Where will the next war start?

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Israel: Ironically have turned into the new nazi's and are provoking alot of countries surrounding them

Mostly provoking them by 'existing' as history shows.

Blowing up a UN command Post after the UN told Israel to remove itself from Lebanon? Blowing up Medical Convoys and EMT Vehicles who were transporting injured civilians to makeshift medical camps because the local municipal hospitals had been targetted by Israeli Artillery.

Israel is hardly making any friends. And not simply because they are the 'new kid on the block' .... Indonesia managed to settle it's differences with highly disapproving neighbours after the 'Konfrontasi' of the 50's ... and it was birthed at the same time as Israel ... in a bloody expansionist campaign led by a zealous military commander ...

Israel has been using the anti-semitic excuse for 60 years ... the only reason why militants attacked Israelis is because A: Israel denied it's neighbours proper access to Holy sites which are spiritually important for Muslims AND Christians ... and B: because of Mossad agents and it's Military actively employing assassination, and in some cases, active genocide of entire communities.

And this isn't a new trend either for the Canaanites ... the reason why the Egyptians of lore persecuted the Canaanites is because the Canaanites did it to them 200 years beforehand (ref. Hyksos).

I agree, the blame does go both ways ... but Israel always ... always appears the aggressor. You take units like Hezbollah ... who actively support social services in the Middle East, such as vaccinations, food deployments, and help maintain democratic free elections in Lebanon ...

Israelis demonise them because they are very good at intercepting Mossad agents who cross into Lebanon's borders. half of the people Israel claims that 'Hezbollah Raided and captured military personnel' is a load of crock .. alot of the times the military personnel hezbollah units pick up are captured Israeli agents ... and instead of killing them ... they return them without a scratch after a couple of years in exchange for some of their own brethren ... despite having the 'Jus ad Bello' to kill them on the battlefield.

Even many Israelites are turning around and saying that what the Israeli military and Mossad are doing is seperatist and isolationist in the extreme, immoral and cruel to a point. Its kinda hard to judge in favour of Israel's foreign policy when so many 0of it's own people think of it's military operations as heartless and provocative.

 

[Simriel]

Belgium.

I laughed. Belgium? They're too nice!

Exactly what they want you to think...

YOU READ MY MIND!

 

[Raven_Letters]

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.

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.

There are a few issues with your theory.

While the government in Pakistan is not stable by any means, there are specific and potent forces within Pakistan that will not allow the formation of a "Talebanized" government, namely the Army and the ISI - despite being the primary supporters of the Taliban. A Taleban / Salafist regime would mean the end of the Military's role in control of a truly vast industrial complex [http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-india_pakistan/pakistan_military_4519.jsp]. The military controls either directly or indirectly the majority of Pakistan's heavy industry, ancillary industries and a substantial portion of real estate. Pakistan is not so much as state with an army, as an army with a state. The current situation has made the upper echelons of the Pakistani military extremely rich, and a Salafist regime would be an anathema to them. The likelihood is far greater that Pakistan will once more regress to a Military government before it becomes a Salafist one, which; while being a de jure supporter of radical Islamic groups will make sure that they remain beholden to the Military.

Secondly, the whole notion of India bombing Pakistan is remote to say the least. Nevermind international condemnation, you forget India and Pakistan are neighbors. The fallout from a nuclear strike would leave India reaping a substantial amount of the radiation, even if that the Pakistanis do not reciprocate in a retaliatory strike.

Thirdly, the security protocols of the Nuclear stockpile makes it extremely difficult [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/10/AR2007111001684.html?sid=ST2007111001833] for a radical regime to get hold of a fully operational and deployable nuclear device - even without resistance.

Fourthly, despite whatever else Pakistan is not Afghanistan or one of the Arab despotisms. The Pakistani public are actually not all that happy about the possibility of Salafist rule, given that a Salafist or Taleban regime would enact changes that would directly come into conflict with a majority of the Pakistanis on economic, social and cultural lines. ( This is too long to explain here, but I will be happy to elaborate should you wish it)

 

[nova18]

Ireland. There will be a lot of talk about a Gaelic rebellion here in the UK, but until some way of getting weapons from ethnic Gaels in America becomes obvious then it will be difficult to actually start one, despite the influence of fanatics. But in Ireland there are militant groups that will become a lot more powerful with the amount of effort in increasing the status of Irish culture. Legitimate nationalist claims are very easily hijacked when a civil war has really only just ended, and when the militant groups that fought it were not destroyed.

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 go

Im gonna say Switzerland. Villainous dogs with mountains of Nukes and a grudge against every country in the world for ridiculing them.

You do know theyre a compleatly nutral country right?
the Genivia convetions are help there...in the city of Genivia

Forget it, the humour has been lost.
NO, I dont think Switzerland will start a war, because its SWITZERLAND.

My honest answer will be "Who knows", war itself is inconsistent, we can go from PEACE to WAR overnight in drastic cases.

 

[Goldbling]

Ireland. There will be a lot of talk about a Gaelic rebellion here in the UK, but until some way of getting weapons from ethnic Gaels in America becomes obvious then it will be difficult to actually start one, despite the influence of fanatics. But in Ireland there are militant groups that will become a lot more powerful with the amount of effort in increasing the status of Irish culture. Legitimate nationalist claims are very easily hijacked when a civil war has really only just ended, and when the militant groups that fought it were not destroyed.

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 go

Im gonna say Switzerland. Villainous dogs with mountains of Nukes and a grudge against every country in the world for ridiculing them.

You do know theyre a compleatly nutral country right?
the Genivia convetions are help there...in the city of Genivia

Forget it, the humour has been lost.
NO, I dont think Switzerland will start a war, because its SWITZERLAND.

My honest answer will be "Who knows", war itself is inconsistent, we can go from PEACE to WAR overnight in drastic cases.

... sorry

 

[Danny Ocean]

I say either the middle east (because they're not having a good time), Russia (They're turning into MASSIVE a-holes, I think they're turning communist again), or china (Because they behave like a-holes from time to time as well).

Again here. The assumption that Russia will attack every1 if communism comes there its kinda retarded

That's not what I said. I think you missed some quote code by mistake, but please don't misquote my posts.

 

[Spicy meatball]

It's all ridiculous. Saying that Russia will attack because it's becoming a communist country again is like saying China will invade the US because they owe them lots of money. World wars of these scale is not feasible. This has nothing to do with the current economic climate but the the long term effects. War costs lots of money, for upkeep and expenditure. It's been said that world war won't be declare because ever country now is interconnected but more than that world war won't happen because no one can afford a war that scale. All what is likely is civil unrest and small scale warfare. Tiny incursions into other territories, playing a hit and run game for resources.

Which brings me to my point that the next war/unrest is not going to be over weapons or words. It's resources. With 6 billion people something is going to give first, us or the environment.

 

[new_age_reject]

Things are really stabilising at the moment with a new and unpredictable American President plus this global recession, no one has the capital - financial or political - to risk a war. Politicians are under immense pressure from their economies, a war is a complication they don't need. Even in dictatorial regimes, the political effects are strong.

World War 2 was started in the middle of a worldwide depression. I don't think the economic issues will be what prevents the next war.

Well I think with a new world war being very much different to WWII, the costs will be so much greater so I think a depression will have slightly more bearing on the situation.
Of course the depression around at the time of WWII was partly caused by WWI, so everything is very different now.

 

[neoman10]

Germany...It's alway Germany...

or Russia, they seem to be getting a little angry at...everything lately

 

[Papopapo456]

I think South America, there has been some important diplomatic troubles between Chile (where I live) and Peru - Bolivia (both are claiming territories lost in the Pacific War).

Also, most Chileans don't like Peruvians or Bolivians (it's like British and French).

 

[Bluntknife]

Belgium.

I laughed. Belgium? They're too nice!

Nice? have you had a Belgium waffle?
They are way too tasty, they're fattening us up. Making us weak.
And when the time is right they will cut off the waffle supply driving us into a depression and they will invade when we have no energy because we won't be drinking 3L of syrup a day!

 

[JoshasorousRex]

In Canada where we will send our whole army of two troops in our really crappy helicopter (what is it called again?)

 

[McClaud]

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.

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.

There are a few issues with your theory.

While the government in Pakistan is not stable by any means, there are specific and potent forces within Pakistan that will not allow the formation of a "Talebanized" government, namely the Army and the ISI - despite being the primary supporters of the Taliban. A Taleban / Salafist regime would mean the end of the Military's role in control of a truly vast industrial complex [http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-india_pakistan/pakistan_military_4519.jsp]. The military controls either directly or indirectly the majority of Pakistan's heavy industry, ancillary industries and a substantial portion of real estate. Pakistan is not so much as state with an army, as an army with a state. The current situation has made the upper echelons of the Pakistani military extremely rich, and a Salafist regime would be an anathema to them. The likelihood is far greater that Pakistan will once more regress to a Military government before it becomes a Salafist one, which; while being a de jure supporter of radical Islamic groups will make sure that they remain beholden to the Military.

Secondly, the whole notion of India bombing Pakistan is remote to say the least. Nevermind international condemnation, you forget India and Pakistan are neighbors. The fallout from a nuclear strike would leave India reaping a substantial amount of the radiation, even if that the Pakistanis do not reciprocate in a retaliatory strike.

Thirdly, the security protocols of the Nuclear stockpile makes it extremely difficult [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/10/AR2007111001684.html?sid=ST2007111001833] for a radical regime to get hold of a fully operational and deployable nuclear device - even without resistance.

Fourthly, despite whatever else Pakistan is not Afghanistan or one of the Arab despotisms. The Pakistani public are actually not all that happy about the possibility of Salafist rule, given that a Salafist or Taleban regime would enact changes that would directly come into conflict with a majority of the Pakistanis on economic, social and cultural lines. ( This is too long to explain here, but I will be happy to elaborate should you wish it)

When I mentioned bombing, I wasn't saying nuclear bombing, but much like Israel bombing their neighbors whenever things escalate. India didn't develop their nuclear weapons in response to Pakistan, but the other way around - Pakistan got nukes to counter India.

Like I said, I would agree with you if this was four or five years ago. Recent influx of refugees into Pakistan and the distabilizing influence of militants (not necessarily the Taliban - the Taliban is actually enabling the rebels unhappy with the militaristic government of Pakistan to push their agenda) continues to chip away at the people in power. It doesn't help that twice in a row, the rich have starved the less fortunate people of Pakistan and caused riots that even Zardari admits is causing massive backlash to their ability to fight off extremists. And that he's having trouble controlling the more radical elements of the ISI.

And the nuclear security protocols of Pakistan are not even close to that article you linked from the Washington Post. The Bush administration issued a direct call for Musharraf in 2007 to actually start following guidelines issued for ensuring the safety of nuclear arms in Pakistan. He ignored it, and only 6 months ago did the new regime start compliance work. It won't be until around 2011 that Pakistan will reach the minimal level of proper security for nuclear weapons. I don't care what the media tells you about that - that's what the military knows about that.

Granted, a conflict between Israel and their numerous neighbors is always more likely, but I'm not going to avert my attention from Pakistan until they get their shit in order. Chances are, if something bad happened, India would just conventionally bomb a few places, but it would be a war all the same. If anything, to get the right people BACK on top in Pakistan so they can go back to having their nice little conflict over Kashmir.

 

[hippo24]

The zombie infestation is coming in 2012 so Id have to cast my vote in that direction. If I were to guess a specific location, I would opt for a country with crowded cities, with little or no sanitation, and an unorganized military...how about Brazil.

 

[McClaud]

The zombie infestation is coming in 2012 so Id have to cast my vote in that direction. If I were to guess a specific location, I would opt for a country with crowded cities, with little or no sanitation, and an unorganized military...how about Brazil.

If we're going by your qualifications, you could say that France is a good candidate for a zombie invasion.

*ba dum dum kish*

 

[Raven_Letters]

[

When I mentioned bombing, I wasn't saying nuclear bombing, but much like Israel bombing their neighbors whenever things escalate. India didn't develop their nuclear weapons in response to Pakistan, but the other way around - Pakistan got nukes to counter India.

Like I said, I would agree with you if this was four or five years ago. Recent influx of refugees into Pakistan and the distabilizing influence of militants (not necessarily the Taliban - the Taliban is actually enabling the rebels unhappy with the militaristic government of Pakistan to push their agenda) continues to chip away at the people in power. It doesn't help that twice in a row, the rich have starved the less fortunate people of Pakistan and caused riots that even Zardari admits is causing massive backlash to their ability to fight off extremists. And that he's having trouble controlling the more radical elements of the ISI.

And the nuclear security protocols of Pakistan are not even close to that article you linked from the Washington Post. The Bush administration issued a direct call for Musharraf in 2007 to actually start following guidelines issued for ensuring the safety of nuclear arms in Pakistan. He ignored it, and only 6 months ago did the new regime start compliance work. It won't be until around 2011 that Pakistan will reach the minimal level of proper security for nuclear weapons. I don't care what the media tells you about that - that's what the military knows about that.

Granted, a conflict between Israel and their numerous neighbors is always more likely, but I'm not going to avert my attention from Pakistan until they get their shit in order. Chances are, if something bad happened, India would just conventionally bomb a few places, but it would be a war all the same. If anything, to get the right people BACK on top in Pakistan so they can go back to having their nice little conflict over Kashmir.

Before I state my points, let me be clear that I dont believe that there is ZERO chance of a conflict occurring, merely that the possibility is quite remote. It could be possible that tomorrow a new variable would be added to the equation that sends things careening over a cliff, but in so far as I can tell, this is not the current case.

Regarding bombing - the problem is: Bomb whom? and what? and under what circumstances? Pakistan is not Gaza, Lebanon or Syria. The Pakistan military and is not some two-bit outfit with some outdated equipment - a lot of it is U.S hardware after all, and with the "war on terror" that has only increased, not decreased.

Lets not forget that for the Isrealis, the last two conflicts have had mixed results to say the least. Hezbollah in Lebanon scored a decisive strategic and propaganda victory, despite heavy losses to both combatants and civilians, and they are now stronger than ever. The recent acts in Gaza has brought about international condemnation and has been an embarrassment for Israel given that Hamas is still very much in existence, the Palestinians are angrier than ever, and has only served to radicalize them even more.

So what about India and Pakistan? The Indian government is not the Isrealis or the US. They are far more careful and thoughtful in their response and the concept of bombing Pakistan for any of the stated reasons - be it to prevent nuclear weapons falling into Salafist hands or
as a reprisal for the bloody terrorist attack in Mumbai is out of the question as far as the Indian Government AND Military is concerned.

And a small correction: India initiated the nuclear race as a response to China initially, given the recent war at the time. However, Pakistan's nuclear weapons development was a consequence of Pokhran II, conducted under the reign of the Hindu-Nationalist Government at the time the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)...not that the result is any different one way or the other...

Regarding the current government of Pakistan, well look at the situation after the Mumbai attacks. The Pakistani Government surprised everyone by actually admitting that the attacks were planned in Pakistan [http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/02/2009212134151817760.html]. This was a clear attempt by the government to undermine the ISI and the military and in doing so score political points with the public with whom the military has become very unpopular due to Musharraf's support of the U.S under Bush. Zardari is effectively attempting to play the middle game by trying to undermine the Military while weaning the public away from the radical groups - albeit with limited success. The events in Swat are in my opinion, an act of retaliation by the MILITARY against the Zardari government. The Taleban in Pakistan are very much a pawn for the Military in this area, as only with military support could they impose their will upon the region. What happens next remains to be seen, but for now its still the Military that calls the shots in the end.

Regarding the security of the Nuclear Arsenal, you may have information that I do not, but as far as Ic ant tell as per this New York Times article [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/washington/18nuke.html?_r=1&ref=us] there is currently no overt danger of the nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands. Lets take a scenario that a warhead has fallen into the hands of an extremist group. Lets even assume that somehow they managed to get their hands on the codes. What next? Fire it off? How? For that they would need a long range missile, the technical expertise to install it and the expertise to target and fire it. Only the Military have the capacity to do so, and as I said they are not keen on having a Salafist government either.

The problem in my view is two-fold: The U.S complicity in creating the extremist groups in the first place in Afghanistan (the Anti-soviet Mujaheddin), which precipitated the influx of refugees into Pakistan, leading them into radicalization due to extreme poverty and repression, (the Taliban) followed by the U.S invasion of Afghanistan, causing another influx of refugees and providing the Taliban a safe haven in the NWPF with Pakistan military assistance. The US can fight all it likes in Afghanistan, but even if they somehow manage to contain the Taliban over there, the Taliban will just head into Pakistan..and then what? Invade Pakistan? Predator UAVs are all well and good, but at the end of the day that means little since if you dont have troops on the ground..its well Taleban 1, U.S 0.