[penelopesimpson]

Mitt Romney is certainly doing his best, giving the Israeli's a free ticket to bomb Iran. That might work well.

[johna999]

If there is to be another wider war it will likely be over water or similar key natural resource. China don't want a war and are using their vast wealth to buy up the resources in emerging areas such as Africa.

I do think there will be a serious conflict between the US and Iran and Syria and even Saudia Arabia, but only when the west is no-longer dependent on the oil from there. It will be in the name of eradicating terrorism, but in reality revenge for all the past acts.

[thapthap]

No wars as such - at least not on the scale of WW2 etc.
We all know that a couple of nukes can end a war now so war in the traditional term is pretty much over.
We will though find that rather than war we will be exposed to more terrorist attacks. Large shopping centres, big cities, big companies, stadiums and other well populated areas will become targets for extremists.
Religion the cause of almost all war will provide many more deaths for many more centuries to come.
As we in the west have slackened off - our brothers in the East have amassed great armies of people willing to die in the name of religion and take out as many people as possible who oppose whatever belief system they follow.

I will be dead and gone long before it reaches epidemic proportions but it eventually will and the streets will indeed run red with blood.
Children,Old people,Mothers, fathers,sisters and brothers and many more will die all in the name of religion.

some say a new world order will arise and erase religion - at first I was dead set against it but as time goes on I can only see benefits of said order taking over.

[phylo_roadking]

No wars as such - at least not on the scale of WW2 etc.
We all know that a couple of nukes can end a war now so war in the traditional term is pretty much over

May I ask what age you are?

[Meilie]

Originally Posted by Tassium

WW3 will be economic in nature, corporate against the people. i.e now.

Nuclear weapons are just too messy and the war-mongers are likely to get melted alongside everyone else.

In the USA Mitt Romney is a war monger, just an economic one. And he will be fighting against the American people by all accounts. (if he becomes pres.)

Since Obama took office, 6 million Americans have fallen into poverty, while the number of Americans on food stamps has risen by 14 million.

Anyone in America missing fingers on their hands now comes under the definition of a terrorist suspect and can be held indefinitely without trial.

Oh and Obama continues to authorise aerial assassinations in Pakistan virtually every week.

Originally Posted by penelopesimpson

Mitt Romney is certainly doing his best, giving the Israeli's a free ticket to bomb Iran. That might work well.

Like all prospective POTUS, Romney is just saying what the Pentagon wants to hear.

[nathanbrazil]

Originally Posted by Charlottesweb

As for war, its unlikely, for all the bluster, none of the leaders are dumb enough to take on Iran, and Syria is a civil war , one they should be left to sort out.

Are you sure about that? Don't get me wrong, I hope that you are entirely correct. However, I am concerned that Israel - run as it is by people who obey international law only when it suits them - may act unilaterally against Iran.

If they did that, without any serious legitimacy, then it is obvious that the currently at odds religious and political elements would unite, with an aggrieved and frightened population behind them. United in the objective of going all out to obtain nuclear weapons as a deterrent. At that point, of course, the State of Israel would feel perfectly justified in starting a major war, and the American administration, being the sheep they are, would fall into step right behind them..

Ironically, and very sadly, if at this point Iran had WoMD, their leaders would probably feel cornered and desperate enough to use them. A move which could mean the end of Israel as it currently stands, and the destruction of any US fleet in the area. Quite how widespread the Israeli/ American retaliation would be is anyone's guess, but it would clearly be of a very serious and destructive nature. Moves which may, in turn, prompt other major powers to try and stop them, forcibly.

[nathanbrazil]

Originally Posted by penelopesimpson

Mitt Romney is certainly doing his best, giving the Israeli's a free ticket to bomb Iran. That might work well.

Yes, but Romney is a fellow who tithes 10% of his income to a church whose origins are ludicrous. Even the most rabid Republican voter must surely be doubtful as to whether such a berk should ever have his finger on the trigger of anything more dangerous than a water pistol.

[HillmanImp]

Most likely cause of WW3 is a chaotic end to North Korea regeme.

With nukes, Chinese and USA all armed to the teeth on either side of the border.With Japan ready to get stuck in too. One day North Korea will break like a dam.... What will happen is anyones guess, but one day it will implode - that is a certainty.

[JordanT91]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

Most likely cause of WW3 is a chaotic end to North Korea regeme.

With nukes, Chinese and USA all armed to the teeth on either side of the border.With Japan ready to get stuck in too. One day North Korea will break like a dam.... What will happen is anyones guess, but one day it will implode - that is a certainty.

They certainly can't stay like they are forever. It may take a while though. Probably when the state of the world gets so bad that the UN can't give them any food. The people would have no choice, either overthrow their beloved leader or die. It will take them a while to choose the right one though.

[thenetworkbabe]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

Most likely cause of WW3 is a chaotic end to North Korea regeme.

With nukes, Chinese and USA all armed to the teeth on either side of the border.With Japan ready to get stuck in too. One day North Korea will break like a dam.... What will happen is anyones guess, but one day it will implode - that is a certainty.

Korea is the one that could start any day Both sides are ready, dug into battle positions with the artillery deployed and ready. it just requires another silly N Korean attack on a southern ship or Island and a reply to escalate. S Korea is building its capability to take the North, but the terrain is horrendous and, as you say, China and the US both get involved.

The Shia - Sunni war though is already raging. Iran has no intention of stopping its nuclear programme and the Saudis are preparing to follow quickly. Everyone has recently practiced for war to break out throughout the region and the US and France ahve reinforced their forces. . The Sunni states are building up their conventional forces with another massive set of purchases just announced. There's rumours of Iranian assassination squads at work and the Iranians are blaming Saudis for the attack on Assad's security ministers in Syria. The proxy war in Syria is already escalating. The Iranians are targetting Israelis globally and the Israelis are preparing to deal with Iran, Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas - simultaneously if necessary. The talks are getting nowhere and Iran is speeding up work on fortifying its nuclear sites. There's lots of talk about a strike date in October - which would fit the logic that everyone in the region thinks Obama is a a weak President, and the Israelis thinking that going before the US election won't allow him to do anything but support them.

[dorydaryl]

Originally Posted by Sophie ~Oohie~

How's China going to expand or do anything if they destroy the world? I wonder if they've thought of that.

Exactly.
That's why I don't think it'll happen.
The stakes would be just too high with another world war.
The development of nuclear weapons and their capabilities put a whole new slant on the endgame. In an all out nuclear war, nobody really wins. Not unless you want to live out your days in a high-tech bunker.

It could happen by accident but, so far any nuclear 'red alerts' have been resolved without getting out of control. I think the checks and balances are maybe a bit better than we give them credit for. Not saying it can't happen...only time can tell.

All the same, I think there's going to be many, many more territorial disputes as the world population increases and competition for resources becomes more intense. There's also the potential for the increasing impact of global terrorism. In fact, there could be so many countries involved in territorial conflict that, 'sum-totalled' one might liken it to something like a conventional world war. I just don't think it's imminent in terms of the apocalyptic catastrophe that some might predict.

I was convinced it was all going to kick off in the eighties, just as my dad was in the sixties. So far, so good.

A terrible shame that the only was some people can see a way out of conflict is by fighting to the death but that goes back all the way into history.

You'd think we'd have learned something by now!

[phylo_roadking]

Ironically, and very sadly, if at this point Iran had WoMD, their leaders would probably feel cornered and desperate enough to use them. A move which could mean the end of Israel as it currently stands, and the destruction of any US fleet in the area. Quite how widespread the Israeli/ American retaliation would be is anyone's guess, but it would clearly be of a very serious and destructive nature. Moves which may, in turn, prompt other major powers to try and stop them, forcibly.

I see you're assuming that the Russians for instance wouldn't want to see an end to Iran's potential for cuasing mayhem on its southern flank and in the various islamic Republics there it STILL regards as its "buffer zone"?

[thenetworkbabe]

Originally Posted by dorydaryl

Exactly.
That's why I don't think it'll happen.
The stakes would be just too high with another world war.
The development of nuclear weapons and their capabilities put a whole new slant on the endgame. In an all out nuclear war, nobody really wins. Not unless you want to live out your days in a high-tech bunker.

It could happen by accident but, so far any nuclear 'red alerts' have been resolved without getting out of control. I think the checks and balances are maybe a bit better than we give them credit for. Not saying it can't happen...only time can tell.

All the same, I think there's going to be many, many more territorial disputes as the world population increases and competition for resources becomes more intense. There's also the potential for the increasing impact of global terrorism. In fact, there could be so many countries involved in territorial conflict that, 'sum-totalled' one might liken it to something like a conventional world war. I just don't think it's imminent in terms of the apocalyptic catastrophe that some might predict.

I was convinced it was all going to kick off in the eighties, just as my dad was in the sixties. So far, so good.

A terrible shame that the only was some people can see a way out of conflict is by fighting to the death but that goes back all the way into history.

You'd think we'd have learned something by now!

Deprerssingly we were getting there in the 1990s - but we now seem likely to have a rerun of the last century. Russia with an economy that was more successful and acting as at present would look very much like it did in 1914. China and Russia are psotured against each other militarily but are determined to do anything they can to block US actions. Asia is in an arms race like Europe pre-1914 - though mercifully without land borders and mobilisation plans that require preemption - except between Pakistan and India. US strategy from Clinton through Bush was to keep the US so far ahead militarily that no power would challenge her and US dominance would mean that there was no point in competing regionally as the US would deal with any state like Iraq trying to threaten the status quo - thats no longer the case as the US looks weaker after Iraq and its defence capability is losing its edge. The Europeans have basically giving up trying, and now find themselves vulnerable to events they can't react to in the Middle East, a US thats abandoning Europe, and a Russia that could quite easily become a threat if the Russians could actually fund their defence plans.

The niuclear issue may be more dangerous now . In the Cold War, from the early fifties, you had large forces based and designed to avoid pre-emptive strike. Strategies were devised to counter all concievable options, and to deter attack by threatening everything that an enemy leader could care about including his own personal survival. The West now has vastly fewer weapons, there's a lack of serious strategic thinking and fewer options. China and Russia still think in cold war terms and have retained more options andbuilt mobile, survivable, weapons - meanwhile Mr Putin has built himself the world's deepest bunker . More alarmingly the smaller nuclear powers don't have survivable weapons, are more open to pre-emptive attack, have fewer options, have only a very basic understanding of nuclear strategy, and their weapons may be vulnerable to terrorist hijack. There is significant power to do damage to other states , but nothing like the level of damage envisaged in cold war exchanges, and there's also a use it or lose it dilemna - which was countered by massive expenditures on survivability and overkill in the cold war. That leaves people free to think about doing the unthinkable. India has already once this century done the sums on whether punishing Pakistan for a terrorist attack and seeing escalation to a nuclear exchange was worth 500,000 casualties. If Iran gets the bomb followed by 3-5 Sunni Arab states, all bets are off on not having a nuclear attack somewhere or even a sizeable nuclear exchange .

[nathanbrazil]

Originally Posted by phylo_roadking

I see you're assuming that the Russians for instance wouldn't want to see an end to Iran's potential for cuasing mayhem on its southern flank and in the various islamic Republics there it STILL regards as its "buffer zone"?

I'm thinking that the Russian's quite like the idea of Iran being a pain to the US more than it is to them, and that in the event of major hostilities breaking out, many countries would not be adverse to Israeli wings being clipped and America getting a bloody nose.

[PrestonAl]

Yes. China vs Japan/India

[Sophie ~Oohie~]

So does anyone here think they have any reasonable chance of seeing 2020, and would there be any point in moving to the countryside or would it definitely be the end of the world?

[cheesy_pasty]

Israel will bomb Iran, Iran will respond with the backing of China which then brings the US into the war. The entirety of NATO will then be brought into the conflict which further pisses the Chinese off.

China start to mobilise ground troops across Asia, to which Russia becomes twitchy about. The ongoing struggle in Syria will spill over into neighbouring states that with terrorist groups getting stuck in. Hezbollah will strike Israel, to which the Israeli's respond with heavy pushing. Israel then invade Lebanon, much to NATOs horror. Hamas will attempt to stage their own takeover of Israel, but it will be to no avail.
With the support of China, Iran begin bombing campaigns on Israel to which the US attempt to prevent rather than intercept. Diplomatic talks break down.
Israel begin taking heavy losses and they start to send out rumours of their preparedness to use their nuclear arsenal against Iran.
China then loudly clear their throat, followed by the US. Russia then steps in and gives a heads up about what they have in the tank should anyone start flinging around nukes.

That's as much as I can think of right now, but the endgame will be a messy one that will change borders and life forever.

All I will say is that if Israel get themselves into a full scale conflict with Iran; don't be surprised to see a nuke or two dropped on Iran.

Also FWIW, Russia has moved a number of nukes to Cuba...so are the rumours.

[Meilie]

Originally Posted by cheesy_pasty

Israel will bomb Iran, Iran will respond with the backing of China which then brings the US into the war. The entirety of NATO will then be brought into the conflict which further pisses the Chinese off.

China start to mobilise ground troops across Asia, to which Russia becomes twitchy about. The ongoing struggle in Syria will spill over into neighbouring states that with terrorist groups getting stuck in. Hezbollah will strike Israel, to which the Israeli's respond with heavy pushing. Israel then invade Lebanon, much to NATOs horror. Hamas will attempt to stage their own takeover of Israel, but it will be to no avail.
With the support of China, Iran begin bombing campaigns on Israel to which the US attempt to prevent rather than intercept. Diplomatic talks break down.
Israel begin taking heavy losses and they start to send out rumours of their preparedness to use their nuclear arsenal against Iran.
China then loudly clear their throat, followed by the US. Russia then steps in and gives a heads up about what they have in the tank should anyone start flinging around nukes.

That's as much as I can think of right now, but the endgame will be a messy one that will change borders and life forever.

All I will say is that if Israel get themselves into a full scale conflict with Iran; don't be surprised to see a nuke or two dropped on Iran.

Also FWIW, Russia has moved a number of nukes to Cuba...so are the rumours.

NATO comes into play when any NATO country is attacked on its own soil (excluding overseas territories and protectorates).

[zoepaulpenny]

Originally Posted by thenetworkbabe

Not a world war . Portentially a nasty one. Syria and Iran and Lebanon and Gaza are linked and could ignite each other. Syria is getting desperate and has chemical weapons. Iran is going ot be bombed at some point and that will be very nasty around that region. Israeli is going to retaliate on anyone they find involved in the attack in Bulgaria. I wouldn't go anywhere in the Middle East this year or next.

the middle east has always been a ticking bomb.. and always will be.. not a place i want to go anyway..

[cheesy_pasty]

Originally Posted by Meilie

NATO comes into play when any NATO country is attacked on its own soil (excluding overseas territories and protectorates).

The US will drag them into it, even if that isn't usual protocol.

Originally Posted by zoepaulpenny

the middle east has always been a ticking bomb.. and always will be.. not a place i want to go anyway..

Don't believe everything you see and read. I've been to that region of the world a few times, and it's been nothing but pleasant. They'd have you believe everyone rides round on the back of pickups with AK-47s but it's really not like that at all.

[nathanbrazil]

Originally Posted by cheesy_pasty

All I will say is that if Israel get themselves into a full scale conflict with Iran; don't be surprised to see a nuke or two dropped on Iran.

At which point, if not before, should Iran have access to nuclear weapons these will be used in justifiable retaliation. Iran = big country, could survive nuclear attack. Israel = small country, and would be devastated.

Far, far better if people actually talked to each other and stopped threatening. Sadly, on both sides, this does not seem very likely.

[nathanbrazil]

Originally Posted by cheesy_pasty

They'd have you believe everyone rides round on the back of pickups with AK-47s but it's really not like that at all.

Indeed. Also, in the interests of fairness, I would say that once upon a time I worked off the coast of Israel, as a radio DJ on the Voice of Peace, and when on land found most of those I met to be fine peeps. Just like most of their Arabic neighbours, the majority simply want to live their lives.

[Hogwarts Pupil]

I think its imminent, war is perpetual and never really ends. Just like the war in the middle east.