Who Do You Think Will Be Involved In World War 3?

antiair

New Member
..

That is one of the more absurd statements I have read on this site...
I can only hope the moderator removes it forthwith.
why? He has a point. all Israel does is to cause problems. They keep performing their little "ILLEGAL" stunts; attacking/seizing a foreign nations ships in "INTERNATIONAL WATERS", claiming a territory only by force, without legitimate proof (well they count The Old Testament as a legitimate source but it's not an internationally excepted law, Montreux is though...)...

And the US, well they came all the way from the other side of the world to restore "AMERICAN DEMOCRACY" to Iraq. They tried the "nuclear weapons card" first, that didn't work out, and all of a sudden, they had this ardour, this noble urge to restore democracy to the single oil-rich nation in the world (excpt Russia) who refuses to sell them cheap oil. Interesting, it's really America's place to restore democracy to a indipendant country, yeah right, give me a break... Does that mean any country who doesn't like another's government can simply attack it? I don't think so. Almost every war in the world is currently fought by the USA, again, it seems like the right country to start a world war, considering that "war" in our world is shaped by her... Afghanistan is an honest, straightforward war, i mean u have the right to defend yourself against a country who has attacked you, but other than that....

One last thing;
"I can only hope the moderator removes it forthwith"
A bit racist isn't it? This thread is a hypothetical discussion, he/she has every right to express his idea without insulting (please don't twist the meaning of the word "insult") anyone/any nation. You might personally be offended due to personal sensitivity issues, but that's no reason to remove a message if it doesn't contain any inapropriate statements...
 

zenith_suv

New Member
It could be between India and China given that they have simmering land disputes among a spate of other differences and a history of War in 1962.
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
How can you found a hypothetical statement again?
Anti air, the guy you are defending said that the U.S and Israel will be( well according to him must be) involved in WW3. Here's my question,suppose, if the war is between the U.S and China, where does Israel come into the equation. Or if the War is between the U.S and just say Russia( very small chance of that happening any time soon) where again does Israel come from. If it is between India and Pakistan and China how should Israel get involved.

If he had explained in his post the reasons why believes that "the U.S and Israel must be involved in WW3" and if his reasons were good and debatable, then I would be happy to discuss more about his prediction. But he just posted 2 lines giving no explanation what so ever for his post and left it hanging. At the same time he labelled the U.S as a rogue country, if some one called Turkey that you would be pissed, and if some one called Bangladesh a rogue state I would be pissed too.

Though I do agree with you that the U.S will probably start WW3. And I too think that their invasion of Iraq was unjustified.
 

Jissy

New Member
why? He has a point. all Israel does is to cause problems. They keep performing their little "ILLEGAL" stunts; attacking/seizing a foreign nations ships in "INTERNATIONAL WATERS", claiming a territory only by force, without legitimate proof (well they count The Old Testament as a legitimate source but it's not an internationally excepted law, Montreux is though...)...

And the US, well they came all the way from the other side of the world to restore "AMERICAN DEMOCRACY" to Iraq. They tried the "nuclear weapons card" first, that didn't work out, and all of a sudden, they had this ardour, this noble urge to restore democracy to the single oil-rich nation in the world (excpt Russia) who refuses to sell them cheap oil. Interesting, it's really America's place to restore democracy to a indipendant country, yeah right, give me a break... Does that mean any country who doesn't like another's government can simply attack it? I don't think so. Almost every war in the world is currently fought by the USA, again, it seems like the right country to start a world war, considering that "war" in our world is shaped by her... Afghanistan is an honest, straightforward war, i mean u have the right to defend yourself against a country who has attacked you, but other than that....

One last thing;
"I can only hope the moderator removes it forthwith"
A bit racist isn't it? This thread is a hypothetical discussion, he/she has every right to express his idea without insulting (please don't twist the meaning of the word "insult") anyone/any nation. You might personally be offended due to personal sensitivity issues, but that's no reason to remove a message if it doesn't contain any inapropriate statements...
On your "a bit racist isn't it?" comment, I am not a racist, I responded to a comment made without any supporting argument which sounded very bigoted. And your own facile argument, betrays your own prejudices. Before calling someone a else racist, have a good hard look in the mirror...
 

antiair

New Member
..

Anti air, the guy you are defending said that the U.S and Israel will be( well according to him must be) involved in WW3. Here's my question,suppose, if the war is between the U.S and China, where does Israel come into the equation. Or if the War is between the U.S and just say Russia( very small chance of that happening any time soon) where again does Israel come from. If it is between India and Pakistan and China how should Israel get involved.

If he had explained in his post the reasons why believes that "the U.S and Israel must be involved in WW3" and if his reasons were good and debatable, then I would be happy to discuss more about his prediction. But he just posted 2 lines giving no explanation what so ever for his post and left it hanging. At the same time he labelled the U.S as a rogue country, if some one called Turkey that you would be pissed, and if some one called Bangladesh a rogue state I would be pissed too.

Though I do agree with you that the U.S will probably start WW3. And I too think that their invasion of Iraq was unjustified.
Well first of all a war between China and the US, or between Russia and the US wouldn't be a world war, it would be "a war". Now you might have meant to suggest that other nations would follow after such huge conflicts; Russia vs. US = Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc. make alliances with Russia, Israel allies with the US. We have seen about the same thing during the cold war, especially after the Munich massacre... To sum it up, if the US goes to war with any big eastern nation, rebellious Arab nations and terrorist groups(believe me they count, if u watch the news, you have seen the secret files delivered to the press about Afghanistan and Taliban, they are stronger than ever and Nato and Us troops are in a mess...) join the eastern nation, so Israel joins the US, it's inevitable...

Ok i concur, he should've explained, but not explaining isn't a valid reason to remove a message. I'm sorry but the US government is the reason why our world is such a mess at the moment, even economically... So i don't see how callng a country, who "just attacks" any country she wants, rogue is wrong. If u have a counter-thesis, i would like to hear it.

One last thing, i didn't call you racist, i thought your comment sounded racist, i still do.
"And your own facile argument, betrays your own prejudices"; Would you care to explain?
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
Well first of all a war between China and the US, or between Russia and the US wouldn't be a world war, it would be "a war". Now you might have meant to suggest that other nations would follow after such huge conflicts; Russia vs. US = Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc. make alliances with Russia, Israel allies with the US. We have seen about the same thing during the cold war, especially after the Munich massacre... To sum it up, if the US goes to war with any big eastern nation, rebellious Arab nations and terrorist groups(believe me they count, if u watch the news, you have seen the secret files delivered to the press about Afghanistan and Taliban, they are stronger than ever and Nato and Us troops are in a mess...) join the eastern nation, so Israel joins the US, it's inevitable...

Ok i concur, he should've explained, but not explaining isn't a valid reason to remove a message. I'm sorry but the US government is the reason why our world is such a mess at the moment, even economically... So i don't see how callng a country, who "just attacks" any country she wants, rogue is wrong. If u have a counter-thesis, i would like to hear it.
Dude if it is a war between the U.S and Russia or between the U.S and China ( very small chance of either happening) IT WILL BE A WORLD WAR!!!!
Russia and U.S combined have more than 80% of the World's nuclear weapons and their war will turn nuclear and when it does, we are talking about nuclear holocaust or an Apocalypse, decades of Nuclear winter. The world as we know it will come to an end.
The Sino-American war could go the same way but maybe not so drastically.

The U.S is currently fighting 2 wars and like i said before the Iraq war is not justified in any way.
But in my point of view the Afghan war is. If a country sheltered the very organisation that killed thousands of my brothers and practically declared war on us then If my country had the military capability then we would declare war on that country too.

Now this being an international forum, there are many American members here, and they would get pissed when their country is being called a rogue state, like I told you in my previous post.
 

Jissy

New Member
Communism a failed poltical system was responsible for 93 million deaths.

Estimated number of victims
The introduction, by editor Stéphane Courtois, asserts that "...Communist regimes...turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government". He cites a death toll which totals 94 million, not counting the "excess deaths" (decrease of the population due to lower than-expected birth rates). The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows:

65 million in the People's Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union[3]
2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
1.7 million in Africa
1.5 million in Afghanistan
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1 million in Vietnam[4]
150,000 in Latin America
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."(p. 4)


compared to Russia and China USA is just not in the race when it comes to body counts.
Add to that, Indonesia, in actions it has taken in Timor, Irian Jaya (was West papua) and Papua. Estimates put the deaths at well over 250,000 in West Papua/Irian Jaya alone.
 

Locarnus

New Member
The U.S is currently fighting 2 wars and like i said before the Iraq war is not justified in any way.
But in my point of view the Afghan war is. If a country sheltered the very organisation that killed thousands of my brothers and practically declared war on us then If my country had the military capability then we would declare war on that country too.

Now this being an international forum, there are many American members here, and they would get pissed when their country is being called a rogue state, like I told you in my previous post.
Same rights for all.
Countries were publically called rogue states by the US Gov, which did not start an unjustified war within recent history.
Then by all means a country starting (and continue to fight) an unjustified war with tens of thousands of civilian deaths (over)qualifies for the term rogue state.
Applying simple logic you could say that the US Gov implicitly characterized the US to be a rogue state.

That does not mean, that I concur with the US Gov definition of a rogue state. Or that I call the US or other countries rogue states.
I cant help it that the US Gov defines a term, and that the US fits the definition of that term...

If a US citizen has a problem with the US being called a rogue state, this person has to speak to the US Gov for redifining the term "rogue state".
 

justone

Banned Member
What countries do you guys think are going to be involved in World War 3? I really would like an opinion from some of the members here on this board if you guys wouldn't mind sharing.
Right now you don't have too many alliance except NATO. So it's kind of differcult to put who going be on sides in a major war like WW III. If China start a new alliance in the Asia area where fighting could start with the U.S. that could developed into WW III. But right now there is no way you can list what sides would be in WW III. Really I don't see a World War III until China developed more. Also you need other countries to start to catch up to get to the level for a war like World War III that my opinion. Still other countries hasn't developed yet. It's about same as when World War II was going on. You had Europe, (Russia), and U.S. right now no one else is close to them. And when you look at World War II it was fighting among Europeans you had Japan at the other end against China and Pacific area. China getting there but they still growing. I can't forget about India and they are rising too.
 
Last edited:

Jissy

New Member
Well first of all a war between China and the US, or between Russia and the US wouldn't be a world war, it would be "a war". Now you might have meant to suggest that other nations would follow after such huge conflicts; Russia vs. US = Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc. make alliances with Russia, Israel allies with the US. We have seen about the same thing during the cold war, especially after the Munich massacre... To sum it up, if the US goes to war with any big eastern nation, rebellious Arab nations and terrorist groups(believe me they count, if u watch the news, you have seen the secret files delivered to the press about Afghanistan and Taliban, they are stronger than ever and Nato and Us troops are in a mess...) join the eastern nation, so Israel joins the US, it's inevitable...

Ok i concur, he should've explained, but not explaining isn't a valid reason to remove a message. I'm sorry but the US government is the reason why our world is such a mess at the moment, even economically... So i don't see how callng a country, who "just attacks" any country she wants, rogue is wrong. If u have a counter-thesis, i would like to hear it.

One last thing, i didn't call you racist, i thought your comment sounded racist, i still do.
"And your own facile argument, betrays your own prejudices"; Would you care to explain?
Firstly, explain why my response was racist?
I was objecting to a generalised and unsubstantiated statement which was not elaborated upon, still has not been, and so looks very much like it was, just an anti-semitic anti-American jibe! One can be critical of Israel, (such as todays events in bulldozing a Bedouin village) and even of America, (more particularly under Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) but to just say they are the reason for the world's ills, without putting forward a realistic argument, is a classic stance used by bigots.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Guys, play nice and stop the name calling. Try to post logically and for those who have not, kindly read the Forum Rules. It is preferred that if you make statements there is some basis for it. Don't make the Mod Team come into this thread to issue more warnings and to delete more posts than necessary. We are trying to give you guys leeway but please do not abuse our patience by engaging in flame bating of other forum members. Further don't use this thread as a soap box solely to bash people of other nationalities (that is just immature).

Everyone in this thread, you have 48 hours to review and modify your posts before I come in and start cleaning up. If I have to do that, there will be consequences for those who have misbehaved.

If you feel you have over reacted, just delete the text of your post and say "Mods please remove this post". In that case, I'll just delete the post and no further action will be taken against you.

Please don't make the Mod Team take out the ban hammer. If the quality of discussion remains at the same poor level and I will consider closing the thread.

@antiair and Jissy, if a person is behaving in a racist manner or is violating forum rules, just report post rather than replying to it (it's the 'flag' button on the bottom left of the screen at the end of each post). The Mods will then issue warnings and/or administer the appropriate sanctions (which may include a permanent ban).

In this case, antiair, you are crying wolf and making a false accusation with regards to Jissy's post. You have 48 hours to modify your posts (to remove such accusations) before I take further action against you.

OPSSG
 
Last edited:

Jissy

New Member
thanks Mod Team!

Guys, play nice and stop the name calling. Try to post logically and for those who have not, kindly read the Forum Rules. It is preferred that if you make statements there is some basis for it. Don't make the Mod Team come into this thread to issue more warnings and to delete more posts than necessary. We are trying to give you guys leeway but please do not abuse our patience by engaging in flame bating of other forum members. Further don't use this thread as a soap box solely to bash people of other nationalities (that is just immature).

Everyone in this thread, you have 48 hours to review and modify your posts before I come in and start cleaning up. If I have to do that, there will be consequences for those who have misbehaved.

If you feel you have over reacted, just delete the text of your post and say "Mods please remove this post". In that case, I'll just delete the post and no further action will be taken against you.

Please don't make the Mod Team take out the ban hammer. If the quality of discussion remains at the same poor level and I will consider closing the thread.

@antiair and Jissy, if a person is behaving in a racist manner or is violating forum rules, just report post rather than replying to it (it's the 'flag' button on the bottom left of the screen at the end of each post). The Mods will then issue warnings and/or administer the appropriate sanctions (which may include a permanent ban).

In this case, antiair, you are crying wolf and making a false accusation with regards to Jissy's post. You have 48 hours to modify your posts (to remove such accusations) before I take further action against you.

OPSSG
Thanks for the support and the advice.

Next time I will do as requested and 'push the button'! ...hehe!
 

chrisdef

New Member
While i realise alot of other Australians on here disagree i believe Australia could be targetted in the next 20 odd years by one of our regional up and coming superpowers ie India or China which could lead to a world war. The tricky bit is either could be our enemy but either could also jump into the conflict to help protect us (or more to the point there access to what we have).

I also have to comment on the whole US thing, while i agree they have done alot of good around the world they have also done alot of bad and have to point out to those saying "Americans dont like being called a rogue state" that i seriously doubt those from other countries that Americans call rogue states who post on here would be very happy either. Bit hypocritical there.

Good work mods on keeping out the flaming and one liners though and keeping the discussion civil.
 

Jissy

New Member
While i realise alot of other Australians on here disagree i believe Australia could be targetted in the next 20 odd years by one of our regional up and coming superpowers ie India or China which could lead to a world war. The tricky bit is either could be our enemy but either could also jump into the conflict to help protect us (or more to the point there access to what we have).

I also have to comment on the whole US thing, while i agree they have done alot of good around the world they have also done alot of bad and have to point out to those saying "Americans dont like being called a rogue state" that i seriously doubt those from other countries that Americans call rogue states who post on here would be very happy either. Bit hypocritical there.

Good work mods on keeping out the flaming and one liners though and keeping the discussion civil.
Some how I seriously doubt Oz and India would be at loggerheads. I also doubt China would really want to antagonise the USA by attacking Oz. USA has a lot of reasons to make sure Oz stays as it is, free and a close ally with intel share etc.

But, there is a possibility that another expansionist nation in the SE Asia area might go too far and usurp another smaller nation, in part or whole, which has a treaty with Oz. Now that might complicate things.

cheers

jay
 

rip

New Member
“Only the dead have seen the end of war.” Plato.

Wow, you guy are all over the place on this thread. I do think however, that the subject of the possibility of a word war three is a very real one that we can profit by considering its possible causes and methods of development. The questions of, who and why, it could start are interesting but if it dose someday comes to pass, it will be both unplanned and will start as a gradual collections of misjudgments by various people that lead up to a confrontation nobody really wanted.

As just one of the many possibilities, a war starts between two or more important powers lasting longer than it was thought it would last and other nations who would at first not wish to get involved, will eventually for a large range of different reasons, slowly get dragged into it by the naturally evolving destructive side effects of prolonged warfare starting at first solely from tactical considerations that will have unexpected political results. But as the war drags on the increasing desperate actors will as a consequence of their economic and political actions, in their effort to peruse their war to a successful conclusion, will disrupt trade routs, cause shortages, damage relations, create panic in comedies and financial markets, and my favorite one of all, attack neutral parities ether by mistake or by design. When world war one started, could anyone be sure that the USA and Japan would automatically be involved or that Italy would change sides? So the stack up of nations that most of you are using in you line ups are somewhat fanciful.

Let try to look at the subject logically if we can. The way we wish that our national leaders would need to look at it assuming that they are sane.

The issue of the first use of nuclear weapons must be discussed before anything else because nuclear war is an animal we do not know how to fight and win. Since just a single nuclear weapon can, when detonated over just one large city, kill millions of people, can any conceivable material gain to any country be great enough to justify the use of nuclear force solely for the purposes of gain to any sane leader, even a very aggressive one? I am not counting within the camp of sane leader’s ether the North Korea’s maniacs and at least some parts of the leadership of Iran. A sane leadership would only employ nuclear weapons first, if they were facing the emendate loss of their own national sovereignty or in direct response to the use or the eliminate launchin, of like weapons in retaliation. Nuclear weapons are defensive weapons of very last resort t oany sane leaders.

So if we assume some sanity, war (which is politics conducted by other means) is not originally intended even by the aggressor (the leaders which are unsatisfied with the current version of the peace and want desperately to change it to a new version) is intended to be conducted by non-nuclear means to pursueresonable objectives at reasonable cost. A war they think will not automatically escalate to the nuclear or world level but will never-the-less be beneficial to them in the end. But miscalculations will occur.

As a hypnotically example only, I am not predicting that this will ever come to pass but I am just using it as a thought experiment on how leaders would rational think but yet still fail too think hard enough to prevent nuclear war or even a new word war with out setting out to do so.
If India and China fail to settle their northern border disputes, one or the other might decides to send in the troops. There could be a lot of fighting, a lot of lives could be lost and much nation prestige would be put at risk, but will it go nuclear? No. For just one nuclear warhead detonated over ether Shanghai or Mumbai could never be justified to their own people by ether the gain or the lost of a few hundred square miles of poor stark mountains that most people will never see or carevery much about. BUT.

Let us say that India, using its geographical advantage, decides to block all the commerce coming from the Indian Ocean to China. Now other peoples are getting involved, their ships, their vital commerce are now getting hurt, how would they start lining up and picking sides? Would new alliances be formed, old grudges settled, would some countries not naturally involved start fishing in troubled waters looking for some kind of advantages?
 

chrisdef

New Member
Some how I seriously doubt Oz and India would be at loggerheads. I also doubt China would really want to antagonise the USA by attacking Oz. USA has a lot of reasons to make sure Oz stays as it is, free and a close ally with intel share etc.

But, there is a possibility that another expansionist nation in the SE Asia area might go too far and usurp another smaller nation, in part or whole, which has a treaty with Oz. Now that might complicate things.

cheers

jay
Why not India and Australia, we arent exactly best buddies basically our relationship is based on trading, check back through history and plenty of trading partners have gone to war. I think as resources dwindle and become more expensive it would become more likely.

Given 10-20 years with the way there military is building up i seriously doubt China will care one bit what the US thinks.
And im not even certain the US would help anyway, if you look at the costs involved in fighting its 2 current wars a war with China would just about send them bankrupt, and again looking back at history the US was happy to stay out of WW2 untill it was attacked itself, if not for Pearl Harbour they may never of got involved.
 

Jissy

New Member
Why not India and Australia, we arent exactly best buddies basically our relationship is based on trading, check back through history and plenty of trading partners have gone to war. I think as resources dwindle and become more expensive it would become more likely.

Given 10-20 years with the way there military is building up i seriously doubt China will care one bit what the US thinks.
And im not even certain the US would help anyway, if you look at the costs involved in fighting its 2 current wars a war with China would just about send them bankrupt, and again looking back at history the US was happy to stay out of WW2 untill it was attacked itself, if not for Pearl Harbour they may never of got involved.
Interesting responses!
I believe we have a deeper realtionship with India than you give credit for, socially, trade yes, sporting wise, and we have fought the same enemies together.

As for taking Oz resources, well that would be an interesting scenario, as we are a long way off from India, and surrounded by sea...

Besides, when WW2 was on, initially we did not even figure on the radar of any other nation, except Britain, who just wanted our troops for front line fodder, same for WW1.

Things are vastly different today, as you may be able to discern by some of the comments made by the defence profs here...

For one, USA has a huge investment in Oz, mining minerals are just the start, then there is eschelon and all our intel bases etc... the US would not like it one bit if some other nation tried to take over their shared assets and admittedly, somewhat by default, Oz itself. Besides, we have a security treaty with the US.

So, no, I think the idea of war with India is absurd.

As for China and the US not being able to afford another war, you may not realize this, but the USA does not make most of its money out of fridges and ovens... (def profs here correct me if I am wrong) but armaments are USA's top dollar earner, and war is the best environment for sales.

Besides the fact that, as a bonus, if China and the USA went to loggerheads, the US would benefit most, as once it won, and it will, it would write off the financial (paper) debt it owes to China!

However, going on the years since the Cold War's announced "end" (don't believe it) big countries tend to pick wars with smaller countries that do not have their back covered, like Iraq, Afghanistan, and who knows who next...

From what I hear, our (Oz) back is well and truly covered.

I do note, however, after reading many Indian sites, that the growing pride and resultant nationalism within India (and indeed within Pakistan) is leading their populace into somewhat of a delusion of grandeur state.

Only the unwise ever believe they are truly invincible. That old adage, pride before a fall, comes to mind.

cheers

jay
 
Last edited:

rip

New Member
I do not understand why you guys think that comedies will be the bases for conflict in the future when for the last hundred years it has been things like political/economic/religious/racial ideologies which have lead to the greatest lose of human life. I find you obsession with raw resources to be as interesting as it is misplaced.

I know that it seems at the moment that things like iron or cobalt or titanium are the factors that determine national wealth and will be the determining factor for nation’s advancement but this perception is only a temporary effect caused by the unexpected growth of China and the Seven Tigers. With the exception of oil which is heavily affected by a cabal after all, the prices of comedies have fallen steadily on the world market for the last fifty years. What seems to be a growing shortage that will start a scramble to secure supply is not true. There are more iron mines in the world that are now not operating solely because they cannot compete in price, than there are mines now producing iron. The minerals trade is legendary for their boom and bust cycles and the operators of minerals companies are very conservative in bring on new supplies because of the time lag (you bring on the new source and then see the prices fall) and the cost in capital to start up even old facilities. There are no shortages wit in the world as a hole. There are just uncertainties as long as the current free market system of world trade is preserved supply will catch up with demand.

If you guys do your homework you would know that the free world trade system and the movement that created it, was intended for this very reason, to remove the threat of access to natural resources as a cause for future conflict leading to war. But the Chinese are not very wise are they, as it was exhibited in their action of stopping the shipment of Rare Earths to Japan over their little dispute. Putting now in danger, the very system that they have so profited from so greatly. The Chinese leaders seem so intent in changing the world tobe more to their liking but if they succeed will it be to their benefit in the end? But if they do, it will not because there are real shortages.
 

Jissy

New Member
I do not understand why you guys think that comedies will be the bases for conflict in the future when for the last hundred years it has been things like political/economic/religious/racial ideologies which have lead to the greatest lose of human life. I find you obsession with raw resources to be as interesting as it is misplaced.

I know that it seems at the moment that things like iron or cobalt or titanium are the factors that determine national wealth and will be the determining factor for nation’s advancement but this perception is only a temporary effect caused by the unexpected growth of China and the Seven Tigers. With the exception of oil which is heavily affected by a cabal after all, the prices of comedies have fallen steadily on the world market for the last fifty years. What seems to be a growing shortage that will start a scramble to secure supply is not true. There are more iron mines in the world that are now not operating solely because they cannot compete in price, than there are mines now producing iron. The minerals trade is legendary for their boom and bust cycles and the operators of minerals companies are very conservative in bring on new supplies because of the time lag (you bring on the new source and then see the prices fall) and the cost in capital to start up even old facilities. There are no shortages wit in the world as a hole. There are just uncertainties as long as the current free market system of world trade is preserved supply will catch up with demand.

If you guys do your homework you would know that the free world trade system and the movement that created it, was intended for this very reason, to remove the threat of access to natural resources as a cause for future conflict leading to war. But the Chinese are not very wise are they, as it was exhibited in their action of stopping the shipment of Rare Earths to Japan over their little dispute. Putting now in danger, the very system that they have so profited from so greatly. The Chinese leaders seem so intent in changing the world tobe more to their liking but if they succeed will it be to their benefit in the end? But if they do, it will not because there are real shortages.
Rip,
firstly, (and I am not trying to be a rude here),
I presume, when you typed "comedies" you are not meaning National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, :D you are actually meaning to type 'commodities'?;)

Actually, I understand a great deal about the mining industry, trade and development between countries. My father was involved in mining all his life. I am no expert in this area, but I can say this; company assets are valued, of course, but when they exist outside of the company's own country, they like to be sure they will keep control of, continue to profit from, and have unfettered access to their assets.

When control of those assets are threatened by the host country, or, if the company wants to ensure it outbids foreign competitors on something, then they turn to Gov. for help, which is a part of what spies are there for, industrial espionage. This, in itself, can lead to strained relations, laying another plank towards possible conflict.

Furthermore, your idealised version of why the 'free market' was developed seems a trifle naïve . The so-called 'free market' was not developed just as an assurance against conflict, or to help the developing nations, it was also promoted by powerful self serving interests to control other countries through investment, trade and development, and in concert with the IMF and World Bank loans, the big boardrooms in the world, of the transnational company variety, can now dictate/influence a country to alter its work place conditions to favour the foreign company, not the rights of the workers.

The IMF and the World Bank have been accused, by many small developing nations, of enslaving their countries in debt, because their commodity sales only pay the interest of the loan, nothing off the capital, which has the potential of creating a failed State, through loan defaulting. This, then, can lead towards conflict.

However, I did not bring up the minerals aspect of this discussion, the other fellow did. War has all sorts of origins, as you correctly generalised. But, one point of contention I must state is; we do not always learn the actual truth of why a war started, but are given an often sanitised version created by the victors, to paint themselves in a more positive light.

Even the losers, such as Japan after WW2, alter the truth of why a war began and what happened; I have been given first hand information on that specific subject, that Japan has instructed its children to never read Western accounts of the Second World War, because they are told we lie about Japan's role in the war and their despicable behaviour in SE Asia. The Japanese children of today are taught that Japan was the victim entirely, not the instigator, nor an aggressor.

But, to bring this back to your other point, I do not agree, wars can be planned and not for the reasons announced when it is made public, case in point; the USA; under the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al cartel and their false and fabricated reasons to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.

Govs. lie all the time, not just China's, USA's or even Oz's, they all do it for whatever reason they see as obtaining an advantage over a particular situation.

It is good to contemplate, at times, the causes and effects of war, and I agree, the economically smartest learn from history, by entering into commerce that benefits either directly from conflicts, or will still be viable within a circumstance of war, or know how to avoid those investments that do not benefit during war. These are also strong reasons why some companies support entering a conflict, albeit behind closed doors with government.

What we have to accept in Oz is, we are not the absolute master of our own destiny, we do need outside military support and backup, and that diplomacy is by far the best alternative. We need to be more humble outwardly, yet not kowtowing.

China, who knows? Maybe it will get a new leader who is a belligerent and storms into Taiwan and takes over direct rule? Maybe, it starts over the islands in dispute with Japan? I do not know, but, it is important that we uphold our own values and rights, over what China may (and has already) tried to dictate to us, without destroying our trade relationship.

Inevitably, the reasons for war are many. Foreign affairs is a complex and difficult area, it would give me a huge headache, Rudd is welcome to it!:cool:

Your conclusion, that it is a false premise, that commodities are in short supply globally, so are not a potential cause for war, does not take into account that some commodities are cheap because of their location, and when that supply route is cut off, as you point out the potential of, with Japan and China, then the country denied access gets very annoyed. Lee Kwan Yew once said, of Japan, never deny her access to resources, or she will go to war.

One other thought, some commodities are very rare, but hugely in demand, such as a rare mineral used in making mobile phones, found in one despotic African country, and Australia, in commercial quantities.

In closing; musing upon your comments, I think China is a lot wiser than you give her credit for. However, all it takes is two strong willed leaders of major powers to want the same geographical advantage/asset/commodity, and/or military strategic position, and voila! A recipe for war is prepared, all is left, are the necessary emotional ingredients in order to stir the public outrage cauldron! Think 911...

cheers and keep peaceful thoughts! ;)
jay

P.S. Pondering on all this has given me an idea for a new thread...
 
Last edited:

chrisdef

New Member
Interesting responses!
I believe we have a deeper realtionship with India than you give credit for, socially, trade yes, sporting wise, and we have fought the same enemies together.
Sporting ties means very little and again you seem to be forgetting history, us fighting the same enemies 70 odd years ago has little to do with today,

As for taking Oz resources, well that would be an interesting scenario, as we are a long way off from India, and surrounded by sea...
Hence why im talking 10-20 years which by then they should (should as i know things may change) have atleast 3 aircraft carriers and the supporting ships to easily use them in waters around us.

For one, USA has a huge investment in Oz, mining minerals are just the start, then there is eschelon and all our intel bases etc... the US would not like it one bit if some other nation tried to take over their shared assets and admittedly, somewhat by default, Oz itself. Besides, we have a security treaty with the US.
I agree they are important issues but whether they are worth the trillions of dollars needed to fight off India or China i dont know.

As for China and the US not being able to afford another war, you may not realize this, but the USA does not make most of its money out of fridges and ovens... (def profs here correct me if I am wrong) but armaments are USA's top dollar earner, and war is the best environment for sales.
When sold to foreign countries, the US using its own funds to buy them from there own country doesnt help them at all in the long run. They are only going to get a small percentage of there own money back.

Besides the fact that, as a bonus, if China and the USA went to loggerheads, the US would benefit most, as once it won, and it will, it would write off the financial (paper) debt it owes to China.
Thats a big call to make, if your talking just to kick them out of Australia then yes ide probably agree but again im talking 10-20 years time when China's capabilities will be far greater then now. If your talking attacking China itself i seriously doubt it.
Its been almost 9 years in Afghanistan and 7 in Iraq and they are nothing compared to China. China's standing army alone is many many times the numbers fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan combined, add to that if they really felt threatened everyone else they could arm. Obviously they will be less skilled then US troops but not any less then some of the militia and extremist groups the US is fighting now.

I do note, however, after reading many Indian sites, that the growing pride and resultant nationalism within India (and indeed within Pakistan) is leading their populace into somewhat of a delusion of grandeur state.
That is part of the reason i said India originally. I have seen numerous posts by Indians on various sites saying they should attack Australia and just take out resources rather then buy them and plenty saying blatantly they should just wipe us out when the attacks on Indian students where big new's.
Obviously they are basically just big mouths on the net but if that is what some of the more educated middle and upper class think you have to wonder how many of the poorer less educated lower class who make up the vast majority of there country feelthe same when they see us living well with such a big country and small population.
 
Top