• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Next World War: The “Great Game” and the Threat of Nuclear War


Reaction score
Great read for those with some time on their hands.

The Next World War: The “Great Game” and the Threat of Nuclear War

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, January 10, 2011

The “Great Game” never ended. It is the “long war” that Mackinder talked about to establish a “World-Empire.” It has changed names from the “Cold War” and the “Great War” to the “Global War on Terror.” It may end with World War III.

Our numbering system is so deficient:

WWI= the Seven Years War. First global conflict between powers with campaigns in both hemispheres
WWII= the Napoleonic Wars
WWIII= the Great War, 1914-1918
WWV= The Cold War USSR vs Western alliance; victory for the West in 1989
WWVI=The Global War on Terror (GWOT), ongoing

See you all at the WWVII vet's association  ;)

On a more serious note, it is true that overlapping interests and alliances can cause wars to spread. WWII might be considered to have started in Asia as early as 1937 with Imperial Japan's occupation of China, Germany vs France in 1940 could be considered a separate conflict, except for the linkage between Germany and Japan, which encouraged the Japanese to attack colonial possessions in East Asia and drew the British Empire into wars in both Europe and Asia. (Naturally there is more to it than that, but many of the theaters of war in WWII would rate as separate wars, but the same characters keep appearing in all these places which link the narratives together into a single war).
I read all three articles.  Very interesting and I think its important reading in that it should remind people that the days of state rivalry are not over and that nations could find themselves combatting one another again one day in the future in large scale battles. Having said that, the articles overall seem to be alarmist and anti American/NATO. He claims that the US/NATO are preparing for a future war with the Eurasian block and that all moves made are aimed toward weakening this bloc. Generally I wouldn't argue that the US isn't concerned with regards to China and the potential rise of this bloc, however, it seems unlikely that all moves are taken with this as the primary objective. For example, he mentions that China, Russia and Iran in 2001, prior to 9/11, were aware that NATO would make an invasion into central Asia. This makes 9/11 seem like a convenient coincidence that reminds me of 9/11 revisionists. Additionally, he states that NATO wishes to see a weak and unstable Pakistan that they are able to control. Well that is the Pakistan that we have had for years and we are now trying to change this in order to change our fortunes in Afghanstan and ensure their nuclear weapons don't fall into the hands of extremeists.

The way I read it he made it seem that the US was making a deliberate and calculated move to one day start a war with this Eurasian block. I find this very doubtful that any western politician or the US President would intentionally plunge NATO into World War 3 when western states find it difficult to keep even low casualty wars popular. Will they prepare for it? Of course, that is every states responsibility, and in these preparations miscalculations could be made that make war more likely or inevitable but I do not believe the US will deliberatly go on the warpath against these states. The way he portrays the US/NATO block is as a single homogenous entity that directs all their behaviors towards winning the conflict. This too seems unlikely.  As we all know there are many discussions as to whether NATO is even needed any longer and there have been some rather large political divisions within NATO in the past several years (ie invasion of Iraq).  To say that NATO complete views this new Eurasian Block as the kind of threat that the Soviet Union posed would be erroneous I believe. On top of this, these nations are democracies where politicans and public oppinion change as often as the weather and I'm not sure that the jury is out yet on how to deal with this group of countries.

He also says that US/NATO forces could not defeat Iran in a war without resort to nuclear weapons and quotes Saddam Hussein to reinforce his assertion.  I did some very limited research on the Iranian military but from what I was able to find I don't see any reason why a western coalition would not defeat Iran. The figures that were available publicly put the budget in the area of $9 billion and I didn't see any equipment that particularly stood out, so unless what is available publicly is not even close I don't see where he is getting that idea.