Don't be silly Andorra is far more likely to be a hot spot. They have the second highest human life expectancy in the world, surely, someone would go after it to find the secret for longevity.Grass_Watcher said:
Where will the next war start?
- Thread starter Kaboose the Moose
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It would be ironic if trouble brew up in America itself; like if Texas seceded and declared war on the rest of the US states,
I agree with the fact that there might not be a WWIII given the current political climate but there will undoubtedly be disputes all over the place. Perhaps even in Antarctica when people start wanting to drill for oil there.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!Maraveno said:
I was getting really depressed that no one mentioned India and Pakistan. If the next "war" erupts where someone invades someone, causing all sorts of griefing, it will be between those two.
World War? Not likely, since a lot of countries are interlaced in a complicated matter that meant taking sides would likely hurt their economy or their political influence.
Yeah, I think someone mentioned that wars are started over resources -- Antarctica and the Arctic circle have a lot of funny, disputable, and non-enforcable boundaries which I'm sure will lead to territorial disputes. This won't necessarily lead to world war and nukes though, probably two navies duking it out.Nick Bounty said:
Just on the part of communism here. why does every1 think communism will make russia go to war against other people at once thats just fucking retarded. Communism is not necessarily evil it just didnt work the way it intended with the sovjet union.Maraveno said:
Danny Ocean said:
I try and stay out of thread such as this one, but this post raised an eyebrow.McClaud said:
To begin with, India and Pakistan have been engaged in a hot and cold war (both at the same time believe it or not) since 1947. When they are not *officially* at war, you will see Pakistan sending radicalized Islamic militants into Kashmir in order to "liberate" the region (that is when they aren't throwing acid in girls faces), all the while denying that they do in fact train and support said militants. In response India secretly sends in special forces into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK. A.K.A "Azad" (Free) Kashmir) to destroy these training camps which Pakistan says doesn't exist.
Despite a LOT of provocation (See Mumbai attacks, with Pakistan actually admitting the fact that these terrorists were in fact trained in Pakistan), neither side is in any real position to start a war. Pakistan because they know that they are essentially outnumbered and outgunned, and that such a war will destabilize Pakistan and allow the NWFP a further free hand (See: Taliban in Swat) and India because they have a lot more to loose economically and strategically.
You will see a lot of "incidents" I suspect in the near future, but unless a radical change in government on either side i.e extremists, an actual war is out of the question, especially with the large bill attached to it.
Except the Pakistani government is in trouble, and there could very well be a radical change if the militants escalate their agenda. It all depends on who has their hands on Pakistan's nukes.Raven_Letters said:
Two years ago, I wouldn't have thought they would go to war - the very least, I too believed that it would stay mostly to isolated conflicts around the Kashmir region. I've watched that area for years in the Air Force. But recent unrest and the present danger of terrorists focused on India, should India suspect that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal be in danger of ending up in the wrong hands, they could very well declare war and bomb Pakistan.
Whether or not the rest of the world is okay with it is another thing. Don't think for a second, though, that India will forgo action if nuclear weapons are involved. They'll strike first without waiting for the UN to approve anything.
Honestly, the next war will most likely NOT involve the US heavily. It will probably involve Russia, Israel or India, and possibly CHINA.
On a giant all powerful space-monkey's ass. It will happen on a Thursday... and there will be lasers.
Bah .. somebody define the term of World War to me ... people keep on telling me World War 2 ended in '45 and started in '39 ... but obviously the people weho say this didn't live in China, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Borneo (The entire Island as in), Nigeria etc etc.Sewblon said:
If a World War is merely a war(s) fought on many fronts and by many nations ... then due to the Middle East & Far East alone than wouldnt all North America, Australia, Britain, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Iraq etc etc already be in World War 3/4/5/6/7/10/78?
Not including existing conflicts/flashpoints like Lebanon/Israel where international UN units from many nations we're killed by Israeli rockets during the last skirmish against Lebanon when they decioded to attack that UN Command Post when the UN told Israel to stay the fuck out.
Uh, in 1997 total US Aid to Israel was 84 billion. I don't want to know what that figure is now.TheMatt said:
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
Something tells me if we stop giving them money not everything is going to be hunky dory. Nor is the Israeli armies' habit of blowing up civilians, U.N. medical supplies, or food for refugees going to go over well with people. They would no doubt win the war, but I doubt the cost would be worth it.
You do know theyre a compleatly nutral country right?nova18 said:I strongly doubt Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales together could start a significant war. We just plain lack the forces and manpower for anything less than defense. By rebellion though, I assume you mean Civil War. In which case, England and Ireland have seen enough violence for now, let someone else have a goNick Bounty said:
Im gonna say Switzerland. Villainous dogs with mountains of Nukes and a grudge against every country in the world for ridiculing them.
the Genivia convetions are help there...in the city of Genivia
