WW3 and Non-Religious End of the World Discussion

India would be on our side, I'm willing to bet.

 

I think India would be with us too, but you never know. India is a democracy, was founded by the peaceful protests of Gandhi, and its population is expected to grow even larger than China's sometime this century. If they advance their technology enough, and work on eliminating the poverty in their country, India could become THE superpower. One I wouldn't fear, and wouldn't mind surpassing the US, and could become the new beacon of freedom and peace for the world, and a balance to the rising power of China.

If Pakistan doesn't destroy it in a nuclear war first. I don't see India getting involved in a World War III unless it's forced to.

 

Would that be India of the Non-Aligned Movement fame?

India hasn't sided with the West since before Ghandi's time, and even then it wasn't by choice, it was by British Mandate. There's a reason India started NAM, and it was a Cold War hotspot...

E_S

 

Others that might get involved?
...
-Panamá
...

Err, Panamá don't have no army doc.

 

It would be useful in any war, because of its loaction (the Panama Canal). Both sides would want to control it.


And I just thought of a very real possibility for World War III:


In order for World War III to happen, it has to involve most of the world, like the two previous ones. The United States is THE superpower right now, they would have to be involved. Then there is the European Union, Russia, China, and India. Like I said, India would probably try to stay out of it, and probably China too. They would want to wait it out, and emerge as the victors by being mostly untouched by the destruction. The future leaders of the world will be in the East, I'm sure.

That leaves the U.S., the E.U., and Russia. America and Europe may disagree sometimes, but I doubt they'll ever go to war. Russia is much weaker now than what is was before, as the Soviet Union, and it seemed to get friendlier with America and Europe. But lately Russia seems to be acting like it's still the Cold War, and wants its old glory back. Which will not be happening, and its military is not in shape to directly face the US/EU. It would just want to foil America's unchallenged superpower position, and bring them down with them if they can't rise up to America again.

So I think for World War III to happen, it will be Russia encouraging violence in the most anti-American and anti-west places: the Middle East and Latin America. Africa will be ignored because there are no longer any American or European interests there, but I could be wrong there. But the Middle East, and some of Latin America, have oil. We all have heard enough about the Middle East, I think. Latin America hasn't always been so anti-America, but it is starting to become with leaders like Chavez of Venezuela, whose ally and friend is Fidel Castro of Cuba. Bolivia has recently elected a leader who allied with Cuba and Venezuela, and Mexico nearly elected one too, and is now in an uproar because it wants a recount. And that is on the southern border of the United States.

The US has shown its weaknesses to the world in Iraq. Those terrorist tactics are being repeated in Afghanistan, bringing that country into chaos again too. Hezbollah has reawakened anti-Israeli and anti-American feelings in the region, yet again. It already has its hands tied, and then there is North Korea and Iran.

The US can invade a country or two. But they can't occupy them, when there are resistance fighters using terrorist tactics and creating sectarian violence. The War on Terror has made terrorism stronger instead. Some forget terrorists aren't Osama bin Laden's soldiers, it's a military strategy that can be used by ANY enemy. Terrorism is not any enemy, it's a way an enemy can fight. And the US has proven its weakness to it.

Now for my theory.

World War III: Russia, behind-the-scenes, unites America's enemies into an alliance, for their hatred of American/Western interference in their regions. The Middle East is what feeds it, and Latin America is the next door neighbor. We now live in a globalized economy where we all depend on each other, but mostly the first world countries on the third world countries. A dozen countries go to war with the United States, the US invades and occupies, and then it has fallen into the trap and can not win. As the American forces prove they are unable to occupy these countries, more countries join the war and are occupied, again and again. The United States is severely weakened, spread thin, and defeated as the entire third world it has ignored or exploited in the last century finally fight back united. The European Union will be torn between its own interests or helping its ally. If they join America completely, they will also fall completely. The only way to succeed would be to nuke the rest of the world to death, which would be very immoral, and would give Russia a reason to nuke us. Once America invad

 

Let's try to avoid coming up with far reaching, "What If.." scenarios, as per Senate rules

E_S

 

Are you talking about mine? I think it's possible. I'm not saying it certainly will happen, but it's not as unlikely as most others.

As I said, it would only take a number of third world countries to unite against us, and I gave examples. An alliance of Middle Eastern and Latin American countries declare war on the United States, or draw us to declare war on them, they already hate us for interfering. The US invades and occupies, falling into the trap. Its Iraq x100 because resistance fighters fight back as terrorists. America is cut off from many crucial resources by the alliance, especially energy. Latin American fighters pose a more direct threat because of their closeness. America's economy, military, and repuation is shattered. America is no longer the lone superpower. After it falls from power, there won't be one until China and India rise up.

Because when America goes down, so will the rest of the West for supporting it (EU, Canada, Australia, maybe Japan), though they won't go down as bad as America could. Only east asia would remain untouched, and the rising powers there are China and India. China is still oppressive, so we must place our hope for humanity's future in India. India being the only major non-Western democracy is actually a good thing long-term.

How do you defeat "the United States of America"? With "the United States AGAINST America." America is the world superpower, and there are many rouge states to its influence. All it takes is a "rebel ALLIANCE" to bring down this "evil Empire." Terrorism in Iraq, and past experience in Vietnam, has shown the most technologically advanced don't always win.

 

It's not a case of being possible or not, it's a case of seeing events now and saying these are the beginnings of something much larger versus seeing things as they could happen potentially down the track.

Fine line, I know, but I'd prefer not to have people speculating idly on the war of 2012 which left Earth devastated and allowed for the Tyrell Corp. to fill the gap with it's Nexus-series replicants.

E_S

 

I think I understand. But events we are seeing now looks like it could be leading to an Anti-American alliance.

Facts:
America is weak to terrorist attacks, see Iraq
Iran has an alliance with Syria
Venezuela has an alliance with Bolivia and Cuba
Iran and Syria are helping Hezbollah in the current Israel-Lebanon conflict
The Israel-Lebanon conflict is stirring even more anti-American feelings in the Islamic world
Venezuela and Iran are "friends," as Chavez's trip to Iran showed
Chavez and Ahmadinjead are both very vocal about their anti-American feelings
Russia has ties with Iran and North Korea, selling them missiles
Iran and Venezuela say they are "friends" with North Korea
Kim Jong Il has been very defiant with his nuclear and missile programs
The US has recently put sanctions on Russian missile companies for dealing with its enemies
Iran and Venezuela are rich in oil
America needs oil

It seems the enemies of the United States truly are wanting some sort of alliance, at least the current governments of Iran and Venezuela. They are as determined and defiant as ever too. I'm not making this up, I wish I was, but I'm not. America's enemies really are trying to unite, that's what makes this so scary.

If they all make a formal alliance, "if you attack one of us, we all declare war on you," it could become a major force in international politics. They would no longer be "rouge" states, and other countries would be scared to ever fight them. And if America ever got into a war with them, we'd have fallen into the trap, and eventually lose our superpower status.

 

Wikipedia article.

I'll have to look into it a bit more than Wiki, obviously, but your NAM sounds pretty weak to me, considering that members have historically dropped in and out and ignored its ideals when need be (India, South Africa, and Pakistan developing nuclear weapons, for example...and can Cuba be considered neutral in spite of its strong alliance with the USSR during the Cold War and its former troop presence in Africa?).

Darth-Ghost and I see eye-to-eye on this, I think.

 

"My" NAM?

Yes, I just created it, added the Wiki entry to further the disinformation campaign.

Damn, caught out.

Kudzu, with due respect, politics is vastly more complicated than you're willing to either acknowledge or admit.

The entire purpose of the NAM could be summarised as, "Play both sides off for mutual advantage".

That is, India won't take sides because it's not in India's best interest to do so.

Similarly, you can't simply look at say, "ooh, two countries which have diplomatic ties and are Muslim - zomg, terrorist alliance!!1! " or the like. Malaysia, for it's part, has always claimed the world is more accurately divided into North and South (as opposed to east and West) and that the UN needs to help the development of the South more. It has frequently adopted an anti-Anglo position, mainly aimed at us and our relationship with the US, and the US proper.

To suggest that Malaysia will be a partner in some Iranian plot to start a war is both fundamentally ignorant of Malaysian geopolitics, and Malaysian interests; and pure conjecture based upon a superficial analysis of a handful of insignificant events; and wholly naive of Asian security-politics.

Especially when there's far worse things happening in Asia than Mayalsia being a typical pain the arse.

E_S

 

Ender, in regards to NAM, I think it may end up, at least for India, being a relic of the Cold War.

Russia and China worry India much more than the United States. If their were to be a WWIII, India would likely be on the side of the U.S.

 

Ender_Sai, I noticed that you jumped all over my comments about Malaysia supporting Iran and Hezbollah, but you haven't addressed the points that are actually important. Honestly, how big of a difference is it really going to make whether Malaysia participates in a world war or not?

 

Jediflyer; yet India was at the 2002 NAM conference in KL...

Kudzu; if you make a factual error, chances are I'll point it out. If we're going to discuss something, we're better off doing it without spurious claims being accepted as fact.

For example, your al-Qaeda comments - you imply al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, which is the view the US media takes, but it's also fundamentally inaccurate. Al-Qaeda is more than anything a "management consultancy" which united disparate groups under one training methodology and ideological meme. Proof? Besides extensive research on AQ for my post grad thesis, I can point to Madrid and London as an example of the AQ meme.

So, I'm hesitant to get into a debate until we straighten some things out.



E_S

 

yet India was at the 2002 NAM conference in KL...

But it has also been accepted by the United States with aid to its nuclear program in the past year.

And I'm not saying its not taking part in the Non-Aligned Movement. I'm only saying that if push were to come to shove and a WWIII happend, India would probaly end up on the side of the United States.

 

Yeah, and I'm doubting that. Given that India could probably weather the storm of a world war and remain independant - as I'm sure China would, FWIW - they would, emerging strong from any potentially wasteful and stupid clash of civilisations.

E_S

 

Unless, of course, the World War centered over Pakistan after Musharref lost control...

 

...which leaves us stranded on the island of idle speculation (given it never went to hell under Zia, or when Zia was killed)

E_S

 

I didn't present it as fact; I presented it as speculated possibility.

Tomato, tomahto. Operatives in league with al-Qaeda carry out terrorism; al-Qaeda is obviously an allied network spanning many different groups and organizations. Call it what you will, but so what? It still kills people.

 

Of course, but at least we will have India with us on our little island.

 

"It" is no different to any number of management style courses you can partake it; none of those courses causes business' to fail.

The problem with presenting al-Qaeda as a real world version of SPECTRE is that it's utterly false, misleading, but really, really potent stuff for the 6:00 News.

Consider; AQ camps most likely never provided the training, indoctrination, logistics or kit for the London bombers. It merely inspired them.

It's also worth noting a) Al-Qaeda is NOT the norm of terrorism, it's an exception to the rule and the odds of AQ being a force to be reckoned with again in the next decade are very slim, and b) their back has been broken since they localised their training and command centres in Afghanistan. Suggesting an AQ-Iran plot to destroy the world is a stretch, since it misrepresents the extent of AQ as anorganisation and as a body with the capacity to act post-Opn Enduring Freedom.

I think the body of your analysis suffers from two very large factors. The first is a kind of Western, primarily, American-centric way of thinking which shows a limited exposure to the various forms of cultural thought in the world. Essentially, you assume that you can judge the motives and actions of nation-states from a fundamentally American mindset, as if most peoples in most states thought along roughly similar lines to an American. I can tell you from experience, this just isn't so.

Secondly, it seems as if you more or less formed a conclusion and then looked for evidence, or interpreted evidence, in light of that conclusion. American dominance is neither assured nor necessarily a continued good thing. It's not a bad thing, but change is always a welcome thing.

(For the record, the US is unlikely to fade from the world stage in our lifetime; but fighting against it happening when it's inevitable isn't going to change it)

Assuming, though that because increasingly, people are opposing the United States is not solely linked to an "imminent war" scenario. The United States has, under the first termof the current Administration, squandered incalculable amountso f political capital and goodwill on the case for war in Iraq, which was both exaggerated and fabricated. Whilst the parties involved, the bastard neocons, have been removed from government and their principle supporters (Cheney, Rumsfeld) muzzled, the diplomatic efforts of Mr Bush and Dr Rice aren't appearing to succeed because the world is unwilling to trust Mr Bush. Not, necessarily, because there's a war a-comin'.

E_S

 

For people with any faith in human intelligence or the capacity of societies for survival, then you might be willing to believe that any war between two nuclear powers with the potential to go nuclear will never be fought in the first place.

The cold war was an amazing long-term achievement in peaceful relations between two ideologically opposed and strategically competitive superpowers.

The most interesting thing about the invasion of Iraq was the lack of options available to the nations that opposed American intervention to topple Saddam Hussein. This will probably be remembered as the pinnacle of American power. After 2003, the realities of Iraq cut deeply into America's stature as the sole superpower. It may never again enjoy that moment of pure invincibility, when it could do something on the scale of invading Iraq for no other reason than that no other nation was in a position to prevent it from happening.

 

I think that's definately worth bearing in mind, Jabba. It's a similar conclusion that Preston hangs much of the hope against a variola major outbreak at the hands of terrorists in Demon in the Freezer - that the inability to contain the destructive potential, once unleashed, is the greatest deterrant out there.

ES

 

Darth-Ghost, you do realize that while in Latin America there are a bunch of leftist leaders, Chavez is not the same as Morales, nor is either like Obrero? Chavez might spout a lot of anti-American rethoric, but really, they're never going to act on it to attack the USA. You present an example that makes it seem countries would attack the USA just to get invaded and then wage a guerilla war. The ruling class of a country would never want to risk such a thing. Because it fundamentally undermines their OWN power, and that's something they are far more concerned about.

 

My personal view is that Senor Chavez fancies himself another Salvador Allende, and that perhaps he is trying to provoke a violent reaction from the United States. The man will be more powerful dead that he ever could be alive.