By major, I mean at a minimum, a continent spanning conflict on par with World War I in which the majority of nations are involved in the conflict.
I'm not really sure if there will ever be another major war among humans ever again. Even though human nature is arguably predicable, it is impossible to really fathom what the world will be like 20, 50, let alone 100 years from now due to the current rapid rate of technological advancement and global communication breakthroughs. Some science fiction authors did predict a global communication network long before the dawn of the internet and a certain story (I don't recall the name) even described the results of such a network on humans with startling accuracy. Despite this, no one really could have imagined a hundred years ago that the internet would even exist, let alone reach the point it as at now, especially with portable devices allowing a near constant connection at all times.
With that said, I think the fear of nuclear reprisal will prevent major powers, EU nations, Russia, China, and the US to ever engage in an open war with one of those other nations. If such a war did occur within the next ten years I think it would be a result of an Israel-Arab conflict or India-Pakistan conflict.
Some people always talk about a China-US war, but I think the combination of joint economic reliance on one another, fear of nuclear reprisal, and China's technologically inferior military (it will take them at least a decade to catch up with the US) will prevent such an event from occurring in the near future.
Several of you are much more knowledgeable about global politics, so I'd appreciate hearing your opinions.
I predict Lichtenstein being invaded by feral Wiener dogs.
Other than that, though, I question how big of a war could break out between all the major players given how economically interdependent the entire planet has become.
Monster Rain wrote:I predict Lichtenstein being invaded by feral Wiener dogs.
Other than that, though, I question how big of a war could break out between all the major players given how economically interdependent the entire planet has become.
Economic interdependance actually increases the chances exponentially.
Unless someone were sure that they were going to be able to conquer the entire planet and pillage its resources going to war with people that owe you a lot of money isn't a smart move. I'm willing to read you reasoning on this, though.
Some people always talk about a China-US war, but I think the combination of joint economic reliance on one another, fear of nuclear reprisal, and China's technologically inferior military (it will take them at least a decade to catch up with the US) will prevent such an event from occurring in the near future.
.
I agree - China is making too much money at the moment, and other than increased belligerence within their own zone of influence (the South China sea for instance), a head to head conflict would be unthinkable. The worlds economy would fall on its bum instantly, and I think both powers would take whatever steps necessary to prevent an escalation.
With that said, I think the fear of nuclear reprisal will prevent major powers, EU nations, Russia, China, and the US to ever engage in an open war with one of those other nations. If such a war did occur within the next ten years I think it would be a result of an Israel-Arab conflict or India-Pakistan conflict.
Yes I think that currently the Middle East and Western Asia represents the most unstable region of the globe. Even if such a war was not intended, there exists the potential for a mistake to be made and then the countries involved to be dragged in to a war - this is compounded by the ownership of Nuclear weapons.
We've got nearly 90 years left. It's kinda hard to say where we'll be 80 years from now with any degree of accuracy. As has been said, though, we've got a pretty bad track record as a species.
I actually find the potential for conflict the highest in the Middle East and South America. I don't see a Middle Eastern conflict being particularly large though. A South American one depending on the course of upcoming decades could be quite significant. EDIT: Oh, and of course India vs China.
Unless someone were sure that they were going to be able to conquer the entire planet and pillage its resources going to war with people that owe you a lot of money isn't a smart move. I'm willing to read you reasoning on this, though.
Well, people said that it was practically impossible for Germany and the British Empire to go to war, for the same reasons, at the turn of the 20th century. Less than two decades later, you have the Somme, Verdun etc.
Just saying.
Also, I'm going to put it out there and say there will be a major middle east conflict within the next decade. From what I hear, the British military will soon be rehearsing an attack (or at least part of an attack) on one of the countries bordering Israel. Obviously can't be too specific because I don't want anyone to get into trouble, but it isn't Iran (uh, which doesn't actually border Israel ). My guess would be that they're concerned that in the event of a war between Israel and Iran, several of Israel's neighbours would have a swing at them. I will say this - I was very surprised when I heard which country it was.
Well it would be a waste to have all these toys and not use them.
We're coming to get you Argentina!
Then we can start on Africa again, they've had their chance. It's about time the Public schoolboys took over again, we do like our (your) diamonds and King William will need some fething big ones for his coronation crown!
Bromsy wrote:I see a South American Union invading Panama to seize the Canal and the economic power therein. I see the USA possibly disagreeing. If they do ...
call it 2050s
Lots of Chinese influence in the canal zone, they may have something to say about folks from further south taking over.
There are lots of potential conflicts out there, and when the OP talks about war across a continent, I submit a look at Africa right now gives a glimpse of something close, and it will get worse there in the next few decades. Will it break out nicely into two definable sides like WW2 kind of did? Nope. But it will be violence across a continent.
Middle East hint: The 'Arab Spring' ain't over, and it doesn't end nicely or easily.
Aisia: China is has internal pressure that is going to require an external release. Not saying it is a war with the US, but you are going to see (and are already seeing) rising tensions wich will lead to violence.
Monster Rain wrote:I predict Lichtenstein being invaded by feral Wiener dogs.
Other than that, though, I question how big of a war could break out between all the major players given how economically interdependent the entire planet has become.
None will stand before the awesome might of Dachshundskrieg.
Oh I thought war will break out between the major powers within 10-15 years. It just a question of which major power. China is pretty much claiming a new East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere. India is becoming a power. Brazil is a power. To quote Agent Smith: It is inevitable.
1. Doesn't mean the US has to be involved. 2. When the EU breaks up, how long before Germany gets antsy and invades France out of habit?
Hmm. I can forsee Israel and various Arab states fighting, with the US taking Israel's side. North Korea and China might decide to attack South Korea and Japan, although I doubt that conflict would spread outside of Asia. If it did happen, it would end either with Japan and South Korea being completely overrun and enslaved, or with China and North Korea being humiliated, and possibly being taken under new managenent ala Japan after WW2. The conflict might drive Japan and South Korea towards a better relationship, but I wouldn't count on it.
Speaking of the glory days:
Russia threatens to commit world suicide if the NATO goes ahead with ABM shield against Iran.
(someone might send them a note to remind them about that whole NATO/10,000 nuke warheads/nuke exchange/nuke winter everybody dies thing)
Maybe they're concerned about global warming and want to counteract it with a little nuclear winter?
MOSCOW – Russia's top military officer has threatened to carry out a pre-emptive strike on U.S.-led NATO missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe if Washington goes ahead with its controversial plan to build a missile shield.
President Dmitry Medvedev said last year that Russia will retaliate militarily if it does not reach an agreement with the United States and NATO on the missile defense system.
Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov went even further Thursday. "A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens," he said at an international conference attended by senior U.S. and NATO officials.
Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov also warned on Thursday that talks between Moscow and Washington on the topic are "close to a dead end."
U.S. missile defense plans in Europe have been one of the touchiest subjects in U.S.-Russian relations for years.
Moscow rejects Washington's claim that the missile defense plan is solely to deal with any Iranian missile threat and has voiced fears it will eventually become powerful enough to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent. Moscow has proposed running the missile shield jointly with NATO, but the alliance has rejected that proposal.
Makarov's statement on Thursday doesn't seem to imply an immediate threat, but aims to put extra pressure on Washington to agree to Russia's demands.
The two-day conference in Moscow is the last major Russia-U.S. meeting about military issues before a NATO summit in Chicago later this month. Russia has not yet said whether it will send top officials.
In a candid, lively exchange during a conference side session, officials talked about the high level of distrust remaining between the two sides.
"We can't just reject the distrust that has been around for decades and become totally different people," Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said in addressing U.S. and NATO officials. "Why are they calling on me, on my Russian colleagues, to reject distrust? Better look at yourselves in the mirror."
U.S. State Department special envoy Ellen Tauscher responded that neither country can afford another arms race.
"Your 10-foot fence cannot cause me to build an 11-foot ladder," Tauscher said. "It's going to have to take a political leap of faith and it's going to take some trust that we have to borrow, perhaps, from each other and for each other, but why don't we do it for the next generation?".
At a later news conference, Tauscher played down Makarov's comments on pre-emptive measures
"We've heard it before," she said. "We think that's off on the horizon.We think they were showing us what could happen. I think we're far from there, but we're aware of what they're saying."
The Obama administration tried to ease tensions with Russia in 2009 by saying it would revamp an earlier Bush-era plan to emphasize shorter-range interceptors. Russia initially welcomed that move, but has more recently suggested the new interceptors could threaten its missiles as the U.S. interceptors are upgraded.
The U.S.-NATO missile defense plans use Aegis radars and interceptors on ships and a more powerful radar based in Turkey in the first phase, followed by radar and interceptor facilities in Romania and Poland.
Russia would not plan any retaliation unless the United States goes through with its plans and takes the third and final step and deploys defense elements in Poland, Antonov said Wednesday. That is estimated to happen no earlier than in 2018.
Russia has just commissioned a radar in Kaliningrad, its western outpost near the Polish border, capable of monitoring missile launches from Europe and the North Atlantic.
On Thursday, at the start of the conference attended by representatives from about 50 countries, Russia's Security Council secretary reiterated Moscow's offer to run the missile shield together with NATO. Nikolai Patrushev said such a jointly run European missile defense system "could strengthen the security of every single country of the continent" and "would be adequate for possible threats and will not deter strategic security."
NATO's deputy secretary general, Alexander Vershbow, told the conference that the U.S.-led missile shield is "not and will not be directed against Russia" and that Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles are "too fast and too sophisticated" for the planned system to intercept.
Meanwhile, U.S. Senator John McCain, on a visit to Lithuania, lashed out at Russia's plans in Kaliningrad.
McCain said using missile defense as an "excuse to have a military buildup in this part of the world, which is at peace, is really an egregious example of what might be even viewed as paranoia on the part of Vladimir Putin."
___
Jim Heintz in Moscow and Liudas Dapkus in Vilnius, Lithuania, contributed to this report.
I'm just gonna drop in my 2 cents here.
War is almost inevitable, tension is building in the middle east with the war on terror and religious fanatics trying to wage war on anyone who doesn't belive/like their religion. Also the north korea thing isn't looking too good what with them testing missiles.
If there is a major conflict in the Middle East (clearly most likely to be between Israel and surrounding countries) does that constitute a major war for the purposes of the OP's requirement?
Xeriapt wrote:I predict an outbreak of sheep influenza in the next 30 years decimating the worlds sheep population.
But, due to New Zealands isolation they will be unaffected by the shocking sheepy deaths, leading to massive spikes in wool prices.
Leaving the only logical conclusion, we must invade New Zealand.
This video is once again entirely appropriate and applicable.
azazel the cat wrote:Economic interdependance actually increases the chances exponentially.
Not really. Economically interdependent states might go to war due to trade conditions that are viewed as unfavorable, but the global economy is presently such that there isn't really one single trade relationship that defines any major nation's economy. The one exception being the relationship between the US and Chine, but any conflict there would be so costly that any sort of rational calculus basically prohibits all-out engagement.
The developing world is emerging and they want a share of Earth's finite resources. Someone's living standards are going to drop.
God help us if there's a shortage, or we don't replace oil... 'cos this is going to happen:
I am worried I'll sound like some early 20th century Darwinist, but I think in such conditions, some quasi-racial war is inevitable.
In the BF2142 example; it's a contest spawned when a planet which has suddenly had its workable resources shrink overnight has no change in its population; ultimately a conflict has to be waged and the losers face annihilation, or at least a precipitous drop in living standards.
Everyone wants a slice of the pie, and the white man has sat on it far too long.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hazardous Harry wrote:If there is a major conflict in the Middle East (clearly most likely to be between Israel and surrounding countries) does that constitute a major war for the purposes of the OP's requirement?
Xeriapt wrote:I predict an outbreak of sheep influenza in the next 30 years decimating the worlds sheep population.
But, due to New Zealands isolation they will be unaffected by the shocking sheepy deaths, leading to massive spikes in wool prices.
Leaving the only logical conclusion, we must invade New Zealand.
This video is once again entirely appropriate and applicable.
Although Australia likes to make a play on the world stage and cozy up to either UK or US leaders depending on our politicians current whim, I can think of no stronger ally for Australia in a time of crisis than New Zealand, and vice versa.
We're like siblings, we might give each other gak all the time over every little thing (in good nature), but when push comes to shove I imagine we'd stick it out together.
Africa is in a pretty bad state right now, but it hasn't experienced the systematic horrors of WW1 and 2 yet. I don't know enough about African politics to even venture a guess as to whether or not a multinational war could erupt there.
Amaya wrote:Africa is in a pretty bad state right now, but it hasn't experienced the systematic horrors of WW1 and 2 yet. I don't know enough about African politics to even venture a guess as to whether or not a multinational war could erupt there.
I would argue that the wars and genocides it has experienced are easily a match for the horrors of the world wars, but it's a bit of a false analogy really. The differences in respective cultures and levels of development makes it hard to make a straight comparison.
Amaya wrote:Africa is in a pretty bad state right now, but it hasn't experienced the systematic horrors of WW1 and 2 yet. I don't know enough about African politics to even venture a guess as to whether or not a multinational war could erupt there.
Your admitted ignorance of African politics is good, you need to expand that to cover your ignorance of what has been going on there in regards to systemic violence and horror as well.
Amaya wrote:Africa is in a pretty bad state right now, but it hasn't experienced the systematic horrors of WW1 and 2 yet. I don't know enough about African politics to even venture a guess as to whether or not a multinational war could erupt there.
Your admitted ignorance of African politics is good, you need to expand that to cover your ignorance of what has been going on there in regards to systemic violence and horror as well.
Well don't just sit there acting All-knowing. Enlighten us.
Amaya wrote:Africa is in a pretty bad state right now, but it hasn't experienced the systematic horrors of WW1 and 2 yet. I don't know enough about African politics to even venture a guess as to whether or not a multinational war could erupt there.
Your admitted ignorance of African politics is good, you need to expand that to cover your ignorance of what has been going on there in regards to systemic violence and horror as well.
Well don't just sit there acting All-knowing. Enlighten us.
I don't claim to be close to all knowing. I have read a bit though.
2002–present Islamic insurgency in the Maghreb
2002–present Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa
2006 Rise of the Islamic Courts Union
2006 - 2009 Ethiopian War in Somalia
2007 - today Operation Enduring Freedom - Trans Sahara
2009 - today Islamist civil war in Somalia
2009 - today Taliban insurgency in Nigeria
2001 - 2003 Central African Republic civil war
2002 - 2003 Ivorian Civil War
2003–present War in Darfur
2004 2004 French-Ivorian clashes
2004 - today Conflict in the Niger Delta
2004–present Central African Republic Bush War
2004–present Kivu conflict
2005–present Civil War in Chad
2005 - 2008 Mount Elgon insurgency
2007–present Second Tuareg Rebellion
2007 - 2008 Kenyan crisis
2008 Invasion of Anjouan
2008 Djiboutian-Eritrean border conflict
2009 2009 Sudan airstrikes
2011 Second Ivorian Civil War
2011 Libyan civil war
There have been over 9 million refugees and internally displaced people from conflicts in Africa. Hundreds and thousands of people have been slaughtered from a number of conflicts and civil wars. If this scale of destruction and fighting was in Europe, then people would be calling it World War III with the entire world rushing to report, provide aid, mediate and otherwise try to diffuse the situation. This article explores why Africa has been largely ignored and what some of the root causes of the problems are.
It's still not really comparable to either World War due to the lack of two clearly defined sides. It's more on par with tribal warfare than anything, only now the tribes number in the millions and have assault rifles.
Amaya wrote:Hmm, I thought it was actually worse than that.
It's still not really comparable to either World War due to the lack of two clearly defined sides. It's more on par with tribal warfare than anything, only now the tribes number in the millions and have assault rifles.
You are missing the point. Two defined sides does not define a level of slaughter and war. If 100,000s of thousands of civilians are being made refugees or being killed you have a pretty big frickin conflict zone. I also think the 'two clearly defined' sides in either world war' is pretty simplistic. There were clearly alliances, but using the Russian level of espionage and influence ops against the US during WW2 as an example, the sides were NOT as clearly defined as you portray. Looking at Aisa, the Balkans and yes, even Africa during WW2 highlight further instances where sides were not 'clearly defined' but instead were regional or local.
Additionally you are asking about potential major wars. I am stating Africa is showing potential for that. The current conflicts there do not recognize borders, resources (and frankly public opinion and the press) pull various countries into the zone from outside the continent (look up how much China is investing in Africa for example).
Amaya wrote:Hmm, I thought it was actually worse than that.
It's still not really comparable to either World War due to the lack of two clearly defined sides. It's more on par with tribal warfare than anything, only now the tribes number in the millions and have assault rifles.
You are missing the point. Two defined sides does not define a level of slaughter and war. If 100,000s of thousands of civilians are being made refugees or being killed you have a pretty big frickin conflict zone. I also think the 'two clearly defined' sides in either world war' is pretty simplistic. There were clearly alliances, but using the Russian level of espionage and influence ops against the US during WW2 as an example, the sides were NOT as clearly defined as you portray. Looking at Aisa, the Balkans and yes, even Africa during WW2 highlight further instances where sides were not 'clearly defined' but instead were regional or local.
The US, UK, and USSR were all allied against Germany, Italy, and the Empire of Japan. Everyone knows that there was conflict between the US/UK and the USSR, it kind of led to this thing called Cold War...
In terms of slaughter, you're confusing numbers and percentages. 1 to 3 percent of the world's population died in WW1 and then an even higher percentage died in WW2. By comparison the high end estimates for the Second Congo War, the deadliest war in African history, are less than a tenth of a percent of the world's population.
I think the more relevant question is why people are obsessed with the end of the world/global war. If it's not zombies taking over, it's skynet and mad andriods.
To be fair, it's not a new thing - Romans were always worried about the Barbarians, and the British empire was written off by it's own leaders in 1900, so there is historical precedent, but does it point to society's unease with itself?
Norn King wrote:All the while Australia lurks, patient and waiting...
If Risk has taught us anything, it is that Australia is key to global dominance.
And how often did you win at Risk with THAT thought process South America is a much more strategic location-able to attack from two fronts. If one gets blocked off, you still have a second to fight from. Australia getting bottle-necked in Siam...uh oh. I always pounce on South America as quickly as I can. I usually win traditional Risk too. I've lost every game I played when I tried to start with Australia.
That said, South America and Australia will inherit the Earth, as our other continents are hellbent on dismembering each other. Also, the wiener-dogs will rise up and deal out punishment to the uppity South Americans and Crimin-I mean, uh, Australians.
I feel that China might make a move for Siberia and the oil fields there.
Africa is probably just going to remain the proverbial gang-bang it is currently, with violence flaring up and dying down and then flaring back up again. Eventually becoming a few pockets respembling civilization with everything else being complete ruin. No real national borders or other boundries. Just pockets of feudal kingdoms ruled by the local strongman surrounded by no-mans land.
Grey Templar wrote:I feel that China might make a move for Siberia and the oil fields there.
Africa is probably just going to remain the proverbial gang-bang it is currently, with violence flaring up and dying down and then flaring back up again. Eventually becoming a few pockets respembling civilization with everything else being complete ruin. No real national borders or other boundries. Just pockets of feudal kingdoms ruled by the local strongman surrounded by no-mans land.
As much as I hate to say it, I've had similar thoughts on Africa's future.
These days I wonder about civil war in the United States. The thing is about our poor in this country is that they can get guns easily, or already have guns. If the gap between rich and poor continues to widen I can see a future where the poor lash out. On the other hand a lot of the poor people in my home town are sitting on badger care or other social services and can't even be motivated to seek a job, much less rebel. So who knows...
Corey85 wrote:These days I wonder about civil war in the United States. The thing is about our poor in this country is that they can get guns easily, or already have guns. If the gap between rich and poor continues to widen I can see a future where the poor lash out. On the other hand a lot of the poor people in my home town are sitting on badger care or other social services and can't even be motivated to seek a job, much less rebel. So who knows...
For that to happen you'd have to get multiple disparate ethnic groups and criminal organizations to cooperate. It is very far fetched for that to ever occur outside of isolated areas.
Mixed with resource scarcity and growing political and social unrest I think all it would take is a charismatic leader or an event like police or military firing on people rioting over food.
Corey85 wrote:Mixed with resource scarcity and growing political and social unrest I think all it would take is a charismatic leader or an event like police or military firing on people rioting over food.
It would take a catastrophic event for the US to experience a food shortage.
When you get right to it, don't you hate the people around you much more than people you've never meet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Still, I feel that it is just as likely we turn on ourselves in the next 100 years as we enter a full scale war with another super power.
Unless someone were sure that they were going to be able to conquer the entire planet and pillage its resources going to war with people that owe you a lot of money isn't a smart move. I'm willing to read you reasoning on this, though.
Pre-WWI:
Austria and Germany had signed a treaty to back each other up.
Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy signed a treaty.
Austria & Romania signed a treaty.
France & Russia signed a treaty.
France & Italy signed a treaty.
England & France signed a treaty.
England & Russia signed a treaty.
Russia & Italy signed a treaty.
Then Austira-Hungary annexes Bosnia; there are problems in the Balkans, and Archduke Ferdinand is assassinated by Princip.
One after another, trading partners are sucked into wars that they had no direct involvement in, other than a trade & defense treaty; like people holding hands in a line as one after another is sucked into a whirlpool.
That's how WWI started.
This is not much different than the US-Israeli alliance, followed bu the USA's agreements with Canada & England. England has currentl agreements with the entire EU. Israel and Iran do not get along. Iran is likely to be friends with Afghanistan and Pakistan. India hates Pakistan, and India is on good terms with the USA.
I honestly would not be surprised to see Iran wiped off the map in the near future.
That's a good point. I found it interesting that on the eve of war, Germany (who was not subtle about their desire to have a war) realized what they were about to start, and tried to stop the attack, but it was too late.
I'm with Jake about Africa (some brutal, horrible stuff has been going on there for quite some time), and Amaya about the US (armed conflict here is kind of preposterous).
Yeah, if there ever is upheavel here in the US it will not be over food. I would be more likely to be over something like Justin Beiber getting run over by a Congressmen's limo.
I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure that there's historical precedent for major world powers propping each other up economically the way we all do now.
I guess the question, really, is whether pragmatism will win out over our philosophical differences.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I think the more relevant question is why people are obsessed with the end of the world/global war. If it's not zombies taking over, it's skynet and mad andriods.
To be fair, it's not a new thing - Romans were always worried about the Barbarians, and the British empire was written off by it's own leaders in 1900, so there is historical precedent, but does it point to society's unease with itself?
As you'll recall from your history classes, Rome had good reason to worry about the barbarians since they ended up sacking the place.
azazel the cat wrote: Iran is likely to be friends with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Sure, if all you're paying attention to are the characteristics "majority Muslim" and "not pro-US."
The reality is, however, much more complicated. Pakistan and Iran have not had especially good relations since the 1979 revolution, with Iran going so far as to fund pro-Shiite insurgent operations inside Pakistani borders (Pakistan is majority Sunni). Further, the two countries were at odds during the conflict that brought the Taliban to power, with Pakistan coming out on the winning end by backing the Taliban*. This isn't to say that Pakistan wouldn't side with Iran, they very well might, but its certainly not so cut and dry as to even consider it likely; even if only because the two countries have almost entirely separate spheres of influence (Pakistan is more interested in Central Asia, Iran in the Middle East).
Afghanistan is sort of a wild card, but hasn't taken any direct role in international affairs except as a terrorist haven (Terrorists that weren't especially fond of Iran, I might add.), so they're (more accurately "it is") essentially irrelevant.
*Funnily enough, Iran backed the Northern Alliance, who would later find a friend in the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote:
One after another, trading partners are sucked into wars that they had no direct involvement in, other than a trade & defense treaty; like people holding hands in a line as one after another is sucked into a whirlpool.
In the case of WWI the principle issue wasn't trade relations, but mutual defense pacts which are largely a thing of the past. Even the NATO mutual defense clause is treated quite liberally.
azazel the cat wrote: Iran is likely to be friends with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Sure, if all you're paying attention to are the characteristics "majority Muslim" and "not pro-US."
The reality is, however, much more complicated. Pakistan and Iran have not had especially good relations since the 1979 revolution, with Iran going so far as to fund pro-Shiite insurgent operations inside Pakistani borders (Pakistan is majority Sunni). Further, the two countries were at odds during the conflict that brought the Taliban to power, with Pakistan coming out on the winning end by backing the Taliban*. This isn't to say that Pakistan wouldn't side with Iran, they very well might, but its certainly not so cut and dry as to even consider it likely; even if only because the two countries have almost entirely separate spheres of influence (Pakistan is more interested in Central Asia, Iran in the Middle East).
There is also the fact that whilst Pakistan might not be pro US at the moment this is not an idological problem, like Iran, but for good reason, the US inability to respect sovrenty. Pakistan however is on good terms with the UK (most of the time) and with the EU in genral. They are unlikly to start some pact with Iran, baring a revolution/the war with the insurgents esculateing, althought if this dose happen Pakistan are likely to ask for help from other comonwelth nations.
Remember people hateing the US =\= hateing the west.
A major war is unprobable or nigh impossible, the risk is simply too high and it would not be in the interest of any major power. Small scale wars, driven either by grievance or greed, will happen (and many are happening right now).
That's how it works since 1989, the world isn't bipolar now, which puts smaller states into danger since the regimes do not receive that much support as they used to. Also, nationalism and fundamentalism replaced socialism as the dominant anti-capitalist ideology, which doesn't help at all.
Comparing current world situation to pre-WW2 history is completely false. The changes in economics, politics and communication cannot be ignored.
Also, whoever thinks China might attack anything for oil or whatever knows nothing about China's foreign politics and strategy. Seeing China as an agressor is usually just neo-con propaganda. Not surprising to see that on a wargaming forum, though.
I suggest you look at Chinas actions in the south china sea. I agree it is unlikly they will actualy go to war, but to dismiss them as non agressive is just silly. The PRC have been very agressive over their claim to the DRC.
Also, vailed insults are not helpfull... Especaly ones from an incorrect starting point, that wargamers are naturaly neo-cons.
The idea that a large war is impossible? Rubbish. It is unlikely, but if you look at the Russia & China/EU & US split in NATO AND the UN it is far from impossible.
Just before WW2 people were saying the world would never act like they did before WW1, the same before WW1 with the Napolionic wars, Franco Prussian wars etc. People keep saying it'll never happen again and yet it just takes a small action by one leader to topple the first domino. Whos to say the next war won't be between NATO the Arab states over the middle east?
dogma wrote:Sure, if all you're paying attention to are the characteristics "majority Muslim" and "not pro-US."
Not a big fan of the patronization.
Anyway, no, my reasoning is not quite so simplistic. In the last few years, Iran and Pakistan have been working to sort out many regional issues (read: essentially dividing up Afghanistan in the absence of the Taliban government). And the two countries are becoming more and more economically intertwined, as Iran currently supplies Pakistan with energy, and the two countries are in talks to create a major gas pipeline between them.
These reasons have nothing to do with a general dislike of the USA or being primarily Muslim (and different types of Muslims, at that).
@ whoever made the assinine Neocon remark: I'm Canadian, and I think I'm generally left of center, even by Canadian standards. I think that's as far away from Neocon as you can get without quoting Trotsky. However, barring that foolishness, you are generally correct. China isn't attacking anyone over oil, as they import a lot of it for very, very cheap from Russia. And starting in 2014: from Canada.
I think the issue is if things stay the way things are "right now" the prospects for a major war are slim. However if there is some major destabilizing event that would change the dynamics of state interaction there could easily be a major war.
Norn King wrote:All the while Australia lurks, patient and waiting...
If Risk has taught us anything, it is that Australia is key to global dominance.
And how often did you win at Risk with THAT thought process South America is a much more strategic location-able to attack from two fronts. If one gets blocked off, you still have a second to fight from. Australia getting bottle-necked in Siam...uh oh. I always pounce on South America as quickly as I can. I usually win traditional Risk too. I've lost every game I played when I tried to start with Australia.
That said, South America and Australia will inherit the Earth, as our other continents are hellbent on dismembering each other. Also, the wiener-dogs will rise up and deal out punishment to the uppity South Americans and Crimin-I mean, uh, Australians.
On Risk II (the awesome hotseat video game) they added New Zealand as a springboard to hit Argentina
There may be a major war and it is.. as always, East VS West.
but I'm not sure if Russia and China are really allies to each other? Look at India subcontinent.
India. a nation that half a century ago was once belongs to the Great Britain. has now becomes another superpower vying to beat China. and had entered an arms race! the news that Indian has a ballistic missile capable of reaching Beijing! whilethe two entered a talk regarding to economics cooperation or something. China and India are still a bane!
I don't know when the two had met. did the two talks about Tibet things?
I only guess that Tibet is actually 'Indian proxy' in geopolitics. I don't think India wants China to grow larger than what it is now. it is like chinese 'Tiger VS Dragon' tale. this time. the term 'tiger' refers to India instead of European "barbarism".
It is generally accepted that India has, and able to produce nukes! as well as China had mastered this science. to the point that Chinese nukes can reach anywhere in the world!! as Indians now have a nuke delivery system that reaches Beijing. it means that any further attempts to tame Tibetans and made them bow before Hans will not be easily tolerated as it has been.
Another scene of concern was Korea peninsula. North Korea still keeps provoking the world. The souths, fears of aggressive annexion. is.. of course. strenghten its army and by this time. It is said that South Korea is ready to annex the North should they get invaded first!
But if an open warfare doesn't burst out. the nuke exchange may be done by hackers!
Norn King wrote:All the while Australia lurks, patient and waiting...
If Risk has taught us anything, it is that Australia is key to global dominance.
And how often did you win at Risk with THAT thought process South America is a much more strategic location-able to attack from two fronts. If one gets blocked off, you still have a second to fight from. Australia getting bottle-necked in Siam...uh oh. I always pounce on South America as quickly as I can. I usually win traditional Risk too. I've lost every game I played when I tried to start with Australia.
That said, South America and Australia will inherit the Earth, as our other continents are hellbent on dismembering each other. Also, the wiener-dogs will rise up and deal out punishment to the uppity South Americans and Crimin-I mean, uh, Australians.
On Risk II (the awesome hotseat video game) they added New Zealand as a springboard to hit Argentina
Personally I like Europe.
I'll have you know that I live in South Australia, the only state in Australia not to have had convicts in it. Regarding the Risk conversation, South America is where its at.
Lone Cat wrote:There may be a major war and it is.. as always, East VS West.
but I'm not sure if Russia and China are really allies to each other? Look at India subcontinent.
India. a nation that half a century ago was once belongs to the Great Britain. has now becomes another superpower vying to beat China. and had entered an arms race! the news that Indian has a ballistic missile capable of reaching Beijing! whilethe two entered a talk regarding to economics cooperation or something. China and India are still a bane!
I don't know when the two had met. did the two talks about Tibet things?
I only guess that Tibet is actually 'Indian proxy' in geopolitics. I don't think India wants China to grow larger than what it is now. it is like chinese 'Tiger VS Dragon' tale. this time. the term 'tiger' refers to India instead of European "barbarism".
It is generally accepted that India has, and able to produce nukes! as well as China had mastered this science. to the point that Chinese nukes can reach anywhere in the world!! as Indians now have a nuke delivery system that reaches Beijing. it means that any further attempts to tame Tibetans and made them bow before Hans will not be easily tolerated as it has been.
Another scene of concern was Korea peninsula. North Korea still keeps provoking the world. The souths, fears of aggressive annexion. is.. of course. strenghten its army and by this time. It is said that South Korea is ready to annex the North should they get invaded first!
But if an open warfare doesn't burst out. the nuke exchange may be done by hackers!
I wouldn't worry about North Korea, their missiles would all explode on the launch pad or break apart a few minutes after launch
Norn King wrote:
I'll have you know that I live in South Australia, the only state in Australia not to have had convicts in it. Regarding the Risk conversation, South America is where its at.
That's the problem with Australia in Risk, easy to defend but difficult to expand out from.
Lone Cat wrote:There may be a major war and it is.. as always, East VS West.
but I'm not sure if Russia and China are really allies to each other? Look at India subcontinent.
India. a nation that half a century ago was once belongs to the Great Britain. has now becomes another superpower vying to beat China. and had entered an arms race! the news that Indian has a ballistic missile capable of reaching Beijing! whilethe two entered a talk regarding to economics cooperation or something. China and India are still a bane!
I don't know when the two had met. did the two talks about Tibet things?
I only guess that Tibet is actually 'Indian proxy' in geopolitics. I don't think India wants China to grow larger than what it is now. it is like chinese 'Tiger VS Dragon' tale. this time. the term 'tiger' refers to India instead of European "barbarism".
It is generally accepted that India has, and able to produce nukes! as well as China had mastered this science. to the point that Chinese nukes can reach anywhere in the world!! as Indians now have a nuke delivery system that reaches Beijing. it means that any further attempts to tame Tibetans and made them bow before Hans will not be easily tolerated as it has been.
Another scene of concern was Korea peninsula. North Korea still keeps provoking the world. The souths, fears of aggressive annexion. is.. of course. strenghten its army and by this time. It is said that South Korea is ready to annex the North should they get invaded first!
But if an open warfare doesn't burst out. the nuke exchange may be done by hackers!
I wouldn't worry about North Korea, their missiles would all explode on the launch pad or break apart a few minutes after launch
That is a case of home grown strategic ballistic missles. if that really happens. N. Korea will face a blitzkrieg from the south (which became much much stronger since 1953) and I doubt that N. Korean folks will have any faith within the house of Kim. they will eagerly join their southern kins and overthrow the said tyranny.
but for now I think Russian gangs should be selling any numbers of reliable soviet-era strategic missles there.
That is a case of home grown strategic ballistic missles. if that really happens. N. Korea will face a blitzkrieg from the south (which became much much stronger since 1953) and I doubt that N. Korean folks will have any faith within the house of Kim. they will eagerly join their southern kins and overthrow the said tyranny.
but for now I think Russian gangs should be selling any numbers of reliable soviet-era strategic missles there.
The South can't 'blitzkrieg'the Norks until the Nork Arty is neutralized. Even then the terrain is very compartmentalized and the 'blitz' is actually a slow slog through defended and obstacle strewn valleys that will make the IED threat on LOCs in Iraq look like a walk in the park. To think the Norks would 'join' the South in any real numbers is probably VERY optimistic thinking too. Numbers of defectors (and defection attempts) over the last several decades just don't indicate that.
I do worry about the Chinese, but at the end of the day wars cost money, I cant see them going at it.
Everyone wants to be rich, I cant see any major powers going at it again.
As always, I believe that only the Religious zealots are to be feared. The nuclear deterant works with everyone else, but if you firmly believe the party only starts once your dead, why would you fear death?
Thats why the Iranians scare me. If you think your getting 99 virgins after death, you might enjoy flinging some nukes about, maybe we should start a psyops campaign and tell them all that they get 99 mother in laws as well?
As I said, I reckon its gonna be Islam that lays us all low.
The only plus side being, at least I can come on dakka and say "I told you so" to all the apologists shortly before we all get atomised.
Although admittedly, this is because of fear and ignorance as much as anything. It depends on how the SK-ans interact with the locals when they meet up with them I suppose.
mattyrm wrote: I do worry about the Chinese, but at the end of the day wars cost money, I cant see them going at it.
Everyone wants to be rich, I cant see any major powers going at it again.
As always, I believe that only the Religious zealots are to be feared. The nuclear deterant works with everyone else, but if you firmly believe the party only starts once your dead, why would you fear death?
Thats why the Iranians scare me. If you think your getting 99 virgins after death, you might enjoy flinging some nukes about, maybe we should start a psyops campaign and tell them all that they get 99 mother in laws as well?
As I said, I reckon its gonna be Islam that lays us all low.
The only plus side being, at least I can come on dakka and say "I told you so" to all the apologists shortly before we all get atomised.
Islam is a religion of peace. The Islamic world is only defending itself from Western aggression.
azazel the cat wrote:
Anyway, no, my reasoning is not quite so simplistic. In the last few years, Iran and Pakistan have been working to sort out many regional issues (read: essentially dividing up Afghanistan in the absence of the Taliban government). And the two countries are becoming more and more economically intertwined, as Iran currently supplies Pakistan with energy, and the two countries are in talks to create a major gas pipeline between them.
These reasons have nothing to do with a general dislike of the USA or being primarily Muslim (and different types of Muslims, at that).
They also aren't particularly compelling reasons to side with Iran in an international conflict with the United States, or the West in general, especially seeing as the pipeline was negotiated while the two countries were at direct odds in Afghanistan, and while Iran was funding paramilitary activity in Pakistan itself.
As for working together on Afghanistan, since when? Pakistan has obviously taken an active role with respect to the Southeastern part of the nation, but Iran has been almost entirely supplanted by the United States' presence. If anything the two countries have grown further apart diplomatically in that regard, not closer together, though they aren't quite so mutually antagonistic. Economically the two nations may be cooperating, but ultimately there have been so many alternative offers made in order to dissuade Pakistan from cooperating with Iran that any sort of dependency simply won't be made manifest. Moreover, Iran is nowhere near being Pakistan's leading supplier of crude.
So even though terrorists make up a minority of Muslims, we're going to judge the entire religion based on their actions?
Well, if one is going to make such stupid and senseless remarks as to say that Islam is a religion of Peace, then... It isn't any more dishonest to demonize others unjustly, when that 'other' is constantly trying to make himself look better than he really is. I mean, I have had morons trying to tell me that Islam is the most rational feminism...
And as far as the conflict question; there won't be a major conflict, between major players or bloc, at least under the current political and economical conditions. Post-Westphalia, most conflicts were artificially fed by the system of alliance, which basically gave an impression of rationality to the conflict (It is much easier to be fooled by one's own power in a conflict of alliance, simply because you have to take in account more players).
The developpment of communications technology is also a factor which cannot be understated. The inability to effectively judge the defensive and offensive capacities of your enemy is often associated with the ease leaders used to have to start conflicts. This has changed very much.
Finally, I'm of the opinion that weapon technology disparity actually encourage a quick resolution of conflicts. Absolute disparity (in the case of a war between 2 governments of which 1 doesn't have nukes) is even better.
rockerbikie wrote:If there is a Major War it will be late 21st Century and the Countries wll be fighting for diminshed resources.
How would that differ from most wars?
AFAIK quite a lot of them were fought over large amounts of resources...
All that would change is the amount of resources the 'winner' gets...
rockerbikie wrote:If there is a Major War it will be late 21st Century and the Countries wll be fighting for diminshed resources.
How would that differ from most wars?
AFAIK quite a lot of them were fought over large amounts of resources...
All that would change is the amount of resources the 'winner' gets...
It might lead to the death and starvation of billions. The destruction of a lot of biomass and the utter destruction of most living things on Earth. We would be pitched into a new Dark Age.
Even non WMDs are destructive enough to potentially cause such a catastrophe if there was a true global war. I think the leaders of major nations realize that and would be hesitant to even risk starting a war.
We also have the benefit of living in a post World War world and have witnessed how destructive such a war can be.
Amaya wrote:Even non WMDs are destructive enough to potentially cause such a catastrophe if there was a true global war. I think the leaders of major nations realize that and would be hesitant to even risk starting a war.
We also have the benefit of living in a post World War world and have witnessed how destructive such a war can be.
I would posit that humans are naturally divisive and tribal, but that doesn't mean we have to engage in 'historical' wars. I think there is a move towards economic wars and cyber warfare.
I think that the OP set the bar too high with major war as global war. I think we should be looking for possible wars between global powers and regional powers or between regional powers.
In my mind that conjures up a list of 4 countries. If there is to be a major war in the 21st century it will involve at least one of the following nations:
I can definitely see China trying to bully India in the next few decades, with no clue how they might react-- what with the US selling India weapons and expertise to oppose China, who knows how it'll go.
Jefffar wrote:I think that the OP set the bar too high with major war as global war. I think we should be looking for possible wars between global powers and regional powers or between regional powers.
In my mind that conjures up a list of 4 countries. If there is to be a major war in the 21st century it will involve at least one of the following nations:
China
India
Iran
Pakistan
Place your bets.
India and Pakistan or India and China seems most likely. If Iran really starts acting stupid they're going to their balls kicked up out through their teeth.
Amaya wrote:Even non WMDs are destructive enough to potentially cause such a catastrophe if there was a true global war. I think the leaders of major nations realize that and would be hesitant to even risk starting a war.
We also have the benefit of living in a post World War world and have witnessed how destructive such a war can be.
Although Australia likes to make a play on the world stage and cozy up to either UK or US leaders depending on our politicians current whim, I can think of no stronger ally for Australia in a time of crisis than New Zealand, and vice versa.
We're like siblings, we might give each other gak all the time over every little thing (in good nature), but when push comes to shove I imagine we'd stick it out together.
We've done it before (ANZAC) and i hope we could do it again. Plus we both have some units to offer our allies in a global conflict.
LordofHats wrote:I actually find the potential for conflict the highest in the Middle East and South America. I don't see a Middle Eastern conflict being particularly large though. A South American one depending on the course of upcoming decades could be quite significant. EDIT: Oh, and of course India vs China.
You are aware that any significant conflict in the Mideast would cause oil prices to skyrocket, crashing economies left and right? Do you think world leaders would just sit by and let it happen without taking any action... even poorly-thought-out action like a major war?
South America wouldn't be much better. Venezuela also produces quite a bit of oil. Of course, South America could potentially just settle things with a massive Football (Soccer, to us gringos) Tournament.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Not really. Economically interdependent states might go to war due to trade conditions that are viewed as unfavorable, but the global economy is presently such that there isn't really one single trade relationship that defines any major nation's economy. The one exception being the relationship between the US and Chine, but any conflict there would be so costly that any sort of rational calculus basically prohibits all-out engagement.
Want to guess who was Germany's major trading partner in 1939?
Spoiler:
France.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Right now, the major source of potential conflict in the future is the slow depletion of resources. Sooner or later someone is going to pull the trigger in an attempt to get their fair share... or more likely, someone else's fair share. Unless there is a major influx of resources from an external source, it is as inevitable as the sunrise.
Historically speaking, war is about one country's leaders wanting the resources from another country... and attempting to take it by force. Armed robber on a national scale, if you will (thank you for pointing that out, Mr. Clancy).
Grey Templar wrote:Islam is about as peaceful as a dark alley in Oakland. The people making decisions anyway.
You'd be no more incorrect in claiming that a religion with an equally bloody history was peaceful like, for example, Christianity.
Whether or not a religion is peaceful is entirely up to those that follow it.
DiAF wrote:
We're like siblings, we might give each other gak all the time over every little thing (in good nature), but when push comes to shove I imagine we'd stick it out together.
We've done it before (ANZAC) and i hope we could do it again. Plus we both have some units to offer our allies in a global conflict.
While our government seems to value US friendship over NZ, I'll just let you know that no Aussie I've ever talked to would think of anyone else as our closest ally. That and we appreciate that your government actually appears to have some balls.
Jefffar wrote:I think that the OP set the bar too high with major war as global war. I think we should be looking for possible wars between global powers and regional powers or between regional powers.
In my mind that conjures up a list of 4 countries. If there is to be a major war in the 21st century it will involve at least one of the following nations:
China
India
Iran
Pakistan
Place your bets.
India and Pakistan or India and China seems most likely. If Iran really starts acting stupid they're going to their balls kicked up out through their teeth.
Tibet conflict is one of many reasons India and China will fight ther wars... remember Both have nukes and can now hit each other's capitol so easy!
While China demands India to expartirate Dalai Lama and his tibetan followers to China so the government will either drag him to streets and crucify him or make him bow before Mao Zedong dead body. India still keeps him safe in a city of Dharmasala and demands China to stop enslaving tibetans and have all Hans leave Tibet.
but what else could cause the war?
Who will Russia side with? i've heard that India is a big fan of Russia once a nation earns its independency.
I think that is too trivial an issue to be the flash point between those two. The situation in Kasmir has already triggerred wars between Pakistan and India however.
In terms of Russia's friends in the area, if we look at the last few major defense purchases by each country China bought Chinese and Russian, Pakistan bought Chinese and India bought French and Israeli.
But wait! Both Indians and Pakistani also designed and manufactured their very own weapons too!
- Indian has "Arjun" (อรชุน) as a pinnackle, they also has "Akash" (อากาศ) SAM which are locally produced. i've heard that all of those manufacturing facilities are inherited from British Raj (and many Royal armors were once made there)
- Pakistani has "Al Khalid". which also developed on British legend. the Centurion MBT. but i don't think Pakistani can produce anything better (i've saw Pakistani levy troops wearing Brodie helmets inherited form the British Raj too!, while Indians may be wearing anything better i think)
Jefffar wrote:I think that the OP set the bar too high with major war as global war. I think we should be looking for possible wars between global powers and regional powers or between regional powers.
In my mind that conjures up a list of 4 countries. If there is to be a major war in the 21st century it will involve at least one of the following nations:
China
India
Iran
Pakistan
Place your bets.
Agree. I'm going to add Africa as a whole to that list. Africa is becoming a melting pot, and I have a feeling it'll be involved with whatever the next conflict is.
I have a gut feeling that Russia is going to stay out of the next major conflict though.
Lone Cat wrote:But wait! Both Indians and Pakistani also designed and manufactured their very own weapons too!
- Indian has "Arjun" (อรชุน) as a pinnackle, they also has "Akash" (อากาศ) SAM which are locally produced. i've heard that all of those manufacturing facilities are inherited from British Raj (and many Royal armors were once made there)
- Pakistani has "Al Khalid". which also developed on British legend. the Centurion MBT. but i don't think Pakis can produce anything better (i've saw Pakistani levy troops wearing Brodie helmets inherited form the British Raj too!, while Indians may be wearing anything better i think)
Personal note: edited at many of your request
The Arjun is one of the longest and costliest tank design projects since the MBT-70. It took them so long to get it ready that they actually had to buy Russian T-72s to replace their old Cheiftans that war out while waiting on the Arjun. My understanding is that the Akash design process, which incorporated a fair bit of the SA-6 missiles the Indians had purchased from the Russians, was also pretty long and drawn out. They also made an indigenous assault rifle, the INSAS which also had a long and complicated development phase. So while India as some design capability, it is still pretty rudimentary and they instead primarily rely on foreign designs. They do like to purchase manufacturing deals (ie they built a factory to make T-72s).
The Al Khalid isn't based on the Centurion, but instead a local modification to the Chinese Type 90 Battle Tank produced in Co-operation with the Chinese.
What a bloodthirsty lot you guys are - looking ahead to WW3
Forget India,China or Pakistan as potential aggressors - It's the USA, UK and Israel to watch out for
I mean, look at the USA, there was a real chance at one stage they were going to elect a guy called Newt to be responsible for the red button!!
Madness!!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:What a bloodthirsty lot you guys are - looking ahead to WW3
Forget India,China or Pakistan as potential aggressors - It's the USA, UK and Israel to watch out for
I mean, look at the USA, there was a real chance at one stage they were going to elect a guy called Newt to be responsible for the red button!!
Madness!!
In fairness...
It's not like we go looking for wars...
We have the US for that
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:What a bloodthirsty lot you guys are - looking ahead to WW3
Forget India,China or Pakistan as potential aggressors - It's the USA, UK and Israel to watch out for
I mean, look at the USA, there was a real chance at one stage they were going to elect a guy called Newt to be responsible for the red button!!
Madness!!
In fairness...
It's not like we go looking for wars...
We have the US for that
purplefood wrote:In fairness...
It's not like we go looking for wars...
We have the US for that
Damn Americans and their sabre-rattling over Argentina...
We didn't do anything that wasn't scheduled years in advance...
If they are gonna get all angsty about nothing they can ask for a rematch but the results are probably not gonna go their way...
purplefood wrote:We didn't do anything that wasn't scheduled years in advance...
If they are gonna get all angsty about nothing they can ask for a rematch but the results are probably not gonna go their way...
The UK has a habit of positioning troops in conveniently awkward positions where fights just happen to break out.
Like when they just happened to move a bunch of troops into India and the Middle East.
purplefood wrote:We didn't do anything that wasn't scheduled years in advance...
If they are gonna get all angsty about nothing they can ask for a rematch but the results are probably not gonna go their way...
The UK has a habit of positioning troops in conveniently awkward positions where fights just happen to break out.
Like when they just happened to move a bunch of troops into India and the Middle East.
Well that's just bad luck... or good luck depending on whose side you're on... and who wins i guess...
Jefffar wrote:
The Arjun is one of the longest and costliest tank design projects since the MBT-70. It took them so long to get it ready that they actually had to buy Russian T-72s to replace their old Cheiftans that war out while waiting on the Arjun. My understanding is that the Akash design process, which incorporated a fair bit of the SA-6 missiles the Indians had purchased from the Russians, was also pretty long and drawn out. They also made an indigenous assault rifle, the INSAS which also had a long and complicated development phase. So while India as some design capability, it is still pretty rudimentary and they instead primarily rely on foreign designs. They do like to purchase manufacturing deals (ie they built a factory to make T-72s).
The Al Khalid isn't based on the Centurion, but instead a local modification to the Chinese Type 90 Battle Tank produced in Co-operation with the Chinese.
it is said that one designs of any of the two tanks used Horstmann suspension system (ones that Centurion uses). the present version uses either Hydraupneumatic or Torsion bar w/ Hydraulic damper (I don't really know what this device is? and how does it works out? is it a technology that Leman Russ might be using in 38,000 years from now?
Just because a vehicle uses a similar suspension system doesn't mean it is based on the same designs...
From the description a hydra-pneumatic suspension system is better but also going on the description the Imperium is more likely to use a torsion bar considering how they like their MBTs...
HonorHarrington wrote:I really have a hard time understanding what point Lord Cat is trying to make.
Something about Russia and China being allies with each other against the US or not being allies and fighting each other instead...
His points tend to wonder...
HonorHarrington wrote:I really have a hard time understanding what point Lord Cat is trying to make.
Something about Russia and China being allies with each other against the US or not being allies and fighting each other instead...
His points tend to wonder...
China spends a majority of its planning and training time to prepare itself with a land war with Russia. Trying to imply that they are allies is like saying that India and Pakistan are plotting against China. I tend to gloss over LCs posts, sometimes it seems like he has a point, then he says something ridiculous. I feel like maybe we are getting the bad end of a translation of a guy who actually has a really good point and whom Google Translate punks.
OT There will absolutly be a major war in the 21st century its just a matter of when. The big nations cant really afford to mix it up with each other because of the sheer loss of life and economic impact of a war between them. But the guys who are smoldering just below the line of first rate nations can and will ( I kind of rank China as in between those two; she's big and a war would probably devastate her growing middle class, but they will probably go all in anyways) India and China are taking steps towards fighting a major war, Israel is always on the brink, but what I really expect is Africa to explode. Who knows...sometime people forget how awful war can be
Robert Edward Lee wrote: It is well that war is so terrible; lest we should grow too fond of it.
HonorHarrington wrote:I really have a hard time understanding what point Lord Cat is trying to make.
Something about Russia and China being allies with each other against the US or not being allies and fighting each other instead...
His points tend to wonder...
And tanks, and missles, and hydraulics: what does it have to do with a major war in the 21st century?
HonorHarrington wrote:I really have a hard time understanding what point Lord Cat is trying to make.
Something about Russia and China being allies with each other against the US or not being allies and fighting each other instead...
His points tend to wander...
And tanks, and missles, and hydraulics: what does it have to do with a major war in the 21st century?
Anyone think there could possibly be a conflict in space? We'll probably have begun mining in some manner or another by the end of the century. I sort of doubt war would happen though, because there are so many resources available that it woulr make it unnecessary, unless a nation didn't want to develop the tech for themselves...
NASA is working on some sort of Ion propulsion system that could make a trip to Mars only take a few months.
Once that's up and running we should have a colony within a couple years.
Once Mars is established as a base of operations it's just a short hop to the Asteroid belt, not counting whatever we find on Mars and the Moon.
Although I doubt there would be much in the war of political struggles until Mars gets Terraformed or we start having some serious mining operations.
Mars wouldn't be completely terraformed for at least a hundred years after the process was started. Colonies could survive using Aquaponic systems to grow food and some plants could even survive on the surface. But for the planet to become livable we need to melt the CO2 in the Icecaps and cause the planet to heat up. At best it would be kinda like the Arctic Tundra. Grasslands and small trees. Animals would have to be able to live with the cold and thinner air. Cities would probably need to remain underground.
At this point there could be independent nations formed on Mars, which would create the possability of war.
Absolute minimum for a space conflict (barring alien assault) would be 100 years. I think it'll be at least another 50 years until we see a more effective form of space travel implemented on a multinational level.
Amaya wrote:Absolute minimum for a space conflict (barring alien assault) would be 100 years. I think it'll be at least another 50 years until we see a more effective form of space travel implemented on a multinational level.
"But the committee warned that without more money, NASA would be stuck in low-Earth orbit until at least the 2030s. "The Committee finds that no plan compatible with the Fiscal Year 2010 budget profile permits human exploration to continue in any meaningful way," the summary report says. Carrying out the Flexible Path programme or landing astronauts on the moon before the 2030s would require an extra $3 billion per year beyond the $18.7 billion planned for the agency, the report says."
Mars wouldn't be completely terraformed for at least a hundred years after the process was started. Colonies could survive using Aquaponic systems to grow food and some plants could even survive on the surface. But for the planet to become livable we need to melt the CO2 in the Icecaps and cause the planet to heat up. At best it would be kinda like the Arctic Tundra. Grasslands and small trees. Animals would have to be able to live with the cold and thinner air. Cities would probably need to remain underground.
I would like source of the figures on that terraformation. Last I heard (IIRC) the designed process was looking at a timetable of a few millennium (2-3 I think).
Absolute minimum for a space conflict (barring alien assault) would be 100 years. I think it'll be at least another 50 years until we see a more effective form of space travel implemented on a multinational level.
I have my doubts that we will ever have space conflicts. Way too easy to avoid confrontation. Way too long to communicate anything effectively. If we do, it's going to be horrible. Gundam horrible (the good ones), where billions of people die in seconds due to the bad choice of one pilot.
I'm just saying that we are a decade or two away from developing a significantly faster form of space travel. Then you have to tack on more years just for the development of space faring warships, if such vessels were even developed without an external threat forcing humanity to do so. Should we become a spacefaring race (in terms of intersteller travel) and not be a unified world I could see conflicts erupting over trade routes and raw goods.
GalacticDefender wrote:Anyone think there could possibly be a conflict in space? We'll probably have begun mining in some manner or another by the end of the century. I sort of doubt war would happen though, because there are so many resources available that it woulr make it unnecessary, unless a nation didn't want to develop the tech for themselves...
It depends on what you class 'war' as. Arguably the technology already exists for satellites to shoot each other down, and there were rumours that the Chinese have done this already.
Albatross wrote:I tend to think that one of Jupiter's moons would be a more suitable candidate for human colonisation, given the liquid water...
There's a few potential candidates. Mars is just the closest and most "Earth-like" and so that's the "go-to" planet when these conversations roll around.
EDIT: If you want a good read on terraforming read the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. Very interesting series of books and very well researched. It's fictional, but there's a lot of science behind it and he raises some interesting points and potential problems.
South America is a much more strategic location-able to attack from two fronts. If one gets blocked off, you still have a second to fight from. Australia getting bottle-necked in Siam...uh oh. I always pounce on South America as quickly as I can. I usually win traditional Risk too. I've lost every game I played when I tried to start with Australia.
However, barring that foolishness, you are generally correct. China isn't attacking anyone over oil, as they import a lot of it for very, very cheap from Russia. And starting in 2014: from Canada. 
