Theoretical WWIII (Or an escalation of major engagements between two or more countries)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Emperors Faithful**

First of all, please, NO NUKES.
Assume that either everyone has defense capabilities, or no one is dumb enough to launch one.
Secondly, don't forget to take into account the economic failings and inevitable bankruptcy for some countries from warfare.
Please don't just post "Obama fails us/wins Epicly". Don't blame a countries loss just on a crappy politician. (Although that can be a major contributor)

Answer/Elaborate upon each of these fseven scenarios. How would each country involved fare? And how would others react?

1) North Korea invades South Korea. Again. (try vice versa as well) (Some) American Troops are stationed there.

2) China invades Taiwan.

3) Indonesia invades Australia (or to be more specific, East Timoor, with Australian Troops stationed there.)

4) Iran (or coalition of Arab nations) invade Israel. Again.

5) India invades Pakistan.

6) Argentina invades the Falklands. Again. (Brit troops stationed here)

7) All of the above occur. At the same time.

Please try to answer all of them. And keep your answers seperate. Also, feel free to argue why each scenario is either impossible, highly unlikely, or frightenly likely.

**Frazzled**

All these scenarios are now in play actually. From myn internal sources, after centuries of preparation, Leichtenstein is on the move. The doom of our time is upon us!
Here's a surveillance photo of their Dark Tower.

Look here's one of their SWFL (Sharks with Frigging Lasers) launchers under construction. Time is running out!

**Waaagh_Gonads**

1: Likely: South Korea would stop the North Koreans cold, knowing where all of the NK tunnels are through simple seismic surveys there is no breakout. The US troops also fight and are supported by the naval carrier groups based in Japan and the Guam based Marines as a ready response force. The US continues its naval and air build up and bombardment smashing anything that moves, day or night in North korea.
China decideseither that the North Koreans are a complete loss and invade, to take over their territory, or threaten the US/ROK if they move into significant amounts of North Korean Territory. Either way the North Koreans lose.

2: Likely: China attacks and attempts invasion of Taiwan.... Most of the invasion force is beaten in the sea but some beacheads are held. But struggle to be reinforced as the US carrier groups and airforce strike anything that moves. For good measure theUS hit every power station in couthern china and if they get really annoyed, blow up the 3 gorges dam.

3: What the hell does Thailand want with East Timor? Shouldn't it be the Indonesians invading?

4: Likely: Without nukes Israel would struggle. They could use bunker buster bombs to blow up Aswan Dam, taking Egypt out of the war in the first couple of hours (Blow it up in the middle of the night) 90% of the population is dead or homeless by next morning. Try and hold the eney troops in the desert, away from populated areas and hit their supply lines. The advantage they have is technology. If the arabs get into the cities that advantage is gone.

5: Unlikely: Indians swamp Pakistan. Indians couln't be arsed holding onto a 'restless' population and either pull back after wreaking everything they can, or (my personal favorite) just move everyone west to leave the unoccupied areas to be filled with a couple hundred million Indians.

6: Unlikely. The UK kicks them out (again) You have a UK army and airforce that has been in combat situation for close to a decade now thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan. 1-2 subs to hold off naval resupply/ blow stuff up in the River Platte.

7: Unlikely.

**filbert**

Mmmm, beware Liechtenstein indeed.

Just as an aside, I know you mentioned the 'no nukes' rule but I could quite easily envisage a Pakistan / India stand off erupting into full blown nukeage given their border skirmishes and sabre rattling in the past. The recent terror attacks and trials of Pakistan nationals in India has only served to stoke the fires and no offence, but I can't think of two nations I would least like to have fingers hovering over the button (other than Iran and N Korea maybe).

**Frazzled**

First of all, please, NO NUKES.
Assume that either everyone has defense capabilities, or no one is dumb enough to launch one.
Secondly, don't forget to take into account the economic failings and inevitable bankruptcy for some countries from warfare.
Please don't just post "Obama fails us/wins Epicly". Don't blame a countries loss just on a crappy politician. (Although that can be a major contributor)

Answer/Elaborate upon each of these fseven scenarios. How would each country involved fare? And how would others react?

1) North Korea invades South Korea. Again. (try vice versa as well) (Some) American Troops are stationed there.
-After getting obliterated, North Korea becomes part of South Korea.

2) China invades Taiwan.
-Doesn't look good for Taiwan.

3) Thailand invades Australia (or to be more specific, East Timoor, with Australian Troops stationed there.)
-Why? How? What?

4) Iran (or coalition of Arab nations) invade Israel. Again.
-Nuke war. Your scenario rules don't apply here. Millions will die.

5) India invades Pakistan.
-India bazillions of people and growing economy. Pakistan just gobs of people and economy-what economy? All out war India wails on them, but then what?

6) Argentina invades the Falklands. Again. (Brit troops stationed here)
-Texas launches a pre-emptive strike, forms the United States of Texas. Argentina has excellent beef and, like Brazil, awesome "scenery."

-shortly therafter, buoyed by legions of new troops, the UST takes central America from two directions, the Midwest and the Oil Sands (eh!), makes an agreement to spare the rest of Canadia in return for a lifetime supply of mapleglazed donuts for every Texan. Finally, Brazil joins the alliance of TexMex and all is meet and right in the world.

**Albatross**

Emperors Faithful wrote:6) Argentina invades the Falklands. Again. (Brit troops stationed here)

Britain wins. Again. I don't think that the Argentinians are likely to try to invade again. Last time they didn't think we would fight and weren't sure of our capabilities. They are now.

In any case, this wouldn't lead to WWIII.

I actually don't think any of them are particularly likely, apart from another Korean War - but I think that's a stretch.

**Frazzled**

Israel/Iran shootout is highly likely within the year.

**Emperors Faithful**

Sorry Waaagh_Gonads, I can't believe I got those two mixed up. When writing this I even double-checked on the world map and through my history book to see that Indonesia was the right country and I still posted Thailand.

**Albatross**

Frazzled wrote:Israel/Iran shootout is highly likely within the year.

Care to place money on it?

**Orky-Kowboy**

4) Iran (or coalition of Arab nations) invade Israel.

After a suicide bomb in Tel Aviv leaves 48 dead and 112 wounded, Israel announces that they have evidence fingering the Iranian security services for the blast. Charges that the Israelis were themselves responsible for the event are quietly swept aside and relegated to the realm of "conspiracy theory" for the simple reason that "governments don't do that kind of thing" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio]. Though Iran denies the charges, the UN Security Council, pressured by the US, issues a condemnation of Iran which provides the long hoped-for credibility America and its Middle-Eastern allies need for an invasion. A week after the attacks, President Obama declares a state of war. In reality, special operations forces started carrying out black operations against Iranian facilities (specifically nuclear ones) immediately after the Tel Aviv attacks. Ground forces (mostly from the US and UK) launch a two-pronged assault from the southwest (Iraq and Kuwait) and east (Afghanistan) called Operation Consuming Fire. In addition, air forces bombard densely-populated areas such as Tehran. Several super-expensive cruise missiles proven and designed to be able to fly down an airshaft and hit a bullseye painted on a rock over 1000 miles away mysteriously blow up some schools and day-care centres. Oh well, guess towelheads don't need no schoolin'! Civilian and military loss of life on the Iranian side is tremendous and under-reported in the Western media. After major combat operations cease (two weeks after the initial assault), Obama declares Consuming Fire a victory for freedom, liberty and justice.The few people interested in the geopolitics of the situation will notice that America is now in military control of half the land surrounding the Caspian Sea. Halliburton and others receive major pipeline contracts. The Middle East is now too unstable and disunited to pose a threat to Israeli and Anglo-American interests. The regional instability also prevents China gaining a foothold in the region, thereby denying them access to vital economic resources becuase, as Zbigniew would say, it's a Grand Chessboard, after all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard), and the immediate objectives are just a small part of a long-term goal.

**Frazzled**

We recommend all our investors invest in canned goods and shotguns Alby.

No I won't bet on that. Israel has said it cannot live with a nuclear Iran. Iran is not far from a bomb at this point. The "sanctions" nonsense is just that and is ineffective. The US doesn't have the means, inclination, or frankly shouldn't have the interest in a war with Iran over nukes. Its not our hunt.

Israel has twice attacked countries building nukes. From their perspective, they have no choice.

**Khornholio**

8) Hitler's rotting corpse is re-animated by Nazi necromancers living in Brazil. He is secretly transported back to Germany where his oratory (hurr hurr) rouses the German people (hurr hurr hurr) to arms. Militant Germans then cause the downfall of the Bundesrepublik and the entire EU sinks deep into the crapper. With the EU in shambles, the clever Germans then seize control of the whole of Europe democratically promising to solve the immigration problems, restore the economy and give the US the finger all in one go.

However, Hitler's body can't contain the magic which brought him back from the dead and it explodes showering his closest advisors is flakey gore.

Seriously, though I think the next World War will be in the middle east involving all of those countries and the US and Russia. They really seem to want to kill each other over there more than anywhere else in the world, so I'd have to choose there. I think Israel would probably win as the Arab nations can't seem to find reverse fast enough on their AFVs after they've crossed the frontier.

**Mr. Burning**

First of all, please, NO NUKES.
Assume that either everyone has defense capabilities, or no one is dumb enough to launch one.
Secondly, don't forget to take into account the economic failings and inevitable bankruptcy for some countries from warfare.
Please don't just post "Obama fails us/wins Epicly". Don't blame a countries loss just on a crappy politician. (Although that can be a major contributor)

Answer/Elaborate upon each of these fseven scenarios. How would each country involved fare? And how would others react?

1) North Korea invades South Korea. Again. (try vice versa as well) (Some) American Troops are stationed there.
Unlikely to probable. North Korea would attack across broad front pushing hundreds of thousands of cannon fodder troops into the south. whilst a response is formulated by CONUS politicos and generals NK troops would be involved in firefights with SK and US forces. NK navy would harass SKN(?). Once NK get a foot hold it would be very hard to shift them. Expected guerilla style tactics from the NK.

2) China invades Taiwan.
Probable if Taiwan tacitly declare direct independence from the mainland and the US/West agrees. China has the best parts of its military directly opposing the Straight of Taiwan. even if it is noticed that China is preparing for war I doubt the US will intervene until its obvious that landings will take place, and I mean landing ramps hitting the Taiwan beaches. A massive amount of Chinese paratroops would be used. Taiwan could probably resist an initial invasion attempt but again Chjnese troops would be dug in before meaningful US assistance could be brought to bear.

Two chinas policy is as important for the Chinese as it is for the US.

In both these situations the West would need to be willing to bring unassailable force to bear.

3) Indonesia invades Australia (or to be more specific, East Timoor, with Australian Troops stationed there.)
Unlikely? I don't know too much about the situation.

4) Iran (or coalition of Arab nations) invade Israel. Again.
Unlikely. The political will by Arab nations is currently lacking. maybe along the line. I see Iran as just building its prestige amongst Arabs by being a thorn in the US's side. I could probably see intervention by Iran into former soviet states though.

5) India invades Pakistan.
Probable, they have gone to war before, there are plenty of border disputes to keep them occupied already. Full blown invasion would be a futile effort by both countries though (See Iraq and Afghanistan).

6) Argentina invades the Falklands. Again. (Brit troops stationed here)
Unlikely

7) All of the above occur. At the same time.
Unlikely

Please try to answer all of them. And keep your answers seperate. Also, feel free to argue why each scenario is either impossible, highly unlikely, or frightenly likely.

**SilverMK2**

Frazzled wrote:4) Iran (or coalition of Arab nations) invade Israel. Again.
-Nuke war. Your scenario rules don't apply here. Millions will die.

I think it would be the Arabs using nukes before Israel to be honest. I also think that they will be able to hold off the Arabs for quite a while (especially if the USA steps in and helps them out).

I think the Arabs would be totally outclassed in this war.

**Frazzled**

I don't think the Arabs will use nukes. I think Iranian backed terrorists would use nukes given to them by Iran. Hence a pre-emtpive strike by Iran.

interestingly there are scenarios where the odds of an Arabic states vs. Iran nukeout are quite high.

**SilverMK2**

Well, let's hope the nuclear winter and the radioactive glass that used to be the Middle East reflects enough sunlight that global warming ceases to be a problem

**mattyrm**

6. The Argies awake the wrath of Matt "slayer" Taylor who rejoins the Royal Marines. This event causes earthquakes all over Argentina and the natives papper themselves in fear before fleeing back home with their tails between their legs.

**Mortified Penguin**

7) Ireland, fearing the rise of a second Republic of Texas, purchases a load of Cold War-era bombers from the Germans, our historical arms guys. From there, we load them with foot-and-mouth disease and spread it all over the beef ranches. Attempts to create Tex-Mex sans beef fail miserably and Texan morale collapses.

Then the English look west, demand to know what the hell we're doing, and swat us like flies.

**avantgarde**

Let's have a real fight. NATO vs BRIC? Let's say 10 years down the road when China and India's navies are more developed.

**Frazzled**

Why would India and China join forces? They are rivals. They have had at least one war. China supports Pakistan and aided in its development of nukes.

**avantgarde**

It's hypothetical an excuse to argue about stupid crap.

**Frazzled**

Ah gotcha.

**Pslotha**

7,

Scandinavia sits back hoping nobody notices us. Then we argue over who has the best soccer team and develop a new, friendly method of war. However, the goalie of the losing team is executed as an example.

China notices and it starts to catch on. Soon all of Asia and Europe are playing ball to solve conflicts. Tibet gains back independence after a gruesome season of playing, beating out China in their final game 3-2.

South America naturally joins the war, with Brazil leading the charge.

Mexico tries to take over America, but America doesn't know how to play Soccer and keeps touching the ball with his hands. So tensions between Mexico and Brazil arise desecrating the stretching soccer fields between them.

Africa continues with it's tribal wars, most conflicts ending in a tie, leading to no where.

At the final battle all the teams have showed up and are ready for an all out WORLD CUP! Everyone exhausts their strength, hoping to emerge victorious! It's anybodies game now boys, and America brought a football and Canada brought a Hockey stick!

**egor71**

After - NO NUKES. - it got boring.

**Frazzled**

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=174946

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Frazzled wrote:
6) Argentina invades the Falklands. Again. (Brit troops stationed here)
-Texas launches a pre-emptive strike, forms the United States of Texas. Argentina has excellent beef and, like Brazil, awesome "scenery."
-shortly therafter, buoyed by legions of new troops, the UST takes central America from two directions, the Midwest and the Oil Sands (eh!), makes an agreement to spare the rest of Canadia in return for a lifetime supply of mapleglazed donuts for every Texan. Finally, Brazil joins the alliance of TexMex and all is meet and right in the world.

Is it sad that this just made me really happy? I would so join a Texas army. Blood for the New Confederacy!

**Black Antelope**

Emperors Faithful wrote:First of all, please, NO NUKES.
Assume that either everyone has defense capabilities, or no one is dumb enough to launch one.
Secondly, don't forget to take into account the economic failings and inevitable bankruptcy for some countries from warfare.
Please don't just post "Obama fails us/wins Epicly". Don't blame a countries loss just on a crappy politician. (Although that can be a major contributor)

Answer/Elaborate upon each of these fseven scenarios. How would each country involved fare? And how would others react?

1) North Korea invades South Korea. Again. (try vice versa as well) (Some) American Troops are stationed there.

Don't think SK will ever invade NK. If NK invade, the result depends on wether China and the US decide to get involved IMO. If neither do (US leaves SK before war/fighting withdrawal) NK will win, but it'll be slow and hugely bloody. If the US gets involved, they would be able to at least hold the line (but would they, given how Iraq/Afganistan have gone - because NK would be a lot harder IMO). If China comes in too, then I think the US will get mauled. It ain't the same China that zerged its way through the Korean War. They've been testing long-ranged land-to-sea missiles, so that suggests they easily have the capacity to stop the US's stratergy of "sit off the coast in carriers, and bomb the out of the bad guys (and civvies....and allies). I don't think the US has the economic strengh or political resolve to fight China, given how much forien debt they have locked up in Asia, and how much they depend on Chinese exports. Would the US really risk their superpower status for a far away nation?

2) China invades Taiwan.

Yeah, this will only happen if Taiwan does something stupid (IE declares independance) or if there is major unrest in China, and the Party needs something to distract people with. See SK vs NK for the US's role, exept it will be even worse for them, as China already has a huge militry build up in the area. If the US leaves well enough alone, then its a forgon conclusion really. Sure, it'll be bloody for the Chinese, as they'll take a hammering getting in, but once they get the airports/beachs, the've won, and they arn't exactly short of troops for a meatgrinder. Of corse, that assumes they go for the Storm the Beaches/Paratrooper idea. If I was the Chinese general, I'd just sit in China and declare open season with all those missiles they have pointed at Taiwan. Either hit the cities until they surrender, or scorched earth until they can simply walk in.

3) Indonesia invades Australia (or to be more specific, East Timoor, with Australian Troops stationed there.)

*blink blink* Really?
Never even heard of that one, but I think Assy's would hold pretty easily (if they attacked Astraila itself) and the US, UK and probably the EU would get involved pretty quickly.

4) Iran (or coalition of Arab nations) invade Israel. Again.

Yeah, this is where no nukes doesn't make sence. If Iran gets near its own nukes, Israel will probably attack them (Mossad/Special Forces raids/Air Strikes). If Israel is attacked, they'll do pretty well. If they look like their going to lose/get nuked though, you can be sure they'll go for MAD (or at least "kill the enemy civvies until they don't want to fight any longer)

5) India invades Pakistan.

India would win any (non-nuclear) war, but I doubt they'd be able to hold any of Pakistan without depolulating it. If they tried to, it would just be a endless slog of terrorism (lets face it, the Taliban would probably side with Pakistan, at least informaly, seeing them as the lesser of 2 evils).

I think a more likely scenario for a conflict in this region is the Pakistani Taliban getting powerful enough to serously contest with the govenment for the country. In that case, India might launch a 'pre-emptive' strike on the presumption of keeping the Pakistani Nuclear arsenal out of the Taliban's hands.

6) Argentina invades the Falklands. Again. (Brit troops stationed here)

Eh, if they were daft enough to try (and they might, if a REALLY nationalist party comes to power), they'd do worse than last time. There is a proper garison there now, so I doubt they'd even get control of the islands before a task force arrived to kick 'em out. It would be interesting to see what the US and UN reactions would be (not that the US would activly help the Argies, no matter how much they thought we were wrong IMO, and the worst the UN would do would be one of those strongly worded letters...). It would, long term, stop this reduction of the UK military, which I think is a good thing.

7) All of the above occur. At the same time.

All those at once? Not likely.

Please try to answer all of them. And keep your answers seperate. Also, feel free to argue why each scenario is either impossible, highly unlikely, or frightenly likely.

**Commander Endova**

Emperors Faithful wrote:First of all, please, NO NUKES.

1) North Korea invades South Korea. Again. (try vice versa as well) (Some) American Troops are stationed there.
f the north invades, US honor's treaty alliance with SK, lends troops to defend SK border, but would leave counter invasion to the SK military, barring some ODA's inserted to sew havoc. China will stay out this time, because our nations are too economically dependent on each other.

2) China invades Taiwan.
China captures Taiwan, unless EU decides to get involved, which is unlikely.

3) Indonesia invades Australia (or to be more specific, East Timoor, with Australian Troops stationed there.)
Is this even a likely event? I thought everybody pretty much likes Australia.

4) Iran (or coalition of Arab nations) invade Israel. Again.
US forces sent to the middle east, both to reinforce strategic footholds in Iraq, and to Israel to coordinate actions together. Draft probably reinstated.

5) India invades Pakistan.
Civil war/rioting erupts in Cupertino, CA, and Endova is forced to barricade himself in his apartment, since the entire population here is Pakistani, Indian, or assorted Asian.

6) Argentina invades the Falklands. Again. (Brit troops stationed here)
Brit's probably win.

7) All of the above occur. At the same time.
Depends on the order, really. If it begins with one where the US's already strained forces are deployed, and the draft reinstated, China will probably try to capitalize with a coup de grace on our borders. Any of the hardcore teabaggers not over seas will organize militia's. In the confusion, a radical group of teabaggers will assasinate the president and his cabinet, and thus orchestrate a violent coup. militias, now with government support, repel Chinese. On an unrelated note, I just gave Tom Clancy his next novel.

**squilverine**

Emperors Faithful wrote:First of all, please, NO NUKES.

1) North Korea invades South Korea. Again. (try vice versa as well) (Some) American Troops are stationed there.
Could happen, however NK troops are poorly equiped, malnourished and badly led after the initial success of a massive wave attack across the DMZ SK and their US allies get there stuff together and resist further attacks. A stalemate ensues with US bombing raids knocking out NK artillery, ports, power and airports until the overwhelming sanctions effectively starve NK into giving up as they have no resources or logistics to support their front lines. Kim Jong is removed from power following a military coup by disenfranchised generals.

2) China invades Taiwan.
Possible, China would steamroller any Taiwanese military resistance very quickly and adopt brutal measures to deal with the populace and any suspected resistance/guerilla's. Sanctions would be placed upon China but to little effect and whilst there would be a lot of tutting and head shaking very little else would be done

3) Indonesia invades Australia (or to be more specific, East Timoor, with Australian Troops stationed there.)
Highly unlikely, Indoniesia may have man power but lack modern military hardware on the level of the Ausies. UK, NZ and Canada support Oz and give Indonesia a kicking. UN demand regime change in Indonesia and mantain military garrisons/bases there to ensure stability.

4) Iran (or coalition of Arab nations) invade Israel. Again.
Possible, despite word of support from other Arab nations Iran "go it alone" Isreal and US launch tactical air strikes to nuetralise Irans infrastructure, Irans army are beaten in the desert however do not press on into Iran due to limited manpower with current commitments in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Ahmed Dinner Jacket stays in power and claims victory, he takes his impotent rage out against minority groups within his own country until Obamas daughter comes into power 10 years later and decides that she has a score to settle on behalf of her daddy, plus the fact that he might have nukes. De ja vu anyone?

5) India invades Pakistan.
Getting less likely as Pakistan has very little to make it worth invading, however the Pakistanis have been harbouring terrorists, becoming more and more unstable whilst making accusations regarding India's parentage. India sends troops into Pakistan but only to destroy key military assets. Not wishing to get involved in a long drawn out and costly occupation India with drawers back to it's borders and maintains a hightened military presence in the border areas and continues to conduct raids until a pro-indian regime is put in place.

6) Argentina invades the Falklands. Again. (Brit troops stationed here)
Possible should oil be found in Falklands territorial waters, this time Argentina use serious airpower to try and soften up the defenses of the island before launching an amphibious assualt, however British submarines sink several Argentine vessels before they have a chance to land and British Tornado's limit the amount of damage Argentine bombs can do. British troops fight off the few soldiers who do make it ashore. UK is supported by Brazil who threaten airstrikes against Argentine military assets. Yet again the current regime is kicked out of power and the whole thing plays out again in another 20 years or until Brazil becomes large enough to annex Argentina and create a South American superpower.

7) All of the above occur. At the same time.
Highly unlikely, however all of the beligerents are to busy caught up in their own conflicts to be overtly bothered by other peoples problems. Nueteral countries decide to remain impartial until the dust settles before deciding upon any future alliances.

Please try to answer all of them. And keep your answers seperate. Also, feel free to argue why each scenario is either impossible, highly unlikely, or frightenly likely.

**dogma**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
1) North Korea invades South Korea. Again. (try vice versa as well) (Some) American Troops are stationed there.

Seoul is flattened immediately. Depending on US response time, the North either has great initial success, or is immediately crushed. Mass sabotage and special operations on the part of the North ensure that there is heavy infrastructure damage in the South. China may become involved, but they have distanced themselves from the North of late. At the very least a DMZ will be established a number of miles from the Yalu River.

Regardless of actual outcome, both the South and North are economically devastated. The Chinese may execute refugees, and will certainly treat them poorly, expect international outcry.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
2) China invades Taiwan.

It depends on the extent to which the US is willing to intervene. If they fail to do so, it is an easy victory with a prolonged, and bloody, occupation. If the US does intervene, it will be the first significant conflict between the powers of the next era, with a variable outcome. Expect to see the deployment of over-the-horizon ordnance, and the first real net-war.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
4) Iran (or coalition of Arab nations) invade Israel. Again.

Again, this depends on the degree to which the US involves itself. The scenarios are essentially the same as those that define the China v. Taiwan incident; with a greater emphasis on asymmetric warfare. Expect a great deal popular support for the invasion, and sabotage with respect to the Israeli war machine.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
5) India invades Pakistan.

This will be a nuclear exchange, no question. India will start the war, but Pakistan will launch the first nuclear weapon.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
7) All of the above occur. At the same time.

The US withdraws all its military support from its various allies, or chooses to focus on only one; most likely Israel. The situation in Pakistan will likely draw away resources, free nuclear weapons being more significant than any allegiance, and so Israel is flattened.

The scenarios which I answered are the most likely ones. All the others are either unlikely, or insignificant to nations not directly involved in the conflict. All these scenarios, save the wonky East Timor one, are frequently debated in policy circles. Of course, that's only a comment on their possibility, not their probability.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=174946

The article wrote:The repeated abdication of responsibility by the Obama administration from preventing nuclear non-proliferation leaves it on Israel's shoulders.

Wait, so its our responsibility to supply Iran with nukes?