Before I say anything, let me make a plea: Let's please try to stay on topic and avoid debates about whether we should say or leave Iraq, or why this or that candidate/party would bring about TEOTWAWKI.

World War III: are we on the verge of the next War To End All Wars?
Looking at the current state of world affairs, it seems to me that we could be on the verge of a conflict involving most of the civilized world. The United States, along with several of her allies, is currently officially engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, and our leader seems to be looking for any excuse to go into Iran and/or North Korea. The dispute with Turkey has troops from that nation ready to strike Iraq's border at any time. Muslim extremists continue to strike any nation they see as being Westernized. With the rapidly growing demand for oil in China, the stage is set for conflict between the Chinese and America, currently the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the world. War in Iran would likely also involve Israel and at least a few allied nations of each country involved; and invading North Korea would likely pull China into the fray eventually.
With tensions increasing among various nations across the globe, it seems that it wouldn't take much to spark military conflict that could end up involving most of the world.

So, what are your thoughts on this matter?

I see some type of conflict as inevitable, the question is whether it will occur before or after Iran has nuclear weapons. I'd rather that confrontation occurred before they have nukes, because if they use them it's a whole new world.

No, I don't trust fanatics to not use them just because the U.S. and Soviets went so many years playing MAD and not tossing nukes at each other. We used them to end WW2, but to me that only served as justification to never use them again.

That most Americans get themselves an education, get a passport and do a bit of travelling around the world. Stop living their lives in fear because of the propaganda by the vested interest military industrial/media complex so they can keep spending away their grandchildrens inheritance.

In view of recent threads and posts, I hope this thread/post is within bounds. If it isn't, my apology in advance...

I also think that the present situation with Iran and nukes is substantially different than the U.S./Soviet MAD stand-off. The basic assumption of MAD is that both parties are "rational," that is, that they won't kill most of their own nation and people to kill the other nation. IMHO Khrushchev and his generation saw war at its worst and knew that a nuclear war would be suicidal for both sides. Thus, the MAD theory worked. My fear is that the same thinking that motivates suicide bombers and justifies killing fellow muslims (thus making them "marytrs") may not restrain what the Soviet's called "adventurism." Without that vivid memory of the WWII eastern front and the death of 1/4 to 1/3 of the local population (in then Byelorussia, now Belarus). I do worry that the threats we are hearing from Iran should be taken at face value. In reading the Jerusalem Post on-line version, it seems that Israel is taking the threat seriously and has already begun practicing long range F-16 ops (to the western Med.) They have also reported that fallout shelters are a major growth industry in Israel. I suspect that the recent raid into Syria to destroy their nuclear reactor also was a warning to Iran.

Personally, I see the period of highest risk for a US and/or Israeli preemptive strike as being after the 2008 election (win or lose for either side) and before the inauguration of the new administration.

Well put.

The North Koreans have taken themselves out of the equation with the agreement that was reached in July. Under the agreement, their reactor is to be shut down by the end of the year and rendered inoperable to the point of requiring a year to restart it. They had one nut that would probably have been sat on by their own generals if it came down to it.

REST OF POST DELETED BY ME BEFORE POSTING. I decided not to get the soap box out.

World War III started about 30 seconds after V-J day on August 15, 1945, and has been ongoing.
There has not been a 5 year period where the world has had peace in all nations.
At this time, there are "hot" (armed conflicts) all over the world:


The US has been continually in some sort of military action, somewhere on the earth, since 1945.

Just because bombs aren't dropping here does not mean that there isn't global war, it just means that the never-ending global war is on "simmer" rather than "boil" at this moment.

Straw man; I don't think you can find a 5-year period in all of recorded history where all of the nations in the world were at "peace."

-=[ Grant ]=-

That's my point. There's always been war, without end, throughout the world.

I would agree that you are correct with the timing of the start of WWIII, I would argue that it ended when the USSR died.

Of course, WWIV will be as much a sequel to WWIII/Cold War as the later was to WWII, and WWII to WWI. Old grudges, old paranoias, and the same greed.

Bah, what a depressing post.

" The eastern world, it is explodin, Violence flarin, bullets loading. Your old enough to kill, but not for votin. You don't believe in war, but whats that gun yer totin? And you tell me, over and over and over again,ah you don't believe, we're on the eave of destruction?" I saw Barry McQuire on some PBS music special. He was fat, bald and had an earring, a man slipping into old age from the young singer of the 1960s. I guess we made it after all.

A major war? No. Smaller, regional wars fueled by special interest? Absolutely. And there's zero chance the US and China would ever have a conflict. Listen to any number of interviews with Teasury Secretary Paulson and you'll get an idea of just how little leverage the US has with China. Besides, who would stock our store shelves and loan our government the money it desperately needs?

I still don't think there's a risk of world war. First there are too many unrelated issues and large countries like China and Russia's vital interests are not at stake or involved in them enough. Also since the advent of the atomic bomb, that killed the possibility of a open war where you try to use everything. Instead it gave birth to small hypocrite proxy wars and terrorism.

The tension between the Turk government and the Kurds is not new. The Kurds have been using terrorism for their indepence cause while the Turks have been using death squads for a while.

As for North Korea, I think the US prefer to maintain the status quo for now rather than reunifying the two Koreas. North Korea creates a political barrier between South Korea / Japan and China to kind of slow down exchanges between Korean and China.

Besides, Kim Jong-il is actually nothing but a spoiled brat. He uses blackmail like testing missiles and other funny threats to negotiate and get more international "humanitarian" aid, which goes to feed its army, which is I believe ¼ of the population. The civilians have to eat roots to survive.

Frankie

I don't see it. The USA and China have a special trade relationship whereby the Chinese send us semi-worthless consumer goods and in return we send them semi-worthless pieces of paper. Each country is getting what it needs from the other so why fight? Oil? I doubt it. Unless the Chinese are planning to switch to an automobile society soon they will never need as much as we currently use. And I'm betting our usage declines over the next 30-50 years.

There have been predictions of WWIII ever since the late '40's. Each generation thinks that the perils they face is worse than any that have come before. They are almost always wrong about that.

Anybody up for a game of RISK?

Ah bentirran/Am fear liath mor, "the wee gray troll from Baliol" has spoken. As I was reading through this thread I wondered how long it was going to be before you posted some anti-American insult. No surprise, it didn't take long.

I was going to try and stay out of this one, but here I go anyway.
I feel Martin is right about when WWIII started, but because of how long things have been on we have begun to think that it isn’t our problem. Chris is right too but just because we have made it this far doesn’t mean will make it till tomorrow. I believe that a very large and violent flair up is inevitable and will happen very soon. I believe it will involve at least 90% of the Arab world, Russia, possibly China and large portion of South and Central America. Here is my reasoning (a simple version).
Reading some of the interpretations of the Iranian president’s speeches to his people, Iran has basically said that they will wipe Israel off the map. Iran has made no attempts to hide or deny the facts they want to build nuclear weapons. So one of two things are very likely here.
1-Isreal makes a preemptive conventional strike against the facilities being built. Russia will defend Iran because they are building the plants and will defend the oil also. We will defend Israel.
2- we hold Israel back and Iran is allowed to build or buy it’s nukes. They the carry out the threat they have been making, Israel will retaliate with nukes also. The rest of the Arab nations will not tolerate Israel using nukes on an Arab nation. Russia and the US will be drawn in at the same time.
I said possibly China, If the US and Russia are drawn in they may decide it’s the perfect time to settle old differences and grudges.
I say South and Central America because they are tired of our interfering in their internal problems and because Venezuela as a member of OPEC will try to defend their interests enlisting the aid of at least ½ of the nations in Latin America and most of it’s guerilla fighters.
For those who think I am just a victim of the military machine trying to scare me, and that I need to get out and learn more about the world. I don’t listen to the military or the media much any more neither are to be trusted to give an unbiased report. I have been in more countries than I can remember and have listened to the people who say they want me and you and what we stand for dead. All we can do is prepare or stick our heads in the sand and hope some how it goes away. Either way it's your choice.

First, you have to define what World War is. If you are talking about the tradition image of massive barrages of nuclear missiles screaming through the sky is not going to happen for many reasons. Let us get to the two scenarios that could affect the US as it current stands.
First, a single nuclear missile/bomb attack. If/When the US gets hit a nuke then US will go to war against whoever did it but they will NOT respond with nukes of their own. The international community and the American people would not stand for it and what would you target. It wouldn't be a city full of civilians and why hit some random military base with a nuke?
Second, a full nuke strike can only come from one target currently, and they would be destroyed either by our nukes or their economy would collapse. And if some other nation was able to make enough nukes, to take out the US they would destroy the world's environment in the process and it would not matter what the US did in response, even if the US was able to.

The world is always full of war and the only thing that distinguishes the two World Wars from any others is the sheer number of nations, mostly European, that were involved and thankfully those European nations are tired of war, for now at least. There is always some war of aggression, civil war or revolution going on and it is never going to stop. You either send in troops from more powerful nation to keep the peace, ignore it and let thousands or millions of people die or go in and kill everybody with a gun and hope that the next people who pick up the gun has better sense to solve their differences with a pen.


Saber rattling has always been an important element of diplomacy. We threaten Iran with bombs, they threaten with terrorism. We say we will not allow it, they say we cannot stop them. While this is going on in public, behind the scenes diplomats are hashing out an agreement.
The US military cannot handle a war with Iran right now and Iran knows this and is using it as diplomatic leverage. They want more power and to be on par with Europe and the US, which I cannot blame them.

the only way oil consumption will decrease by any significant percentage is if another form of energy emerges that's cheaper, more efficient, cleaner, and more convenient than gasoline is now. A couple of things have emerged that could decrease or eliminate our dependancy on oil, but none have taken off. Hybrid cars that can get 60 MPG. If everyone drove a hybrid sedan, our country's gas consumption could literally be cut in half. what do companies do? They make Hybrid SUVs advertised to get 30 MPG. My 1997 station wagon gets 30 MPG. Yeah it's impressive that they can make a vehicle the size of a small TANK get 30 MPG, but it kinda defeats the purpose of driving a hybrid if you're still getting the same mileage as a car made in the previous Century.
You could eliminate the need for gasoling completely by making cars that run entirely on alcohol. It can be done, but nobody seems to want to do it.
Hydrogen powered cars whose emmision is water instead of smoke. BMW is already advertising a hydrogen car on TV. IT MAKES WATER, FOR GOD'S SAKE! HOW MUCH CLEANER CAN A CAR GET? unfortunately, this would require complete overhaul of the existing fueling stations, a pricey endevour.
There's also the possibility that we'll just stop finding oil. Some predictions say the planet's oil stores will be gone in ten years. That'll certainly cut our consumption.

As to your second point: I'm not saying I think our current problems are much worse than those of any previous generation. It's just that **** keeps popping up more and more lately, and I'm just starting to notice it.

(edited so as not to be hypocritical )

But **** has always been popping up. I would suggest to you that it popped up in a much bigger way in 1939, 1948, 1962, and 1979.


As far as the rest of your second paragraph goes, I refer you back to your topic starter:

Hi raydarkhorse,


This is incorrect, a misinterpretation from a poor translation that was then expanded on and served up as propaganda, which suited certain groups and individuals at the time. It now has become 'a fact' simply because it is repeated constantly.


Again this assumption is incorrect, there is a difference between having a civil nuclear power sector and a weapons program.
Indeed there has even been complete and total denials by the Iranian President stating that possessing a Nuclear Weapon is un-Islamic.

But most have been programmed to respond 'Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a madman who can't be trusted'.

The propaganda that is served up is very subtle but it is a continous drip drip effect. Sometimes the drips are large enough to become noticeable. e.g. A ticker tape of PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. Bin Laden for example may scroll across the botton of the TV screen in the corner of the room.
If Iran has a defensive posture, perhaps we should understand why. Now just imagine if Canada and Mexico had been invaded by Iranian forces.
And as China has recently expanded it's military forces, perhaps we need to understand why,

www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

This is perhaps a good place to start.

Your scource is from 2002 three years before the current regime in Iran so has little or no value. I am reading and listening to Arab and pro Arab publications who not only report what I am saying but are proud of it. If you choose to ignore interpetaions by Arab news agencies it's your your choice I won't try to change your views. I try not to let my feelings dictate who and what I believe I try to find the truth if I can and suggest you do the same.

What, like carrots, potatoes, or yams?

Nothing wrong with roots.

Well, if i recall correctly, when the stuff hit the fan in 1939, a World War DID happen. We really had no business getting involved in Korea, kinda like where we are now, but i digress. And if the situation in 62 had gone where many feared it would, it could(and likely WOULD) have affected most of the world whether they got involved militarily or not.

And you're right, the rest of my rant was hypocritical. I've edited the post in question.

But the point is that in each of those years there were major world powers involved (1939: Germany, Italy, Great Britain, France, and later on the USA, the USSR, and Japan. In '48, '62, and '79 it was the USA vs. USSR (or NATO vs. the Warsaw Pact if you prefer.) And I guess you can throw 1950's Korea into the mix as well, even though that was a United Nations gig. I just don't see anything like that happening now. North Korea? I'm not all that sure they can even beat the ROK. Last I checked the South Koreans have a pretty big military of their own. Iran? They couldn't even beat Saddam Hussein in a war that lasted 8 years. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that these clowns are somehow going to ignite World War III.

ever play nuclear risk?? A few pieces are marked on the bottom as nuclear forces.

that reminds me of an incident last week. The local Books-a-Million hosts a chess club every tuesday. Me and three friends were playing a four-way game. After we'd been playing for about ten minutes, this ***hole in a blue ball cap comes up to our table, yells "NUCLEAR BOMB!!" and dumps his coke over the board, washing most of the pieces off, and soaking us in cold soda. It was lucky for him that the store manager was watching, because we're fairly big guys, and there were four of us, and we were truly prepared to go nuclear on his face, and i don't think the rest of the gathering would have disagreed with our reaction, or remembered the incident if questioned.

I think it depends on how you define World War. If it is bullets flying and people dieing somewhere in the world, then yes, there will be (already is) a WWIII, and it will never end. If you mean us against them, fighting 'til one gives up, then I would say no, not like WWI & II. If you mean the "terrorists from the desert" against the USofA, that one is gonna be going on for a long long long (I feel like Harrison Ford in Six Days Seven Nights here) long long long time. But I don't know if you could call that a World War. Confused yet? I am...

"Iran has installed 3,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium - enough to begin industrial-scale production of nuclear fuel and build a warhead within a year, the UN's nuclear watchdog reported last night."
This was reported Friday November 16, 2007 by Julian Borger, diplomatic editor of The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2212071,00.html


It could be argued that this is just to refine fuel for their reactors but with the setup it now allows them to refine uranium to 90%. Fuel grade uranium needs only be between .9 and 2% pure but is usually refined to 3 to 5% pure. However weapons require at least an 85% now they are really going to produce a massive amount of fuel rods for their reactors (how many do they have?) or they are going to produce weapons grade material grade. These are facts they can be checked through the source I have given, one of several or you can check them independently which I encourage. If you can find fact to refute what I have found please send me your source.

It's pretty obvious that they want to build nuclear weapons. This countrie is full of natural gas resources, why would they need nuclear energy...

Frankie

I have been following a website http://www.generationaldynamics.com/ww2010.htm
which seems to point towards a couple of very nasty possible outcomes.
As most of us are preparing for a variety of unknown cases;natural and man made, knowing the range of possible outcomes is quite useful.
It would be interesting to seem how many forum members consider the most probable "class" of survival event;
1) unexpected isolation in wilderness.
2) Natural disaster (Earth Quake,Hurricane etc).
3) Biological (non-terrorist,pandemic)
4) Energy related or economic breakdown.
5) War or Terrorist Act.

I personally can't seem to narrow it down, they all seem equally likely.

1) Energy related or economic breakdown.

I have been doing a lot of research on Peak oil. Here in the states I cant imagine we would do real well if/when oil hits $200 a barrel.

I am not so concerned. Once again, I have to point out we are not in an energy crisis, only an economic one. If peak oil disappeared, there would still be plenty of competitive options at our disposal right now that we could utilize. It might set back individuals for the initial costs of conversion, but the "bump" is relatively small.

I am more worried about either a natural pandemic, or a dirty WMD event. Once unleashed there is little that can be done to stop it from spreading and it would be devastating.