Where will the next war start?

[ZeroFTW]

The next war will be between the Glorious British Empire and the rest of the world. We'll teach you to want freedom. Bow to the glory of the God-Queen.

 

[Cowabungaa]

The next war will be between the Glorious British Empire and the rest of the world. We'll teach you to want freedom. Bow to the glory of the God-Queen.

*zaps thousands of years to the future* FOR THE QUEEEEEN!!! BURN THE HERETICS!!!! *stomps an Ork under his boot*

 

[Undead Dragon King]

As for the question, I say Israel. Them, Iran and the rest of the Middle East are going to have a battle royale after the USA is no longer able to support Israel (or when the USA's support is seen as not intimidating).

And it will be a repeat of the Six Day War. Only more intense. Israel has nukes now, so if the Muslims attack it, we're talking about the potential for UNTOLD devastation. Whoever invades Israel can kiss their capitol city goodbye.

Hamas only survives by using human shields in Gaza, but the moment they go on the attack they will be slaughtered. The same could be said for any terrorist organization or Arab country's invading army.

The scales will be leveled, however, if Iran gets its nuke ready before the war begins. Then Israel won't nuke the capitols of its enemies for fear of getting nuked themselves, but even in a "conventional" war, they will still dominate.

That said, I think that India and Pakistan will be the next flash point for war. It will only take one more incident like Mumbai and then the gloves will come off. They almost went to war over Mumbai alone. It only takes a group of idiots to pull it off, and then the shit will hit the fan.

 

[McClaud]

Raven Letters:

Oh, they don't need to launch the nuke. It's amazingly easy how you can smuggle one into a country without setting off the regular monitoring system. This is why the US government is slightly panicked that the shipping industry won't take the threat seriously. What are they going to do? Set it off by hand and kill themselves? Can't you clever CIA or FBI people use your amazing satellites to detect nuclear material traveling across the ocean? It's absurd to think people don't take it seriously. India's only slightly more cautious than we are, but they still have to monitor a huge border along several mountain ranges and the Indian Ocean.

Reality is that the region's been agitated since the 1950's, and continues to simmer. Yes, it would be difficult for India to pinpoint a place to bomb, except that chances are it would go for all the most likely nuclear assets of Pakistan first, and then begin cooperating with some ally - perhaps the US, perhaps the UK, and maybe even France - to give them possible targets to hit. Of course, we'd all try to persuade India not to do anything, but given the fact that India was very close to going to invading Pakistan after Mumbai (because if the damn Pakistanis can't handle it, we will!), I'm not sure if we could stop them from pulling an Israel response.

That is, knee-jerk react to the situation with force first, then consider diplomacy second.

I was relieved somewhat that Pakistan admitted to the bombings being planned by militants in their own country, as well. That defused a lot of very angry, very volatile India officials. But they will only stay placated if the Pakistani government makes good on its word to stop terrorists in Pakistan - which is no small feat and probably just a bunch of empty promises.

Pakistan needs to pull someone in to help. It doesn't have to be the US or the UK, but they have to get someone to start cleaning up the mess left behind by Musharraf's council.

 

[Uncompetative]

Iraq. I know there's a war already going on there, but once the U.S. leaves, Iran will most likely attack Iraq. Hard feelings still persist from the war they had.

I don't think so, Iran mostly had a problem with Saddam's regime, not the country itself, and in an unprecedented gesture Iran offered to assist Coalition forces in toppling the regime. But they were snubbed, UK and US probably did not trust them and they were right as it wasn't long before Iranian weapons and training were being used against Coalition forces though there were many other groups that were active like Al Qaeda and other local insurgents.

The new liberal democratic political system in Iraq is much more suited to subversion than an outright attack, that would be foolish and probably fail from Western military might and may even open up a full scale invasion of Iran a la Iraq-Kuwait circa 1990. Iran would certainly have it's military crippled and likely lose its best men.

The danger from Iran is acute, their nuclear weapons programme, it could make Iran a wild card and effectively untouchable as everyone knows, you don't invade a country that ACTUALLY has weapons of mass destruction, only that you THINK they have them.

This means Iran can be FAR more bold in spreading their Islamic Revolution which has traditionally meant supporting terrorist groups as much as democratic processes. They would never bomb Tel Aviv, that would be stupid as before the dust had even cleared there would be ten thermonuclear missiles aimed at Tehran, either from USA or Israel or whoever.

No but this means Iran can fight an incredibly aggressive proxy war with little fear of retaliation or invasion as it would be too risky. It is true when they say their nukes would be for defensive purposes but likely to defend themselves what would likely be morally indefensible.

PS: I highly doubt they would give it or let a rogue terrorist organisation take their bomb as that negates their purpose as making them invulnerable to attack.

Excellent analysis.

 

[Beetlejooce]

I think the next major war will be over something, not financial, but practical. Like water for example. If you have a river, and the population along this river grows and everyone takes from the river, there is less water in the river by the time it reaches the sea. So the settlements further down the river have less, or the reservoirs aren't as full. We might have the same amount of water we ever did, but there's more consumption.

If the population of the world is constantly increasing, there will be much less water available per person, and seeing as that is the main thing that humans need to survive...

Sooner or later we will run out of oil, and people will be annoyed but can still get on with it. But if you can't get enough water, you will die.

And if America deems it acceptable to invade Iraq because of a resource which isn't completely necessary to human survival, think what they might do if there becomes a shortage of a resource which IS necessary.

 

[hebdomad]

If it's like a World War, there isn't going to be another one. If it's just like a small conflict, I reckon some shitholes in Africa will have a go at each other next.

Well they though WWI was going to be the last war... Nobody guessed there would be a WW2.
Africa has been had running conflicts for years, they don't ever make the news because they don't effect anyone in the "west".

The next big one will probably be in the middle east. Though who knows who will be fighting who. To be quite honest this whole USA middle east thing has been happening since the late 1960s, I honestly see an end with the US making nice with the locals with huge piles of cash for them, and trillions of tons off oil for the US, though that's not going to happen until the market picks it's self up again.

That would have to be the next 'major' war, or the one we (the west) will hear about anyway...

 

[Spicy meatball]

One can't forget about the United Nations. They surely will not allow for a world war to take place. It will be a catastrophe of epic proportions. Everyone is involved with another country strategically, be it NATO or the EU defense or whathave you.

 

[Nick Bounty]

One can't forget about the United Nations. They surely will not allow for a world war to take place. It will be a catastrophe of epic proportions. Everyone is involved with another country strategically, be it NATO or the EU defense or whathave you.

There was the League of Nations which failed to prevent WWII so I wouldn't count on the UN been able to stop a global conflict but then again there is little need for two countries to fight each other..for now at least!