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.

Henners91 wrote:

In a future war, would New Zealand rely on Oz?

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.

Full clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLuJXPZ8l6g&feature=related

I wouldn't be suprised if there is a war in the Middle East or a Second Korean War.

CptJake wrote:

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.

Briefest summary possible.

Africa was serene.

Then this happened:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

CptJake wrote:

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.

Recent conflicts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Africa

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

Decent interactive site (but misses some ongoing zones): http://www.cfr.org/africa/africas-conflict-zones/p14543

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.

from: http://www.globalissues.org/issue/83/conflicts-in-africa

And there is most likely a reason the US has recently stood up AFRICOM, a regional combatant command (like CENTCOM is for the Mid East).

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.

It's what happens when we render somewhere the dumping ground of the whole world.

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).

CptJake wrote:

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?

rubiksnoob wrote:

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.

Monster Rain wrote:I don't know, man.

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).

Heh, well that's two guys to my one. That is good enough for me. Good night Dakka!

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.

azazel the cat wrote:snip.

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.