Is WWIII just around the corner?

ninebeanrows · 13-07-2006 06:44PM #1

The state if the world politcally at present is absolutely dire.

We have the North Koreans coming out of their shell launching test
missile. We have an entirely ruined Iraq, a terriost gangland across
the middle east that are intent on causing havoc. We have a tyrantical
Iran with missile capabilities. We then have the present tensions between
Israel and Palestine and Lebanon. This could well be the precusor to
a serious set of events, the Iranians will not stand round and let their
friends be battered by Israeli forces and perhaps in the coming months
we are going to see Iran's true missile capabilities.

Because at present the world is extremely tense.

Giblet · 13-07-2006 06:48PM

Moved to politics

Patricide · 13-07-2006 06:49PM

I agree, the worlds in a very very shaky way right now,if world war 3 does break out though id say thats it, its end of the world time with all the advances in nuclear tech. and the amount of countrys now able to weild them id seriously get worried if things get heated up more.

history_buff · 13-07-2006 08:59PM

Weathercheck wrote:

The state if the world politcally at present is absolutely dire.

We have the North Koreans coming out of their shell launching test
missile. We have an entirely ruined Iraq, a terriost gangland across
the middle east that are intent on causing havoc. We have a tyrantical
Iran with missile capabilities. We then have the present tensions between
Israel and Palestine and Lebanon. This could well be the precusor to
a serious set of events, the Iranians will not stand round and let their
friends be battered by Israeli forces and perhaps in the coming months
we are going to see Iran's true missile capabilities.

Because at present the world is extremely tense.

Weathercheck, take a reality check. The world is in a dire situation for none of the above reasons. Why don't you look to Washington, London and Tel Aviv for the source of danger.

Liber8or · 13-07-2006 11:47PM

World War 3 is not even comprehendable in the next 20 years. At the moment, the main violence in the World is in the middle-east. This is a complex situation.

At face-value its a war of religion and land. Arabs/Muslims against Jews and vice-versa. I wont get into the finer parts or "who's right and who's wrong" but this tension is evident. Lets be honest, the Middle-East has always been an area of tension. This is through other governments funding a particular side for their own gains or as i said before religion/land. When i refer to governments i mean the Cold War.

I dont think WW3 is any where close yet, because the tension is fuelled by the war of oil (no pun intended

). Various nations in the World (and i wont use the stereotypical answer as an example) have huge interests in what the Middle East has. As long as Oil is in the region, as long as there is some sort of value to that area groups all over the world will use the Middle East nations as puppets to control that region.

Iraq is a mess. It might take years to get it to a decent state, but most importantly to other nations, the flow of oil will continue.

Israel is "defending" its borders. It feels it has to invade Gaza and Lebanon to ensure their safety. Its wrong, but Lebanon and Gaza are not innocent either. Again, its just a front of a war between other nations. The majority of Muslims are passive people, they dont seek violence and neither do the Jews. But it only takes a few people on either side to take things too far.

Iran, the only thing that confuses me is the reason behind wanting Nuclear Power. They have an inconceivable amount of Oil and Gas yet they need Nuclear Power for some reason. Something that they KNOW will cause them problems on the International Table. Perhaps its for honour or just a move to show the world that they are a developing nation and they are very pro-enviornment!

Or perhaps its for sinister reasons. Either way it wont be years until they can develop a nuclear weapon.

North Korea are isolated. They want to be a threat, a big leaguer, show the World they are a nation of power just as much as France/Britain/America. If NK want to start a war it would begin with SK as it is their belief in honour that would drive them to re-take Seoul. So that their country can be reunited as one. By the time that happens, Russian/Chineese/Japaneese and ofcourse American forces would be moving in. It wouldnt be a World War, it would be a very fast war...

Well here is my note on the subject, living up to Boards expectations im sure there will be someone along to castrate me on some point or another. Its just my theory on the subject. And as a very famous person once said "Take me as i am, or dont take me at all" :cool:

Looking forward to other people's input.

lostexpectation · 14-07-2006 12:03AM

it will be ww4, ww3 equals cold war

philologos · 14-07-2006 12:08AM

Weathercheck wrote:

We have a tyrantical
Iran with missile capabilities. This could well be the precusor to
a serious set of events, the Iranians will not stand round and let their
friends be battered by Israeli forces and perhaps in the coming months
we are going to see Iran's true missile capabilities.

I assume that you are disccussing the alledged Nuclear weapons, which is really just Iran's attempt to move to nuclear energy, in my opinion anyway. USA poses more of a threat to the world than Iran.

Cold War = Cold War
wasnt big enough to be called WW3

justfortherecor · 14-07-2006 03:28AM

Sure its of no concern to us anyways, aren't we neutral:)

Manic Moran · 14-07-2006 04:14AM

I don't know about it being just around the corner, but I see it happening rather as different regions seizing an opportunistic moment simultaneously. That opportunistic moment being the impression that the US are over-extended and cannot be in their own area. Say, for example, that the current MidEast thing escalates and the US gets dragged in again. (I don't see it happening because (a) Israel needs no help, and (b) the last time the US went in, they took a lot of casualties). North Korea might think "aha.. The US is too busy to deal with us. Now's our chance to re-unite with our misguided Southern brothers". China might then think "Right, so.. With the US dealing with MidEast and Korea, we'll have a go at the Spratley Islands." And so on down the globe in other countries.

NTM

Andy-Pandy · 14-07-2006 08:02AM

Why should'nt Iran have a nuke. Nearly every country on there borders has one pointing at them, they should be able to point one back, and remember Iran hasnt started a war in somthing like 1000 years. They would never be stupid enough to use it anyway.

TerrorFirmer · 14-07-2006 08:08AM

the Iranians will not stand round and let their
friends be battered by Israeli forces

Yes, they will.

edit: edited rest of post, didn't read the original post right

Bookee · 14-07-2006 08:17AM

Whatever happens Israel will have US support, so they can just continue to flatten Gaza, invade Lebannon, etc. while the rest of the world sits back and watches. Look at the military force Israel has; Palestinians have no chance.

14-07-2006 08:21AM

Andy-Pandy wrote:

Why should'nt Iran have a nuke. Nearly every country on there borders has one pointing at them, they should be able to point one back, and remember Iran hasnt started a war in somthing like 1000 years. They would never be stupid enough to use it anyway.

Because they're not very nice people. The world is a safer place if Iran doesn't have nukes.

sovtek · 14-07-2006 08:32AM

Deleted User wrote:

Because they're not very nice people. The world is a safer place if Iran doesn't have nukes.

As far as being nice...the biggest bastards in the ME have nukes!
Iran doesn't have nukes...
It goes without saying that the world would be safer without nukes altogether. That might happen should the countries with the most start, in good faith, getting rid of theirs.
If Washington and London would get the hell out of the middle east then things might calm down.
This Israel situation the last week is really looking like things are on the edge though.
It was scary sitting there listening to the Israeli Foreign Minister spout off with his distinct South African accent last night on Newsnight.

14-07-2006 09:38AM

What specifically is so scary about a South African accent? I find it quite pleasant myself.

I agree with you that the influence of Washington/London has a lot to do with the problems in the Middle East. However as long as they need oil from the middle east they are going to are going to interfere with the Middle East. Whether they should or not isn't really the question, the fact is that they will. A new generation of nuclear plants in the west may actually be a force for positive change in the middle east. Reduced energy independence would reduce the "need" for Western intervention in middle eastern politics. Reduced western interference would mean current authoritarian rulers would lose a vital source of support. This step back would also reduce the influence of extremists in the Middle East, which rely on Westen intrusion in their affairs as a key source of support. This would leave the oft repressed liberal voices in a strengthened position to influence their countries.

One of the reason I particularly don't want to see Iran with nukes, is that nukes have a tendency to entrench regimes. Outside forces would be far more wary of supporting the liberal/progressive elements in Iranian politics, as the possibility of nukes going missing in a time of political instability is not something people want to run the risk of happening. Nukes might consolidate the ruling elites in Iran but they would not necessarily help the Iranian people.

The Israelis having nukes and the arab states not, means the elimination of Israel is no longer a viable option. In the long run this leaves peace as the only real option. More liberal Arab leaders may be more willing to work towards solving the Palestinian question than current leaders. Current leaders often seem to rely on the lack of a solution and the ensuing conflict as method to draw their country together against a common enemy and focus their people away from their own authoritarian rule.

philologos · 14-07-2006 10:50AM

Deleted User wrote:

Because they're not very nice people. The world is a safer place if Iran doesn't have nukes.

neither are the USA, Britain, and Israel if you look at the way they deal with people in combat.... Actually Iran have more cop on than all those countries if they havent started a war in 1000 years

philologos · 14-07-2006 10:53AM

justfortherecor wrote:

Sure its of no concern to us anyways, aren't we neutral:)

not really if we let the USA use Shannon, thats kinda saying we are neutral and giving another country a helping hand through the back door. That isnt neutrality..

bonkey · 14-07-2006 10:56AM

Weathercheck wrote:

The state if the world politcally at present is absolutely dire.

So....no change then. Its been pretty dire all of my life.

This could well be the precusor to a serious set of events

Yup. It could indeed be. Then again, so could a lot of things.

We've been as "on the brink" as we can get for some time now - maybe 40 years or more.

14-07-2006 11:02AM

bonkey wrote:

We've been as "on the brink" as we can get for some time now - maybe 40 years or more.

I'd say about 61 years actually

uberpixie · 14-07-2006 11:30AM

Deleted User wrote:

One of the reason I particularly don't want to see Iran with nukes, is that nukes have a tendency to entrench regimes.

Nukes might consolidate the ruling elites in Iran but they would not necessarily help the Iranian people.

The Israelis having nukes and the arab states not, means the elimination of Israel is no longer a viable option.

In the long run this leaves peace as the only real option.

To be fair the points you make about Iran can be applied to Israel.

What stops Israel from running amok?

In all honesty how likely is Israel to be bothered about making peace when there is no one else to challange their power?

If an Arab state in the region had nukes pointed directly at Israel, might Israel then start acting differently and start making peace?:D

Personally I don't like ANY country having nukes.

But you seem to be relying on Israel to make peace in the region.

Countries really only ever make peace when wars between them are too costly.

At the moment Israel can attack at whim the weaker Arab countries and cause huge damage and casualties with very little cost in terms of casualties and with no threat of international sanctions.
(in comaprison to Palestine or the Lebannon which do very little damge in return)

The fact that the hardline can be taken so easily keeps the hardliners in power in Israel and entrenches Israel's position.

Peace is not the only option Israel has at the moment that's why they won't take it.

bonkey · 14-07-2006 12:08PM

Deleted User wrote:

One of the reason I particularly don't want to see Iran with nukes, is that nukes have a tendency to entrench regimes.

They do?

I'm trying to think of a regime which was entrenched by the acquisition of nuclear weapons, but I'm coming up short. All of the entrenched ones were pretty-much entrenched before they had nukes.

Outside forces would be far more wary of supporting the liberal/progressive elements in Iranian politics,

How do you make that out? When nukes remove other options, then you work with whats left. Note, for example, that the USSR and China - both "entrenched" nuclear regimes - were/are being tackled in more-or-less the same way...a carrot tied to capitalism, reform, and basically the support of liberal/progressive agendas.

Pakistan and India, also, are being courted to reform in the progressive/liberal-supporting manner.

The Israelis having nukes and the arab states not, means the elimination of Israel is no longer a viable option.

The elimination of Israel was never a viable option. It may have been attempted, but it was never viable. Nules only change the manner of the non-viability, regardless of who is holding them.

If Iran had nukes and Israel not...it still would not be viable.

In the long run this leaves peace as the only real option.

True with or without nukes.

jc

bonkey · 14-07-2006 12:15PM

uberpixie wrote:

Peace is not the only option Israel has at the moment that's why they won't take it.

Lets be fair here...

peace requires both sides to want peace, and currently that doesn't seem to be the case. Both sides want victory, which they will call peace.

jc

Manic Moran · 14-07-2006 01:01PM

uberpixie wrote:

What stops Israel from running amok?

Economics, mainly.

Israel is probably the epitomy of the Citizen Army. Everyone does time. Male, female, and they all go into the reserves. As it is, they have a very large defense budget for their size, and reserves who are called up to fight people are not earning money, not providing taxes, and forming an additional cost to the government: When Israel mobilised in 1967 in response to the Arab threat, it basically had a week before the country went practically bankrupt. This is part of the reason that the masking ploy they used worked: Everyone knew that Israel couldn't afford a continuous war footing, so when they announced a stand-down of the reserves, everyone believed them. Evidently, the Israeli government decided that going broke 'now' was much better than waiting around indefinitely and having a war 'next week'.

Unlike a case like Argentina 1982, Israel doesn't need a 'unifying war.' The people and national identity are pretty strong as it is. There is no great benefit to Israel to run amok: It's expensive, and doesn't do them any good at all.

NTM

uberpixie · 14-07-2006 01:47PM

bonkey wrote:

Lets be fair here...

peace requires both sides to want peace, and currently that doesn't seem to be the case. Both sides want victory, which they will call peace.

jc

True both sides have to want peace: the point I am making is that as long as Israel have the military option open to them, peace is a very remote possibility.

Isreal responds in great force to an attack: which in turn leads to high Arab causalties, which leads to a new batch of Arab freedom fighters/terrorists.
(we all know the cycle)

Again countries only make peace when it's too difficult/uncomfortable to wage war.

At the moment it's not overly difficult/uncomfortable to wage war for Israel, so they can and will.

Why make peace with an enemy when they are weaker than you and you can butcher them instead and make sure they always stay weaker than you?

Morgan: I would call bombing two neighbouring countries at will, attacking clearly civillian targets/areas, without any threat of international sanctions running amok.

I guess the economics prevents them from doing on a larger scale :-)

bonkey · 14-07-2006 02:13PM

uberpixie wrote:

True both sides have to want peace: the point I am making is that as long as Israel have the military option open to them, peace is a very remote possibility.

THe point I'm making is that while shells rain down on Israel, peace is a very remote possibility as well, military option open or not.

Both sides need to start addressing their own issues. Then they can start talking. While both sides point fingers at the other and insist they make the first move....well....the rockets will continue to fly and the miltiary option will continue to be exercised regardless.

Isreal responds in great force to an attack: which in turn leads to high Arab causalties, which leads to a new batch of Arab freedom fighters/terrorists.
(we all know the cycle)

Key word - cycle. The point I'm making is that neither side alone can resolve this. Its not just because Israel have a military option available that there's an issue.

At the moment it's not overly difficult/uncomfortable to wage war for Israel,

I take it you don't live there.

Why make peace with an enemy when they are weaker than you and you can butcher them instead and make sure they always stay weaker than you?

Because peace is a preferable situation. This isn't like the US in Iraq, where the death-and-injuries are limtied to Americans in the field and the natives. Every single Israeli lives with the reality that they could be next. Try living that for a while and then tell me that superior firepower and knowing that while you may die your nation won't be overrun anytmie soon makes it all alright.

Morgan: I would call bombing two neighbouring countries at will, attacking clearly civillian targets/areas, without any threat of international sanctions running amok.

Its definitely disproportionate and unacceptable in nature....but that latter qualification describes most acts of both sides with relation to each other.

darkman2 · 14-07-2006 03:00PM

Manic Moran wrote:

Economics, mainly.

Israel is probably the epitomy of the Citizen Army. Everyone does time. Male, female, and they all go into the reserves. As it is, they have a very large defense budget for their size, and reserves who are called up to fight people are not earning money, not providing taxes, and forming an additional cost to the government: When Israel mobilised in 1967 in response to the Arab threat, it basically had a week before the country went practically bankrupt. This is part of the reason that the masking ploy they used worked: Everyone knew that Israel couldn't afford a continuous war footing, so when they announced a stand-down of the reserves, everyone believed them. Evidently, the Israeli government decided that going broke 'now' was much better than waiting around indefinitely and having a war 'next week'.

Unlike a case like Argentina 1982, Israel doesn't need a 'unifying war.' The people and national identity are pretty strong as it is. There is no great benefit to Israel to run amok: It's expensive, and doesn't do them any good at all.

NTM

I dont really think much of that matters as the Americans fund Isreal as it is:rolleyes:

14-07-2006 10:42PM

uberpixie wrote:

True both sides have to want peace: the point I am making is that as long as Israel have the military option open to them, peace is a very remote possibility.

All countries that have made peace in the past, always had the military option available to them. The factor is that the benefits of peace outway the liability of war. Wars are expensive in both monetary and resources (including population). [Britain could have continued their war against Ireland and regained true occupation. The benefits of peace outwayed the trouble keeping us under control]

Why make peace with an enemy when they are weaker than you and you can butcher them instead and make sure they always stay weaker than you?

Why seek to make peace with people that refuse to reject their own declaration of war? In Palestines case, Hamas [The group voted into power by the majority of palestinians] refuses to reject its own war with Israel at every point, so why should Israel seek to aid them? After all, there is zero likelyhood that Hamas [and the palestinian people] will seek to stop attacks made on Israeli targets if peace was brought into being.

I would call bombing two neighbouring countries at will, attacking clearly civillian targets/areas, without any threat of international sanctions running amok.

So you reject their responses to repeated attacks on their own soil then? You don't object to those countries refusal to limit or crack down on the groups that attacks Israel's soil? Its one thing to point out Israel as the aggressor (which it has been in the past), but another to conveniently ignore the pinprick attacks made to bring them to that point.

Sure, casualties have been low, but we converse from a country that hasn't had any real violence in over 70 years. If your country is being attacked regularly regardless of the actual casualties involved, you're going to want to stop it. Seems the only thing that these people understand is violence.

Is WWIII just around the corner?

Comments