www.ditl.org

Who and under what circumstances do you think World War III will start?

I think China or Russia will start it. But I doubt it will be called WWIII unless it goes nuclear. People have such a negative reaction to calling any war WWIII. When in fact you could call the War on Terror WWIII If you wanted to, and I've heard as much.

I think the most likely reason is oil. But we appear to be moving past that finally.

Grr, I forgot to add China. I have to increase the number of poll options... just a mo

Well historically the #2 and #3 spots team up against the #1. Unless its a triumvirate then #1 and #2 ignore #3 and then go to war with each other. Right now its US- 1, China- 2, Russia- 3 imo.

I said Iran although I dont think it will be them who start it, they'll just be involved.

I think the flash point will be Turkey. They will dam the Euthrates and Tigris rivers (I know I spelt both them wrong) cutting off massive amounts of water to other middle eastern countries. This will be the spark that sets off the middle east.

Every other thing in the middle east dies out over time and with the west slapping them about, but from what I hear this is a massive issue with no solution. Its going to happen, its already in planning from what my uncle tells me who works in the oil industry over there.

Whats left of Iraq will be in shit, Iran will lead the charge with several other Arab nations throwing their hats in the ring, depending on how it goes the rest of the world will have no choice but to get involved.

If the Arab alliance looks to be taking Turkey NATO will have no choice but to step in unless they want Iran controlling the doorway to Europe.

If Turkey wins (unlikely) the worlds oil supplying region gets thrown into chaos.

Russian will leap at the chance wither way to show its once more a super power, maybe byt trying to take over Turkey by Proxy and China may decide now is the time to expand their influence west.

America doesnt have the power to stop it and NATO is drowning in red tape.

When it happens it will happen fast and there is no one power left that can react fast enough to stop it.

Define World War 3 in this instance.
Is it a conflict that takes place across the majority of the planet? In that case, we are already in WW3 due to the WoT.
Is it a conflict that involves a large number of countries? Again, we're already in one.
Is it a conflict like one of the above mentioned, but that isn't a ruthless curb-stomping of one side?
Is it a conflict that involves the use of nuclear weapons?

As for Russia/China/America starting a war with each other, it isn't going to happen. Not for a long time at least. Doing so would fuck up the economies of all three countries to an incredible extent, and there simply is not the willpower for a large scale protracted military campaign. People were bitching when the Iraq War wasn't over in a few weeks. How do you think they'd react to a campaign that takes place over months or years?
Secondly, none of those countries has the manpower to occupy any of the others. China, Russia and American are all simply too large with too big a populace to hold down with the militaries available. The only possible answer would be conscription, and that simply isn't an option in the US and would probably have serious reprecussions for any Russian president that tried to impose it (can't say about China, since I don't know where they stand on it).

Combine the length of a protracted campaign with a lack of soldiers and equipment, insurgent action wherever you take over and a massive body count, and the public would throw whoever's in charge out of office so fast they wouldn't even realise it'd happened.

There's also the fact that, for these three massive countries, war is something that happens far away and causes no difficulties. People in the US that support the Iraq War suffer no problems because of the war, and it doesn't concern them in any way. You think they'd still support it if conscription and rationing was in force, with rockets and aircraft striking targets in the US and maybe even foreign troops on US soil? Hell no.

Teaos:
The concept of a mass alliance in the ME posing a serious threat is unlikely in the extreme. Even ignoring the fact that they all hate each other, they know that such an action would result in an economic bitchslap by every country on the planet. Even if there was no military intervention at all, their countries would collapse into economic ruin.
Secondly, Turkey, from what I understand, has a rather powerful military. If Israel on its own could hold off six different countries attacking it, I'd place my money on Turkey with the backing of the EU (it might very well be a member by then, it's already looking to join), the USA, probably Russia and every other major country on the planet slapping the Arab Alliance down comfortably enough.
And Russia isn't going to jump in on the side of the Arab Alliance. They hate the ME just as much as Europe and America.

Rochey wrote: There's also the fact that, for these three massive countries, war is something that happens far away and causes no difficulties. People in the US that support the Iraq War suffer no problems because of the war, and it doesn't concern them in any way. You think they'd still support it if conscription and rationing was in force, with rockets and aircraft striking targets in the US and maybe even foreign troops on US soil? Hell no.

My history teacher in college always said there were three nations that never bully well throughout history. The Dutch, the English, and the Americans. Look at the solidarity that formed after 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. Its like invading Russia. Russians fought like crap in the Winter War but the Germans found out that the Russians fighting on Russia was a whole different matter. Some countries just don't do too well to other countries trying to bash them into submission. Maybe its the culture. Maybe its a feeling of homeland or the motherland. But some countries just don't bend.

I think the US would be against the war if it happened over sees constantly but if the war was close at home I don't think any invader would have an easy time. Same with Russia, as I contend they aren't easy to bully either, though they have been in the past.

And Russia isn't going to jump in on the side of the Arab Alliance. They hate the ME just as much as Europe and America.

Aye Russia has its own oil concerns to look out for. China though may support the ME.

Rochey wrote:Teaos:
The concept of a mass alliance in the ME posing a serious threat is unlikely in the extreme. Even ignoring the fact that they all hate each other, they know that such an action would result in an economic bitchslap by every country on the planet. Even if there was no military intervention at all, their countries would collapse into economic ruin.
Secondly, Turkey, from what I understand, has a rather powerful military. If Israel on its own could hold off six different countries attacking it, I'd place my money on Turkey with the backing of the EU (it might very well be a member by then, it's already looking to join), the USA, probably Russia and every other major country on the planet slapping the Arab Alliance down comfortably enough.
And Russia isn't going to jump in on the side of the Arab Alliance. They hate the ME just as much as Europe and America.

You misunderstood the concept.

The ME alliance doesnt need to be powerful eough to take on the world. Just to take out Turkey and pose a moderate threat to Eastern Europe, both well with in there power.

Firstly, they have no choice, If Turkey dams the rivers which they are likely to do from what I hear it is going to royally screw over a lot of people, not that Turkey cares.

The threat of economic bitch slap is laughable.

The ME arabs will unit against a common enemy, when they do no one can fuck with them because they hold the oil. We can bitch and moan all we like and make some token efforts but the fact is they can fuck us over by stopping oila lot worse than we can them.

If there water gets cut off they will go to war, they have no choice.

A ME alliance of the Arab nations would put up a damn good fight against Turkey. Them Vs Turkey by themselves, my money is on the Alliance, depending on how fast Europe and US can pour military aid in Turkey it could swing the other way.

The big factor in the war will be how fast it happens and how fast everyone reacts. NATO is not fast to react and only time will tell in what position America will be to help.

Russia and China will not help Turkey. This whole senario works in both their favors.

And I never said Russia will help the ME allaince (not directly anyway, they may supply weapons ect) they will how ever try to throw around their poiltical muscle a bit and expand their zone of influence.

If you define WWIII as the first war in which nuclear weapons are used on a large scale, and the "starter" being the country to first use nukes, then Pakistan should be the runaway leader. They and the Indians have been at each others throats for years, and they have a clear policy, if somewhat lacking in detail, that they'd be prepared to use nukes first to counter Indian conventional superiority, if the country's existence was threatened.

Personally I can see any number of nations starting it. It could be china, it could be Iran, it could be Russia, It could be Pakistan, It could be North Korea. All of them are on the rise of technology, all of them have shown that they aren't exactly friends with NATO and the UN. I think once Iran gets its mittens on Nuclear's, Israel's fucked.

Reliant121 wrote:Personally I can see any number of nations starting it. It could be china, it could be Iran, it could be Russia, It could be Pakistan, It could be North Korea. All of them are on the rise of technology, all of them have shown that they aren't exactly friends with NATO and the UN. I think once Iran gets its mittens on Nuclear's, Israel's f***ed.

There certainly won't be much left of Iran if that happens. Israel is already on record as stating they will not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

My money is on Pakistan though, a country with a large number of loons and with an intelligence service completely controlled by said loons. It also has no hope in hades of winning or even surviving a conventional war against India, if India decided on day that they had enough of Pakistan's crap and invaded they wouldn't have any choice but to go nuclear if they wanted the slightest chance of surviving.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:Personally I can see any number of nations starting it. It could be china, it could be Iran, it could be Russia, It could be Pakistan, It could be North Korea. All of them are on the rise of technology, all of them have shown that they aren't exactly friends with NATO and the UN. I think once Iran gets its mittens on Nuclear's, Israel's f***ed.

There certainly won't be much left of Iran if that happens. Israel is already on record as stating they will not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

My money is on Pakistan though, a country with a large number of loons and with an intelligence service completely controlled by said loons. It also has no hope in hades of winning or even surviving a conventional war against India, if India decided on day that they had enough of Pakistan's crap and invaded they wouldn't have any choice but to go nuclear if they wanted the slightest chance of surviving.

True. I would assume someone would take exception to Pakistan's use of nuclear weaponry? Apart from obviously India.

Reliant121 wrote:

True. I would assume someone would take exception to Pakistan's use of nuclear weaponry? Apart from obviously India.

Probably most of the world community, whether anything becomes of it who knows. Chances are the Pakistan won't survive India's retaliation anyways. They've had nukes for longer, have a bigger arsenal and nobody is even sure if Pakistan's even work. They had a bunch of rather spectacular failures a number of years back.

I voted North Korea.

I did so, because while most other nations may be hostile, they atleast have reason...the leader of N. Korea however is at a stalemate with the US and UN. The US/UN won't help him unless he gets rid of his nucs, he's thretening to shoot off his nukes unless the US/UN secures his regieme, and it seems like neither side is willing to compromise.

I see it playing out that after we're done in the middle east, maybe a few presidents down the line when we get another incompetant one, the US decides that we don't need to ask him to get rid of the nukes, we'll undermine his regieme. The Korean leader will then launch nukes, initiating WWIII.

Lt. Staplic wrote:I voted North Korea.

I did so, because while most other nations may be hostile, they atleast have reason...the leader of N. Korea however is at a stalemate with the US and UN. The US/UN won't help him unless he gets rid of his nucs, he's thretening to shoot off his nukes unless the US/UN secures his regieme, and it seems like neither side is willing to compromise.

I see it playing out that after we're done in the middle east, maybe a few presidents down the line when we get another incompetant one, the US decides that we don't need to ask him to get rid of the nukes, we'll undermine his regieme. The Korean leader will then launch nukes, initiating WWIII.

You know their nukes don't work, right?