# WW3 en route?



## hagan_91 (1 Jun 2012)

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-09/news/31311454_1_russian-defense-ministry-military-action-dmitry-rogozin

http://thesantosrepublic.com/2012/02/ww3-2012-israel-to-strike-iran-in-april-may-or-june-us-defense-sec-says/

http://thesantosrepublic.com/2012/02/ww3-2012-pakistan-will-retaliate-if-israel-attacks-iran-diplomat-says/

USA/Isreal/Russia/Former USSR Republics/China/Iran/Pakistan doesnt sound good..


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Jun 2012)

Your evidence of this is two articles from feb and one from apr, from two pretty obscure publications?


----------



## LineJumper (1 Jun 2012)

The title does state 'enroute'.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Jun 2012)

fair enough. I suppose WW3 is always "enroute", if you take the strictest definition of the word "enroute".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Jun 2012)

Well to be fair, you can see lines being drawn on Syria, even if reluctantly by all players (except Iran, who needs the status quo)


----------



## wannabe SF member (1 Jun 2012)

Well to be fair, I don't see little Syria being so important a strategic interest as to warrant an armed confrontation between the giants of this world.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Jun 2012)

you mean like Serbia or Poland?


----------



## fraserdw (1 Jun 2012)

Nobody can afford WW3, the giants all know that.  Syria is a civil war amongst muslims; fence it off and feed the survivors next year when they run out of food and bullets.  Not worth our treasure, blood or patience.  This is a terrorist financing state that is getting a little pay back, just maybe there is a God and he has a sense of humour.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jun 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Nobody can afford WW3, the giants all know that.  Syria is a civil war amongst muslims; fence it off and feed the survivors next year when they run out of food and bullets.  Not worth our treasure, blood or patience.  This is a terrorist financing state that is getting a little pay back, just maybe there is a God and he has a sense of humour.




I agree, point by point, with fraserdw; I just wish I believed that we, the big, global collective we, are smart enough to follow his advice: _"fence it off and feed the survivors next year."_


----------



## buck13 (1 Jun 2012)

well, we made it through april and may. as long as israel doesn't attack iran this month it looks like we're in the clear. i don't see russia or pakistan actually getting involved though, even if there were to be some kind of clash between israel and iran.


----------



## QORvanweert (1 Jun 2012)

You would be hard pressed to convince the West of starting another ground war in the Middle East over civil rights. If WW3 starts in the next few years, I think it will be because of some crisis in the EU. If history has taught us anything, you can't have a world war without Europe and North America.

*Edited to add*

WW3 has been "en route" since VE day. Pretty meaningless statement.


----------



## Karate (1 Jun 2012)

This story has been in the papers for a long time, I doubt anything severe will happen. It just seems they're both playing chicken to see who flinched first.


----------



## ready (2 Jun 2012)

if this does happen, would there be a draft? or just open volunteers?


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Jun 2012)

ready said:
			
		

> if this does happen, would there be a draft? or just open volunteers?



Depends on how many troops we need, and whether this generation would get off their ass and sign up. Which I strongly doubt will happen.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jun 2012)

ready said:
			
		

> if this does happen, would there be a draft? or just open volunteers?




Can you think of an enemy, one against whom we are _likely_ to wage war, that would require us to mobilize 2,000,000 men and women for military service, against whom we would require a navy of 500 major warships (at $1 Billion each), against whom we would have to build and fly 1,000 first line combat aircraft (at $35 Million per copy)?

Remember that many first rate soldiers, most notably the late US General Matthew Ridgway, have argued strenuously:

1. For a _strategy_ in which political goals are be based on vital national interests and that military goals are consistent with and support those political goals; and

2. That the US should not try to fight a land war in Asia, not against China or its allies.

What _vital interest_ would lead us, the US led West, into any major war (major means one in which Canada's contribution would exceed, say, two joint task forces (totalling about 7,500 people (Navy, Army & Air Force)) deployed at any one time?

Against whom, other than China or India, would we need to _mobilize_ for a large, long war? Why would we want or need to fight against either China or India?

Is China going to try to displace the USA as the worlds _dominant_ power? Yes. Is China willing to fight to accomplish that goal? Maybe ... if they are attacked or, even, pushed into a corner on some issue which they see as a _*vital* interest_. What is an _interest_ sufficiently *vital* to make China fight? Taiwan. Are we or should we be willing to go to war against China to prevent the reunification of Taiwan with the rest of China? No, we should not be interested in that.

Is the Middle East a _*vital* interest_? For whom? Who depends upon Middle Eastern oil? Who can wean itself off Middle Eastern oil with _relative_ ease?

Think please.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Jun 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Can you think of an enemy, one against whom we are _likely_ to wage war, that would require us to mobilize 2,000,000 men and women for military service, against whom we would require a navy of 500 major warships (at $1 Billion each), against whom we would have to build and fly 1,000 first line combat aircraft (at $35 Million per copy)?
> 
> Remember that many first rate soldiers, most notably the late US General Matthew Ridgway, have argued strenuously:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jun 2012)

Even granting all these assumptions, wars are simply not fought that way anymore. Mass armies are far to vulnerable to precision guided attack and WMD  as the Persian Gulf Wars indicated.

As well, mass armies are vey labour intensive, which is expensive in both direct costs and also as a drag on the economy as large portions of the labour pool are drained off (especially in smaller nations). As time progresses, many nations will simply not have enough manpower to field mass armies; Russia's demographic crash is so advanced it is thought the population will be halved by 2035. Most European nations are also facing demographic crashes as they have sub replacement population growth, and even China will be facing a series of demographic crisis as their population ages and the combination of the "one child" policy and the preference for male children combined leads to a skewed population ratio of males to femaels. Canada has a European population replacement deficit as well...


----------



## jeffb (2 Jun 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Can you think of an enemy, one against whom we are _likely_ to wage war, that would require us to mobilize 2,000,000 men and women for military service, against whom we would require a navy of 500 major warships (at $1 Billion each), against whom we would have to build and fly 1,000 first line combat aircraft (at $35 Million per copy)?



And building such a military to modern standards would far exceed our industrial and training capacity. Even if we accept that our conscripts would be trained to a much lower standard then we would currently accept, there would be a severe leadership deficit. The complexity of modern military systems almost precludes a mass conscription plan IMO. It would literally take years of total economic mobilization to outfit and train even the most minimally trained force and as Mr Campbell points out, there are few (if any) threats that would warrant the collapse of our economy to defeat.


----------



## 57Chevy (2 Jun 2012)

We all have the mindset of conventional warfare when we think of WWIII.

The reality is, we are already at war. We don't exactly know  
when it actually began, but we are in the midst of a Worldwide Cyber War that is likely to end using
conventional methods.
Where the conventional soldier may lag behind, our cyber society has given us some very talented warriors in the cyber world.
Their only deficiency may be in conventional military training.
This opens up a whole new era for the modern day soldier, and a potential area for employment of injured soldiers and
possibly veterans. 

In 2010 the Cyber domain figured prominently throughout the Canadian Forces Network Operations Symposium 
seen here: http://www.commelec.forces.gc.ca/inf/new-bul/vol54/article-06-eng.asp

Many threads posted on site contain information on robotics, and cyber warfare using some of the
most advanced viruses known to seek out information, spy, disrupt, or otherwise destroy integrated systems and
software anywhere they can be found. (ie stuxnet cyber superweapon, and the latest flame virus).

Cyber warfare and robotics has become so prominent that I would suggest consideration of a new board committed to it.

A recent article from The American Dream and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act titled;
The UN Wants Complete Control Over The Internet And That Would Mean Unprecedented Censorship, Taxes And Surveillance
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-un-wants-complete-control-over-the-internet-and-that-would-mean-unprecedented-censorship-taxes-and-surveillance
(noting that this proposal has the support of China, Russia, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Iran 
is ample proof that we are in the midst of a Worldwide Cyber War.)


My short answer to WWIII en route ?   Quite possible


----------



## Sythen (2 Jun 2012)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> The UN Wants Complete Control Over The Internet And That Would Mean Unprecedented Censorship, Taxes And Surveillance
> http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-un-wants-complete-control-over-the-internet-and-that-would-mean-unprecedented-censorship-taxes-and-surveillance
> (noting that this proposal has the support of China, Russia, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Iran
> is ample proof that we are in the midst of a Worldwide Cyber War.)



The US has already said it doesn't care what the UN wants, it will retain control and I fully support them in this.

http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20050706085418383


----------



## hagan_91 (2 Jun 2012)

I love how people waste there time putting there 2 cents in on my title. Its put as a question not as a statement. I think that within the next 5-10 years a significant conflict will happen, and the worlds power balance will be secured by the victorious parties, at least for the next 100 years. Theres to many spots in the world that needs just one spark to ignite ww3.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jun 2012)

hagan_91 said:
			
		

> I love how people waste there time putting there 2 cents in on my title. Its put as a question not as a statement. I think that within the next 5-10 years a significant conflict will happen, and the worlds power balance will be secured by the victorious parties, at least for the next 100 years. Theres to many spots in the world that needs just one spark to ignite ww3.




Define "significant," please. If Israel nukes Tehran and a few other Iranian pleasure spots, in order to set back its nuclear ambitions, is that a "significant" conflict? Even if it doesn't spread? How about if Turkey invades Syria, as a "peacekeeper?" Would that be significant? Do you think Russia would, or even could invade Turkey?


----------



## Greymatters (2 Jun 2012)

hagan_91 said:
			
		

> I love how people waste there time putting there 2 cents in on my title. Its put as a question not as a statement. I think that within the next 5-10 years a significant conflict will happen, and the worlds power balance will be secured by the victorious parties, at least for the next 100 years. Theres to many spots in the world that needs just one spark to ignite ww3.



I would disagree - there are a lot of spots in the world that nobody cares about if you light it on fire, as long as the rest of the world can carry on with business as usual.  I.e. Egypt, Syria, Ivory Coast, Congo, Yemen, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, etc...


----------



## jeffb (2 Jun 2012)

And none of these conflicts would result in a new power balance.


----------



## JorgSlice (3 Jun 2012)

Now see, if Russia decided to go full-scale with it's desire to own lots and lots of underwater ice (hehehe silly people) that rightfully belongs to Her Majesty The Queen of Canada; then that is a different story. With their recent creation of Arctic "response" units, I can see Putin doing things he shouldn't be. After all, he had his buddy Medvedev change Russian law so he could serve another term as president, rig the elections to win etc. He's a dirty man and nobody should trust him.


----------



## Ignatius J. Reilly (3 Jun 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is China going to try to displace the USA as the worlds _dominant_ power? Yes. Is China willing to fight to accomplish that goal? Maybe ... if they are attacked or, even, pushed into a corner on some issue which they see as a _*vital* interest_. What is an _interest_ sufficiently *vital* to make China fight? Taiwan. Are we or should we be willing to go to war against China to prevent the reunification of Taiwan with the rest of China? No, we should not be interested in that.


We should be well interested, but not for going to war.
It will never come to that. And on the miniscule chance that it might, it would be over long before any of the West could intervene.
I agree that China would fight if they feel they are backed into a corner. Perspective is everything. One might well recall the Japanese circa 1941.

I doubt China would launch a pre-emptive strike, given the cards on the international table, but might do some strategic affront with regards to vital shipping routes. Which Formosa does indeed upon lie.

But an invasion of Taiwan would cost so much money far better spent in the economic sphere, and in which China already has the upper hand.
In the 15 years I have called Taiwan my home, there have been innumerable inroads from the Middle Kingdom, some subtle,  others flagrant. All propaganda aside, most Chinese on both sides of the strait realise the folly of war over the repatriation of our "renegade province"


----------

