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.

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:

China
India
Iran
Pakistan

Place your bets.

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.

I'd say China uses Pakistan to fight a proxy war with India. The war may escalate to global if the west goes all in to back India (unlikely).

rockerbikie wrote:

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.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

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.

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?




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.

Amaya wrote:

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)

Personal note: edited at many of your request

I'd advise you not to refer to Pakistanis as 'Pakis'...

Agreed. I've been informed that that term is a derogatory slang in some countries including the UK.

purplefood wrote:I'd advise you not to refer to Pakistanis as 'Pakis'...

In Thailand. folks also called pakistani that way meow.

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:

purplefood wrote:I'd advise you not to refer to Pakistanis as 'Pakis'...

In Thailand. folks also called pakistani that way meow.

People call them that here but it's widely regarded as a racial slur by many people on the forum...
I'm just advising you to avoid it is all...

@Lone Cat - You missed one in your edit.

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

purplefood wrote:

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

I'm sorry.

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...

biccat wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:

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...

I really have a hard time understanding what point Lord Cat is trying to make.

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...