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

rip

New Member
I don't even get what a land war against China or India has to do with coming up to Australia's help.
The US doesn't need to land on chinese soil to engage their fleet assets just as they don't need to land in China to cripple it's trade.

Seriously, Australias position is so remote, there are so many other countries between them and potential foes, their security is directly linked to the security of the US and they field a relatively good military for this region.

Before anybody attemps to invade it for resources one could occupy half a dozen African countries and call it a day.
I would like to add a few of my ideas to several of the recent comments on this thread in no peculiar order.

First, I think that India, though a growing economic power which is attempting to become a military power equal to its size, it is not a threat to Australia. Assuming that its economic and military power does rise to the levels you think that it will. Personally I would wait and see about that. The fact is, with China to the north and Pakistan to the west, where there is open real hostility that will probably extend on into the future, with Nepal and Bangladesh next door with their endless internal instabilities that can spill out over their borders at any time, the Indian Ocean filling up with pirates, and numerous ongoing internal, yet little reported real and violent rebellions endemic within it, India is looking for friends, not any more enemies no matter what its resource needs may be someday in the future. Their military build up is not a threat to Australia. If the arms build up within their area continues as it has, they are not a threat to any body else, they are just keeping pace with their surroundings.

A Question that I don’t know the answer to is, dose India even know what their own mineral resources truly are and have they yet to fully exploit them? I say this because here in America, with its extremely thorough and competent US Geologic Survey, we are still finding new useful things within our own land borders and we have been working on this since from the beginning of the country without letup. Have they been as thorough?

As to the comment

“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.”

The United States exports on average about 5.5 billion dollars a year as the worlds largest arms exporter; it also exports about 50 billion dollars a year on average in semiconductors exports alone. The previous statement given as a fact, is not only false it is ridiculously false. War does not serve the interests of the United States but the imaginations of people who do not know better. We in the US show far more restraint, in the exporting of our weapons to other countries for profit than others do, much to the chagrin of our manufactures I might add, more that ether Russia or France ever has. We are just better at making them.

As to the general idea that economic concerns are the only dependable connections between allies, this is simply ridicules. Though it might not be strictly rational, people and their leaders are often not that rational. How many examples do you need? I have been to Australia many times and think it is a great place and recommend it for all visitors. The feedback I get from them when I have visited about the US/ Australian alliance, is though they sometimes think we Americans are often reckless and unnecessary confrontational, they like being on our side. The part of out alliance that rubs them the wrong way is that the alliance is not an equal one. But when considering the relative sizes of our two populations how could it be equal? If it was the other way around, it would rub me the wrong way too and that would be just as irrational.

For those of you out there calculating the dependability of what is now trendy and popular thing to assume,( that of the declining Unites States trustworthiness as an ally), here is a wake up call. We do not always follow our own best economic interests. That is not the only consideration we use in our dealings with other countries and their peoples. I no longer try to explain The Unites States to other people, no matter from where they come from, they just don’t get it. They always think they already know more than enough about us coming from the media, and see my country only through their own country’s eyes. But I will say this; the United States is more about ideas than it is the pursuit of power or even wealth. Many would say we are ideological but that would be a wrong assumption. Unless you understand those ideas we believe in you cannot predict our actions.

As too the true military capacity of the US and its ability to its fight wars? In World War Two we put 12 million men into uniform, when we had a population of 130 million people and still out produced the world in war making materials. It was an all out effort I grant you. Our two current wars, barely affect everyday life here in America. They have gone on for so long because we have chosen not to employ the historic methods used in fighting wars, kill everybody and destroy everything. Something that is far easier, faster, and cheaper than the course we have chosen. The US now has a population of over 300 million people. If the motivations were great enough what do think would happen?

But the mach ups being discussed here about possible confrontations are not very likely but I have a far more amusing one to propose if not more likely. Let us say that China some time in the future decided to make a statement by menacing New Zealand in some direct way? Use any reason that you want, they are so unpredictable in their foreign policies after all. New Zealand is not an ally of the US. It decided to bake that relationship a long time ago. Believing that they do that their remoteness in the world would protect them from all the big power’s messy confrontations and for other silly reasons.

Now I am going to admit I have a bias in this regard. That is why I think it would be so much fun to contemplate. I visited in New Zeeland only once and have never been back. I was on a US Navy ship that stopped at Wellington and was met by a mob of antiwar protesters throwing rocks at me and my ship. It left a lasting impression. I have been giving New Zealander’s shit ever since when ever I met them anywhere in the world. But as unlikely as China attacking New Zealand is, it is a more likely event that them attacking Australia.
 

rip

New Member
elder joseph vatopaidinos says that turkey will fight against greece after that russia will come and crush turkey.USA AND HER FRIEND NATO COUNTRIES WILL FIGHT AGAINST RUSSIA,BUT IN THE END CHINA{200.000.000soldiers she will send} WILL HELP RUSSIA AGAINST NATO AND USA 700.000.000 MEN DEAD ONLY IN INSTABUL-CONSTANTINOUPOLE IN THIS WORLD WAR 3.
Isn’t he dead? Though we all too mortal humans need all the help we can get I do not see how calling upon the supernatural can help us with this question.
 

dtleio

New Member
Maybe there r never begin War III .The globalization makes our different nations walk together and work firmly. But i clearly know, if there will be WW IV in the future, we will use rock or wood stick to fight with each other,u can image that view...
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Now I am going to admit I have a bias in this regard. That is why I think it would be so much fun to contemplate. I visited in New Zeeland only once and have never been back. I was on a US Navy ship that stopped at Wellington and was met by a mob of antiwar protesters throwing rocks at me and my ship. It left a lasting impression. I have been giving New Zealander’s shit ever since when ever I met them anywhere in the world. But as unlikely as China attacking New Zealand is, it is a more likely event that them attacking Australia.


Sorry to hear about your experience with our Kiwi brothers, just think you where abit unlucky upon your arrival in the land of the long white cloud. Most Kiwi do not hold that view, Just lucky that it did not happen here in oz, but the greens and anti-American movement can be just as annoying here as in New Zealand, just like when one of our C17 where over there awhile ago she had a very different paint scheme leaving NZ than when she arrived.

NZ Defence Force admits security lax | NATIONAL News
 

rip

New Member
Sorry to hear about your experience with our Kiwi brothers, just think you where abit unlucky upon your arrival in the land of the long white cloud. Most Kiwi do not hold that view, Just lucky that it did not happen here in oz, but the greens and anti-American movement can be just as annoying here as in New Zealand, just like when one of our C17 where over there awhile ago she had a very different paint scheme leaving NZ than when she arrived.

NZ Defence Force admits security lax | NATIONAL News
Of course you are right. There are ass-holes everywhere and it is not fair to judge a whole people by the action of a few. I guess I am just weak and silly.

And I truly do not understand the New Zealanders way of thinking. As a biased outsider it seems to me, if I am right or wrong, that they think that being fairly much alone in their far off part of the world that the problems and events of the rest of us has no meaning to them. I wish it were true. If it was I would come and join them but it’s not true.
 

Belesari

New Member
I have figured it out. Oprah and george lucas.

There followers shall meet on the plains of megedo and comense war.
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
with Nepal and Bangladesh next door with their endless internal instabilities that can spill out over their borders at any time.
Sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice this part before.
Trust me India's own internal instabilities out ranks Bangladeshi ones. The chances of India's instabilities crossing into our border, is greater than ours crossing over to India.

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, couldn't resist.
 

rip

New Member
Sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice this part before.
Trust me India's own internal instabilities out ranks Bangladeshi ones. The chances of India's instabilities crossing into our border, is greater than ours crossing over to India.

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, couldn't resist.
Factually you may be completely right. But as the India’s perceive their situation in the world, be it right or wrong, it looks like to them as yet another area for them to worry about. Because they have many reasons to feel insecure and few reasons to feel overly confident, they are looking for friends and not new enemies. That was the only point I wanted to make.
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
Factually you may be completely right. But as the India’s perceive their situation in the world, be it right or wrong, it looks like to them as yet another area for them to worry about. Because they have many reasons to feel insecure and few reasons to feel overly confident, they are looking for friends and not new enemies. That was the only point I wanted to make.
Got it.
Though I doubt killing your neighbour's citizens at the border, is the best way of making friends.;)
 

rip

New Member
Got it.
Though I doubt killing your neighbour's citizens at the border, is the best way of making friends.;)
I can’t argue with that statement. I am completely ignorant of all the issues involved with the border problems, what little I know is that they are complicated. I tried to go to Bangladesh once but I couldn’t get a visa. They have or at least once had some rule that you could only get a visa in enter Bangladesh from your country of origin or country of residence if they had an Embassy in it. To go to Bangladesh I would have had to first go back to the USA from Singapore to get a visa to go to Bangladesh. I wasn’t that curious.
 

T.C.P

Well-Known Member
I can’t argue with that statement. I am completely ignorant of all the issues involved with the border problems, what little I know is that they are complicated. I tried to go to Bangladesh once but I couldn’t get a visa. They have or at least once had some rule that you could only get a visa in enter Bangladesh from your country of origin or country of residence if they had an Embassy in it. To go to Bangladesh I would have had to first go back to the USA from Singapore to get a visa to go to Bangladesh. I wasn’t that curious.
Really, I didn't know that getting a VISA here was that hard.
Check this vid out, its a new tourism promo video trailer, it could make you more curious.:D
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE-ByjnOyTU&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - ICC Welcome to Bangladesh[/nomedia]
Moderators this is not a spam. And really sorry for being this off-topic:(
 

HTV-3X

New Member
Hey yall, first comment but Ive been reading the news and threads on this site for a while now and would say its the best, most up to date military site out there. Just wish there was a section on CIA/Intel stuff because thats always a good read. Anyway, now that the cold wars over, Id have to say:
1) Something starting up between NK/SK.
2) Something starting up between Israel/Iran.
3) Something between Pakistan/India.
and possible but alot less likely atleast for now: China and Taiwan.
 

kriegmariner.

New Member
WW3 - Well we can easily say its going to most likely be over resources, so I'm thinking Russia/Some Arab nations/korea? randomly vs. a weakened america/japan and the allies they have left. China will wade in on one side as well. Depending on who is more of a threat to them.
 

brodie

New Member
well ill give you a rell awencer, if it a nuclear then all of Europe will be destroyed along with east Asia, North America and cental Asia.

but if its not a full scale nuclear holocaust

Then There is NATO on one side (USA, UK, Germany, France, Norway, Portugal and others) Brazil also with Australia New Zealand along with Japan and maybe the Philippines.

The other side will be Russia Iran North Korea China "maybe".
Along with smaller allies like Cambodia Bolivia and Cuba


well there is one more thing in Africa there are to many unknows there will be fighting but it will not be like the fighting over africa in the first or second world war, the only major action i can see would be in Egypt and some of east North Africa

List of NATO members
k wount let me post that cool just type in NATO on Google
if one member of NATO is attacked under the treaty all other nations in NATO must come to its aid "i think"
this is just like the ANZUS treaty, i think the countrys will be Australia New Zealand America Russia Germany and mabey Japan and China
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
this is just like the ANZUS treaty, i think the countrys will be Australia New Zealand America Russia Germany and mabey Japan and China
A bit arbitrary don't you think? World Wars don't just start between giant alliances. They tend to escalate from smaller conflicts that involve major powers sometimes by proxy.
 

rip

New Member
A bit arbitrary don't you think? World Wars don't just start between giant alliances. They tend to escalate from smaller conflicts that involve major powers sometimes by proxy.
If there is a World War Three it would be because the "world" or at least enough of the "world" to matter hasn’t learned the obvious lessons of the first two World Wars.

If so the question becomes, what were those lessons which have not been learned and which if they were learned and then applied could break the historical pattern of history of ever greater wars. Plus who hasn’t yet learned them and why they haven't, making this the true subject of debate?

Much of the discourse so far has been about picking sides and then who would most likely win just like it was a championship sports match. Even a world war that does not uses (weapons of mass destruction) there would still not be any winners. There would only be only greater and lesser losers and nobody gets a big trophy and an ulcerative endorsement contract after the showdown broadcast live in prim time.

I say this for the simple reason that the human race has acquired enough destructive power at its disposal that if it is uses this power in the same old ways and for the same old reasons that destructive power has always be used in the past, human civilization could end and perhaps, though it is less likely but still a real possibility, the species as well.

I do not want to spoil anyones fun, in doing what people have always done, thump their chest's, seek advantage over others, distrust people different than themselves, or settle old grudges but can there be something better? Not because the old ways were not as fun as hell but because we really do not want the game to stop forever.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Winning and losing is relative. Sure everyone would be worse off in the end. However once the war starts the side that wins will be better off then the side that loses.
 

rip

New Member
Winning and losing is relative. Sure everyone would be worse off in the end. However once the war starts the side that wins will be better off then the side that loses.
How true. But now that we have established that there will only be losers to a greater and less degree, how do we prevent ourselves from all becoming losers?

Let us start with the forces and issues that will if they not properly addressed, led to war of a kind that would bring in more and more players and would lead eventually becoming total war. And not just miner military skirmishes over limited issues and objectives.

What drives people to war?

One. Economic interests. The desire to improve one's material wellbeing at another group’s expense by direct means thought conquest and theft, seizing control of natural resources, demanding tribute or other kinds of things which economists’ use the term “rents” to define. Or indirectly to improve or just to maintain relative status by denying these avenues of wealth creation to possible competitors with the use of added devices of hording and denying commercial, biological, and technological information through the use of monopolies.

Two. Religious, racial, and political movements that seek wide spread if not total hegemony in the pursuit of some kind of perfect idealized human society that once achieved will then require no further human development because it would then be perfect and ever lasting. Note all of the above are in fact really the same thing in different guises because they all require absolute belief and are devoid of any true rational content though all of them attempt to choke themselves in elaborate logical or metaphysical doctrines so as to give themselves validity that they do not inherently poses within those doctrines.

Three. fear, the believe that if you do not act just as the most aggressive players do around you that you will lose your own wealth, freedom and possibly your life. Seeing the game as one of eat or be eaten.

Four. The resistance to change and disruption change causes to traditional societies. Much of the anger directed at western societies is anger about the nature of modernity itself. That anger is transferred to America and to Europe as the visible symbols and promoters of modern life styles which threaten traditional if stagnant society’s norms and values.

Do you have others?
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Four. The resistance to change and disruption change causes to traditional societies. Much of the anger directed at western societies is anger about the nature of modernity itself. That anger is transferred to America and to Europe as the visible symbols and promoters of modern life styles which threaten traditional if stagnant society’s norms and values.
No offence but this IMO is a very western-centric viewpoint, seen solely from a Western lens.

It is a simplistic myth that certain societies don't want change or modernity. In the middle East for example, the 'Arab Spring' would never have hapened in the first place, if indeed there was a ''resistance to change'' as you suggest. If anything, the recent 'Arab spring' only reinforces the fact that people in many countries in the Middle East want democracy and self determination. What they don't want is to be dictated to or have solutions imposed on them, by rulers they never elected, who received backing from outsiders, for their own self-interests.
 
Top