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.

dogma wrote:

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.

GG

timetowaste85 wrote:

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.

On Risk II (the awesome hotseat video game) they added New Zealand as a springboard to hit Argentina

Personally I like Europe.

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!

Henners91 wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:

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.

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

I doubt there will be any war between major economic and military parties in the next couple decades.

Economically it is a bad idea.

There might be a cold war between the US and China however. Some claim there already is.

Melissia wrote:I doubt there will be any war between major economic and military parties in the next couple decades.

Economically it is a bad idea.

There might be a cold war between the US and China however. Some claim there already is.

Those 'some' would show the cyber attacks, espionage and ongoing infiltration and influence operations to justify their claims.

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.

I can't see us getting into it with China. We owe them too much money.

I can see them breaking out kneecaps with tire irons, however.

Grey Templar wrote:

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.

Kim would probably try to "improve" the Russian missiles

Lone Cat wrote:

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.

HonorHarrington wrote:
Islam is a religion of peace. The Islamic world is only defending itself from Western aggression.

Yeah 9/11 was mega peaceful.

On the upside you finally posted something funny!

If the intent of the various terrorist attacks of the last few decades was to deter Western aggression I'd say it has been a catastrophic failure.

Islam is about as peaceful as a dark alley in Oakland. The people making decisions anyway.

If there is a Major War it will be late 21st Century and the Countries wll be fighting for diminshed resources.

So even though terrorists make up a minority of Muslims, we're going to judge the entire religion based on their actions?

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...

purplefood wrote:

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.

War. It's in our nature.