Hi, newby here, Just thought I'd join in and make an abstract comment. Here is my take on it: WW3? Yes, gonna happen. In my lifetime: Hope not! When it comes to nations a Armys, Navy's, Air force's, Police, FBI, etc, it all boils down to this question: Do you have the infrastructure (supply, maintance, food, water, amuniton, etc) to take care of your forces? China has a MASSIVE military. (Weak Navy, mediocre Air Force) Can they invade a foreign country? Absolutely! 2 or 3 or 4? Absolutely! But can they sustain thier misson: Domination of the continent, possily more? I think not. A small country with a small miltary force (50-100,00) that is well INTFRASTUCTED, could repel them. Just a note on who I am: Former US Marine (E8), MOS: 0331: 0341, 21 years. Now part of the infrastructure in S. Koea and proud of it!
WW3?
- Thread starter mcgbilly
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
You didn't need to post this twice
What criteria do you think provide the 'inexorable convergence' to world war? I realise there's alot of tension in alot of regions of the world, but which of them is going to spark the next global conflict and why?
'Yes, gonna happen' is a bit of an internet sandwich board proclaiming the end is nigh - why though?
Anyone can invade a foreign country. China certainly can, the question is, who would she tie up with or does she just intend to break out and take on everybody? The Russians would give her a stiff fight, that would buy NATO alot of time. With NATO on board, Tibet might see an opportunity to become a real domestic pain in the ass.
With ground forces tied up by Russia and NATO, Tibet causing all manner of sh*t back home, massively long logistics lines, a beleaguered airforce having trouble defending itself let alone the ground forces they are supposed to be protecting, I'd have to question China's resolve; they've never invaded anybody before, have no experience of global warfare where THEY are holding one set of reins and are facing seasoned NATO troops with a very unambiguous mission and public support 100% on their side. Therein lies another potential banana skin for the Chinese, public dissent back home for an 'unjust' war and an inherent excuse for large-scale anti-government agitation to overthrow the incumbent dictatorship.
Last edited:
Butters
Senior Airman
Why would the Chinese bother to engage in the risky game of military adventurism? Say what you want about them, but they aren't dummies. Or so impatient as to take such rash actions.
Naw, if they want to take over another country, all they have to do is wait a little while longer. Then they can just move in and buy it. A bargain compared to what it costs to take and hold an uncooperative nation by military means. Just ask the US... ;o)
JL
Naw, if they want to take over another country, all they have to do is wait a little while longer. Then they can just move in and buy it. A bargain compared to what it costs to take and hold an uncooperative nation by military means. Just ask the US... ;o)
JL
You are looking at the wrong nation. WW3 will be European and Middle Eastern, with a bit of Russia mixed in.
On another note the US war bill for the whole Iraq war doesn't even equal up to our spending for welfare for one year. But then again we are not trying to hold an uncooperative country. Europe has much more experience in that field.
On another note the US war bill for the whole Iraq war doesn't even equal up to our spending for welfare for one year. But then again we are not trying to hold an uncooperative country. Europe has much more experience in that field.
Where do you expect in Europe for it to break out? I don't see anything happening in Europe anytime in the near future, except for possibly some regional conflicts down in the Balkans.
I really don't expect WW3 at all in the near future. But I don't think it will be in the Pacific. Probably the ME but will involve Europe.
But with the current amount of nuclear weapons in the world, there might not be another world war for a very long time. Nukes make world wars more unlikely.
But with the current amount of nuclear weapons in the world, there might not be another world war for a very long time. Nukes make world wars more unlikely.
chip haehnel
Airman
Yer all off base. The trigger will be Bolivian aspirations for Peruvian resources. Ignore CA and SA at your peril capitalist pigs.ch
Maximowitz
Tech Sergeant
They're after the cocaine?
I think in the near future a vast military defence computer system will become sentient, triggering a war between man and machine. A leader of the human resistance will become the target of a cyborg sent back in time to kill his mother before he can be born..
Wow. That would make a great film script.
chip haehnel
Airman
lol..............huh? pick some clothes out of the closet and please take my motorcycle. California? Head towards the setting sun and stop when the water tastes salty.
What are you talking about?
Ferdinand Foch
Staff Sergeant
Of course I have seen Terminator but this is just not ringing a bell...
DBII
Senior Master Sergeant
DBII
Ferdinand Foch
Staff Sergeant
Of course I have seen Terminator but this is just not ringing a bell...
Oh right.
Vassili Zaitzev
Master Sergeant
I highly doubt that's there going to be a Third World War, at least not in my lifetime. I can't think of any major power wanting to trigger a nuclear war. And if China does try a convential war, they have the numbers, but not the logistics to sustain themselves.
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
Let me put in my 2 cents.
I do not think there will be a third world 'war' but I believe that the FIRST WORLD CONFLICT may have already begun.
The detailed background is far too long to give her. I will simply say that those who have read Professor Philip Chase Bobbit's two books, 'The Shield of Achilles' and 'Terror and Consent' will know what I am talking about.
The premise is simple. As the world grows more globalized and evolves into different forms of the 'market state' conflicts that previously happened BETWEEN nations now will happen WITHIN nations.
Thus in the future I do not see nations squaring off against nations. I do, however, see TRANSNATIONAL IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS fighting global wars WITHIN nations.
Think about that. forum members. Think long and deep, for I strongly suspect you will see this in your lifetimes.
I do not think there will be a third world 'war' but I believe that the FIRST WORLD CONFLICT may have already begun.
The detailed background is far too long to give her. I will simply say that those who have read Professor Philip Chase Bobbit's two books, 'The Shield of Achilles' and 'Terror and Consent' will know what I am talking about.
The premise is simple. As the world grows more globalized and evolves into different forms of the 'market state' conflicts that previously happened BETWEEN nations now will happen WITHIN nations.
Thus in the future I do not see nations squaring off against nations. I do, however, see TRANSNATIONAL IDEOLOGICAL GROUPS fighting global wars WITHIN nations.
Think about that. forum members. Think long and deep, for I strongly suspect you will see this in your lifetimes.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
It might be
but I'm still not sure what you mean. The only intra-national conflict that I can think of related to market state would be some radical polarisation of rich vs poor; are you suggesting some modern-day October Revolution?
That second sentence, not sure what's going on there. I don't wish to sound demeaning, but what do you mean?
You haven't convinced me that the biggest threat to world security/stability ISN'T fundamentalist terrorism and esp fundamentalist terrorism where it borders a not-as-stable-as-we'd-like nuclear power. For good measure, throw in a couple of wannabee mad-dogs who are seeking nuclear power.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Do they do small world wars?
If it's not fought in Europe, technically, is that still a world war? It's difficult to envisage Europe ducking any world war under current circumstances. Unfortunately, it's the European flavour of 'Western infidel' that is geographically attached to potential troublemakers so it's a small step to assume that that's probably what they're going to strike at.
They will likely attempt to strike at the US flavour with further inland terrorist attacks and may conceivably succeed but it would be devilishly difficult post-9/11. Any attempt at territorial incursion would be laughably stupid.
Using the term 'Western infidel' makes it seem easy to see where I'm pointing the finger, to be honest, it's difficult to put a face or a shape or a form to any potential aggressor on a world scale, I've really got no idea who it could be but I have a strong feeling fundamentalist terrorism would play a leading role.
Flyboy2
Senior Airman
You know its interesting but I remember reading something were a history professor stated that the Cold War was in fact World War III because for the most part the whole world was effected by it and/or participated in it. He used the fact that World War I wasn't called a world war until after the fact to state that in the future we could see the Cold War being known as World War III. I thought it was an interesting point and definately made alot of sense. I lost him however when he stated that the "War on Terror" is World War IV because most of the world is in some way involved in it. Just some interesting theories.
Of course, Einstein did say "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
Of course, Einstein did say "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"