the Chinese). They could make up for the loss of trade with the U.S, with China - the fastest growing economy in the world.

Also, I don't think we would nuke them. The radioactive fallout would piss off a lot more people than the Middle East. It would be like Hitler invading Poland. Nuking them would make almost the entire world see us as the biggest threat to world stability. Which they already do (according to European polls), but that would put us another level.

Even the Christian Right would probably against nuking..... actually they probably wouldn't.

[Beery Swine]

The US decides its time to divert attention from its failing economy and use its oversize military.

It invades Iran and Syria. Cue the redneck, "we'll show those towel headed sand n*****s that God is on our side". It becomes bogged down in these places.

Seeing the pattern Saudi decides that it is next and cuts off all oil to the US. The US responds by invading it in an attempt to control the oil fields. These are promptly destroyed by small groups of 'terrorists' blowing up the well heads.

The call for Jihad goes out in the Muslim world seeing their lands so invaded. The north African and Egyptians join in on the East and Pakistanis from the west. The US now spread so thin decides to use nukes to stop them.

Oil pressures at home means they drill the arctic reserve and try to run a pipe through Canada. The Canadians wishing to remain neutral object and dont allow it. The US invades Canada to grab its resources.

The Russians see their chance and supply arms and nukes to the Muslims to help destroy the Yanks. They succeed and the American forces supply lines are cut.

After negotiations the captured troops are returned and the US goes into a sulk. Nobody will trade with it and its embargoed. They shout we are independent now and free from foreign oil, its great in the land of liberty.

I'm posting your entire reply because I think it's quite compelling and well thought-out and because I'm hoping that more people will read it the more it's posted. I'll definitely remember this scenario. Something very similar may happen in the near future.