NationStates

If there's another world war, it's going to be Chandler's fault, not the US and Syria.

The whole "Mutually assured destruction" is a wonderful deterrent for countries to avoid a world war.

Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, do not approve of war against Syria, so I don't see us getting involved unless Obama bypasses the People and makes a stupid decision by going to war.

Ultrapia wrote:Having read some recent articles on the current Syria conflict and other things caused by the Arab Spring. Allot of people have been saying we are on the brink of a major war. Perhaps even a third world war. (pfft, yeh right)

To be honest I don't think it will come to that.

But when you look at it does look bad. UK and US (both N.A.T.O Nations) planning intervention against Assad Regime, Russia and China supporting the regime, Iran and Israel not getting on, almost civil war in Egypt, separate rebel groups in Syria have links to Al Qeueda and I've just read an article that Russia threatened Saudi Arabia.

Of course this happens allot. To be honest I don't think WW3 will happen and think that this is the talk of conspiracy nutcases. But what do you think?

How many threads of WWIII are we going to get?

Derase wrote:US and UK launch cruise missiles on Syria, Iran drops missiles on Israel. There we go. ;/

Exactly

New Embossia wrote:Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, do not approve of war against Syria, so I don't see us getting involved unless Obama bypasses the People and makes a stupid decision by going to war.

I believe if the UN comes back with evidence that Assad did it, support for intervention will skyrocket. However, if their is no definitive proof or their proof actually says the FSA did it, it will drop harder than it is now.

Sibator wrote:

New Embossia wrote:Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, do not approve of war against Syria, so I don't see us getting involved unless Obama bypasses the People and makes a stupid decision by going to war.

I believe if the UN comes back with evidence that Assad did it, support for intervention will skyrocket. However, if their is no definitive proof or their proof actually says the FSA did it, it will drop harder than it is now.

You have to think to yourself. If the government is winning, then why would they use chemical weapons instead of as a last resort? Questions anyone?

The Silver Bloods wrote:

Sibator wrote:I believe if the UN comes back with evidence that Assad did it, support for intervention will skyrocket. However, if their is no definitive proof or their proof actually says the FSA did it, it will drop harder than it is now.

You have to think to yourself. If the government is winning, then why would they use chemical weapons instead of as a last resort? Questions anyone?

I am pretty sure even if they were winning they would still use it to make sure the war stays that way. While I don't necessarily think the Syrian Government did it, I have a hard time seeing why the wouldn't. Yes Assad allowed UN inspectors in, but if he didn't wouldn't that have been a clear sign something was wrong? Meanwhile, he could hope they die in the war or have inconclusive evidence.

I don't necessarily think they did it, but I won't be surprised if they did.

Sibator wrote:

The Silver Bloods wrote:You have to think to yourself. If the government is winning, then why would they use chemical weapons instead of as a last resort? Questions anyone?

I am pretty sure even if they were winning they would still use it to make sure the war stays that way. While I don't necessarily think the Syrian Government did it, I have a hard time seeing why the wouldn't. Yes Assad allowed UN inspectors in, but if he didn't wouldn't that have been a clear sign something was wrong? Meanwhile, he could hope they die in the war or have inconclusive evidence.

I don't necessarily think they did it, but I won't be surprised if they did.

I wouldn't be surprised either, but I think it was a third party. By using chemical weapons you put international tension on your country with many who will oppose you and take action against you due to the Geneva Convention.

The Silver Bloods wrote:

Sibator wrote:I am pretty sure even if they were winning they would still use it to make sure the war stays that way. While I don't necessarily think the Syrian Government did it, I have a hard time seeing why the wouldn't. Yes Assad allowed UN inspectors in, but if he didn't wouldn't that have been a clear sign something was wrong? Meanwhile, he could hope they die in the war or have inconclusive evidence.

I don't necessarily think they did it, but I won't be surprised if they did.

I wouldn't be surprised either, but I think it was a third party. By using chemical weapons you put international tension on your country with many who will oppose you and take action against you due to the Geneva Convention.

I believe it entirely depends on whether or not Assad believes the advantage of tactical chemical strikes is worth the risk of international attention.

Sibator wrote:

The Silver Bloods wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised either, but I think it was a third party. By using chemical weapons you put international tension on your country with many who will oppose you and take action against you due to the Geneva Convention.

I believe it entirely depends on whether or not Assad believes the advantage of tactical chemical strikes is worth the risk of international attention.

There would be less controversy if he bombed them out, so why draw the attention by chemical attacks. I think the UN report may come back that it was neither party possibly.

The Silver Bloods wrote:

Sibator wrote:I believe it entirely depends on whether or not Assad believes the advantage of tactical chemical strikes is worth the risk of international attention.

There would be less controversy if he bombed them out, so why draw the attention by chemical attacks. I think the UN report may come back that it was neither party possibly.

Because they are devastating to morale. In a crucial attack, the usage of chemical attacks could easily break the unit being fired upon, especially rebels who have no protection against it and are mostly formed up of undisciplined partisans and a few ex-Syrian government forces. Not to mention conventional weaponry is not as useful for infantry urban dispersion as chemical attacks, since conventional weapons would have to knock a building down to eliminate the infantry inside, but chemical weapons can seep in.

Sibator wrote:

The Silver Bloods wrote:There would be less controversy if he bombed them out, so why draw the attention by chemical attacks. I think the UN report may come back that it was neither party possibly.

Because they are devastating to morale. In a crucial attack, the usage of chemical attacks could easily break the unit being fired upon, especially rebels who have no protection against it and are mostly formed up of undisciplined partisans and a few ex-Syrian government forces. Not to mention conventional weaponry is not as useful for infantry urban dispersion as chemical attacks, since conventional weapons would have to knock a building down to eliminate the infantry inside, but chemical weapons can seep in.

I understand what you are saying more now, you are saying that chemical weapons would lower the rebels' morale along with devastating destruction with no damage to buildings compared to bombing them which risks collateral damage.

World War III is not only possible, but fairly likely to occur within the next 50 or so years and it will very likely be not a war of ideology but a water conflict. Either China or a combination of Africa and the Middle East will likely be the origin point of this conflict. Although the term is Water Conflict, there will probably be a smaller amount of conflict directly over water as one may expect. Instead, conflict is more likely to take place over the remaining arable farmland and grain stores. To put things into perspective, we can look at past occurrences of such events:

After a brutal heat wave decimated Russia’s wheat crop during the summer of 2010, the global price of wheat (and so of that staple of life,bread) began an inexorable upward climb, reaching particularly high levels in North Africa and the Middle East. With local governments unwilling or unable to help desperate populations, anger over impossible-to-afford food merged with resentment toward autocratic regimes to trigger the massive popular outburst we know as the Arab Spring.

According to wikipedia (yes, I'm too lazy to look for other sources), the US currently exports approximately 50% of all wheat produced. The US is ranked fourth in wheat production at 62 million tons (2012 numbers), behind only China, India and the EU. China currently imports US wheat, whereas both The EU and India are exporters of Wheat, particularly to Middle and Far Eastern countries.Take into account the World's rapidly growing population, particularly in in the Far Eastern Region, Climate change, or whatever other factors you may or may not find to be scientifically sound, and suddenly halt the world trade of wheat. It wouldn't be long before Africa and the Middle East erupted in conflict. As for China, a decent portion of their farmland is made arable by the Yangtze, Mekong and Indus Rivers which in turn are heavily impacted by Glacial melt from the Tibetan Plateau, which already is experiencing some of the quickest Glacial Retreat of the world. Imagine for a moment that these glaciers were to disappear and cease to fuel the farmland of central china, leaving only the farmland of southern china to feed the entire nation. If similar situations or an equivalent growth of demand were to place greater strain upon the exports of other countries, China would very likely be impacted. However, as china is a world power of significance it is also likely that they will receive preferential treatment in such matters, leaving African and Middle Eastern nations little choice in such matters.

If you take issue with this hastily constructed argument of mine, then by all means disagree. If you want a better, more constructed argument, then I recommend that you take a look at Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update, which illustrates such things indescribably better then I am capable.

Eh, we're no closer to World War III now then we were forty years ago. Just a lot of bitching, a lot of people dying, and a lot of governments letting it happen.

Augarundus wrote:

Arumdaum wrote:There's no need to be worried about NK. They aren't as suicidal as people often portray them as.

They might be if the US strikes first.

Except, if we strike first, we've got to deal with China.

Believe it or not, the NK/SK/US/China situation is more or less the same as it was during the Korean War, save for technological advances on all sides. Sure, in a conventional war, and assuming no Chinese intervention, US and SK would wipe the floor with the KPA. But assuming China won't intervene on NK's behalf is like saying that if Russia invaded Canada, the US wouldn't intervene.

Now, with China involved, things get a little more complicated. NK does have one of the largest militaries in the world, but that doesn't mean much when most are armed with little better than sticks and stones (and what decent weapons they do have probably are so sparse there's little to no options for replacement if a particular weapon gets damaged or destroyed). China, on the other hand, has not only numbers, but decent equipment, and options for replacement.

Essentially, you have a Zerg Rush. While US/ROK have the technological superiority, DPRK/PRC have sheer numbers on their side. Not to mention that if things get REALLY bad for NK, I don't think they wouldn't hesitate to try to use their nukes (potentially leading to a US/PRC nuclear exchange).

Basically, if we strike first, shit WILL hit the fan for at least one (and probably both) sides. If I, an 18 year old with little more than a high school diploma to my name, can figure this out in the space of the 10 minutes it took me to compose this response, I'm fairly sure that both the US AND China have figured it out, and in even greater detail, so there's little to no chance of a US first strike (of any nature) on NK.

tl;dr: Due to the nature of the beast, there is no chance of the US launching an unprovoked attack against North Korea.

New Embossia wrote:Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, 1. do not approve of war against Syria, so 2. I don't see us getting involved unless Obama bypasses the People and makes a stupid decision by going to war.

1. Good thing its not going to be a war for us, then.

2. Except, you know, nothing being proposed is a war. Just a limited missile strike to take out Syria's chemical weapons delivery systems. A proposal, that, when properly spelled out, 80% of Americans have expressed support for.

Severania wrote:

Derase wrote:US and UK launch cruise missiles on Syria, Iran drops missiles on Israel. There we go. ;/

Exactly

Then we have a legitimate reason to support Israel, due to Iran launching an unprovoked attack.

The Silver Bloods wrote:

Sibator wrote:I believe if the UN comes back with evidence that Assad did it, support for intervention will skyrocket. However, if their is no definitive proof or their proof actually says the FSA did it, it will drop harder than it is now.

You have to think to yourself. If the government is winning, then why would they use chemical weapons instead of as a last resort? Questions anyone?

Maybe, the government ISN'T winning, but is rather locked into a vicious stalemate, and is seeking to turn the tide in their favor by any means necessary.

I am extremely happy everyone here is logical about this whole thing, unlike the douchebags on the Yahoo comment boards who form their opinions on little facts and just hate on things for no reason. I quote...

"Senate panel votes to support the same terrorists we have been fighting the last 15 years."

While there is the possibility of terrorists sparking something like this, we don't have any evidence pointing to who could have used those weapons. Terrorists don't operate like that. If it was a terrorist group, they would have claimed responsibility by now. Moving on, since thats not what this topic is about....

Today's world is a bit more civil than it used to be, making WW3 highly unlikely. Hell, it makes just about any war between superpower countries highly unlikely. But its possibility still is there, since the Senate recently approved the resolution to allow Obama to attack Syria with limited strikes, as long as the mission does not exceed 90 days and no American troops on the ground.

*Grabs popcorn*

I'd just like to quote a little Colbert here;

"The United States has no choice but to attack Syria because Dictator Bashar al-Assad is killing his own people with chemical weapons. Before he was just killing them with bullets. But, if America cared about shooting people, we'd be invading Chicago."



About ww3, It's getting old always mentioning it whenever a conflict occurs. It's getting to be a joke

It really does not have to be a world war. It could be a war between the major powers (US, Russia and CHina) with the other nations staying out of it. Some of those nations might be thinking, once the big guys wore themselves down that they would then be able to take over.

Conscentia wrote:Yes, but they lack range & their only friends, if they even still are the DPRK's friends, are unlikely to help them.
North Korea is capable of using military force to defend it's own existence, but beyond that North Korea can do little but waste it's own resources.

Yeah, I don't think North Korea is a grave threat. I do think that American interests face opposition (I wouldn't describe them as "threats" - they're only "threats" if you choose to make them so), but I don't believe that there are great, maniacal forces in the world threatening the West these days. That includes North Korea.

North Korea might use nukes if they develop feasible ones and if the US pushes them into a corner. Otherwise, they probably won't.

Grenartia wrote:Except, if we strike first, we've got to deal with China.

Believe it or not, the NK/SK/US/China situation is more or less the same as it was during the Korean War, save for technological advances on all sides. Sure, in a conventional war, and assuming no Chinese intervention, US and SK would wipe the floor with the KPA. But assuming China won't intervene on NK's behalf is like saying that if Russia invaded Canada, the US wouldn't intervene.

Now, with China involved, things get a little more complicated. NK does have one of the largest militaries in the world, but that doesn't mean much when most are armed with little better than sticks and stones (and what decent weapons they do have probably are so sparse there's little to no options for replacement if a particular weapon gets damaged or destroyed). China, on the other hand, has not only numbers, but decent equipment, and options for replacement.

Essentially, you have a Zerg Rush. While US/ROK have the technological superiority, DPRK/PRC have sheer numbers on their side. Not to mention that if things get REALLY bad for NK, I don't think they wouldn't hesitate to try to use their nukes (potentially leading to a US/PRC nuclear exchange).

Basically, if we strike first, shit WILL hit the fan for at least one (and probably both) sides. If I, an 18 year old with little more than a high school diploma to my name, can figure this out in the space of the 10 minutes it took me to compose this response, I'm fairly sure that both the US AND China have figured it out, and in even greater detail, so there's little to no chance of a US first strike (of any nature) on NK.

tl;dr: Due to the nature of the beast, there is no chance of the US launching an unprovoked attack against North Korea.

I don't think it's likely China would intervene to protect North Korea. I think China recognizes that NOKO is more of a strategic liability than asset for the PRC. That said, I think it is possible China could use retaliation against a US-led strike against NOKO as a pretense for Chinese invasion of Taiwan (as a justification for other, more strategically significant Chinese military objectives). But NOKO and China aren't great friends these days.

China could dissuade NOKO from using their nukes if those really in charge of NOKO (that means the intelligent people besides Jim jong un) are persuaded that some sort of lower-risk compromise can be reached. I also don't think that China is that much technologically inferior to the US in terms of military equipment. they're access-denial missiles and antisatellite technology could neutralize a lot of US assets in the region (US naval approach from the Pacific is strategically impossible - they'd have to attack from the Indian Ocean-->South china sea). I think conventional warfare could get bogged down in the region and both nations could face a protracted war (probably a naval conflict) in Asia, with a real possibility that either side could defeat the other in Asia (and essentially no possibility that China would, in the foreseeable future, invade any portion of the US - continental or not).

It's still a possibility of course, and I wouldn't put any stupid decision past US or Chinese policy makers - they're on a collision course for an avoidable world war now, from what I've read. I think that the chances are high that the US could militarily intervene in North Korea (well, probably not if the US economy continues in decline, but maybe even then as assets are redeployed to the asia pivot, or if the US uses the war as a diversion for the public's economic concern), just not that it's a strategic choice to do.

Sure, I mean anything is possible with Kim Possible.

I'm sorry. It's just a show I watched when I was a kid.

...

Anyway, WW3, when it happens. It will happen. Probably not a whole lot we can do about it anyway.

Mike the Progressive wrote:Sure, I mean anything is possible with Kim Possible.

I'm sorry. It's just a show I watched when I was a kid.

...

Anyway, WW3, when it happens. It will happen. Probably not a whole lot we can do about it anyway.

Not a lot we can do about it? What are you, Canadian?

Norstal wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:Sure, I mean anything is possible with Kim Possible.

I'm sorry. It's just a show I watched when I was a kid.

...

Anyway, WW3, when it happens. It will happen. Probably not a whole lot we can do about it anyway.

Not a lot we can do about it? What are you, Canadian?

You can call me a lot of things. A son of a bitch. A bastard. A fucking piece of shit. But don't you ever. I repeat, don't you ever call me a Canadian!

Mike the Progressive wrote:Sure, I mean anything is possible with Kim Possible.

I'm sorry. It's just a show I watched when I was a kid.

...

Anyway, WW3, when it happens. It will happen. Probably not a whole lot we can do about it anyway.

I don't know.

I've read some theories about how globalism has (somewhat) ended war altogether. Or at least, war with people.

Blasveck wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:Sure, I mean anything is possible with Kim Possible.

I'm sorry. It's just a show I watched when I was a kid.

...

Anyway, WW3, when it happens. It will happen. Probably not a whole lot we can do about it anyway.

I don't know.

I've read some theories about how globalism has (somewhat) ended war altogether. Or at least, war with people.

You know, people used to say the same thing in 1914.

Keronians wrote:

Blasveck wrote:
I don't know.

I've read some theories about how globalism has (somewhat) ended war altogether. Or at least, war with people.

You know, people used to say the same thing in 1914.

Funny as it is, their weapons of mass destruction were battleships. They too had races to see who could build the bigger, better guns. Trade and communication worldwide was on the rise, how could war break out?

Ah well, give enough countries nukes and we'll have a third act in no time.