WWIII in the distance?

Alas, Babylon

from JoeUser Forums
World War III heating up?

Japan is steadily dumping its pacifism.
Link, Link, Link,Link, Link.

It is allying itself with the UK and the US right now because of N Korea and China's threat to them.

Are we forming the base for WWIII alliances as we speak?

Key Players as I see them:

In the Left Corner -- France, Germany, Middle East (sans Israel), N Korea, and China. (Allegations of behind-the-back deals and winking at behavior have been made.)

In the Right Corner -- US, UK, Eastern European Block, possibly Russia (one never really knows), now
Japan -- a worthy and interesting advocate, and what Israel offers to the pact.

Players to watch: Canada will side with the French, I'm predicting, because of her love for socialism and distrust of her neighbor. But she won't be too forthright about, I don't think.
South America will try to stay neutral but support will go to the Right. (Read Venezuelan Oil: THE alternative to Middle Eastern Oil.)
Aussies may show up and formally join the Right, but we cannot be sure about their resolve with the matter. Many may simply prefer their hemisphere to be left out of the matter.
Spain may lend support, but not militarily unless they are attacked, to the US/UK side. They will want to appear neutral, primarily because of their locale and their desire to stay in the European Country Club.
I look for Scandanavia and the usuals to stay neutral and make big heaps of money.

Anyone I left out? What do you guys think about this? Anyone got any more creative names than "Right" and "Left?" That's just boring.

"I do not know what WWIII will be fought with, but I
do know WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-- Einstein. Link
4,325 views 16 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Easthem, Westhem? American Empire, Middle Kingdom? I would be surprised if Canada took any real sides. Sure, they might want to side against us, but I don't see them doing anything formal. You left out most of Africa, but I can't say that they would even want to get involved. What about India and Pakistan? I would expect India to side with us, but I'll admit I don't know enough about their country to be sure. And the map is so chopped up, it would be an interesting war with so many fronts. Unless it was a two hour war, in which case it would just be messy...
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
OI VEI!!! I left out India and and Pakistan!!!!!

Well, Pakistan falls under the admittedly broad category of "Middle East" and India would go with us I believe. The war is ancient between the two countries, but never more potentially dangerous for other nations and their populace as now!

2 hr war... wow. Very likely to some extent. Or, perhaps its more likely to enter some sort of "Cold War" as we did with Russia. However I don't think the Middle East will enjoy that game very much. There are a lot of fronts, but countries are already taking sides incrementally.... we have to see.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would hope it goes a cold war route over a 2 hour war (although that number could be off, I made it up, the point is really short nuclear mess). But then again, I'd hope it doesn't get to any war, not that that is terrible likely considering human history...
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your forgetting a few facts in your assessments here.

First of all, the first volleys of WWIII occurred in the late 70s. There were many invitations for the US to join in, but until "9/11/01" we turned them all down.

The other fact your missing is that France and Germany are already allied with the U.S. in most of the war on terror (which is to say, the seeds of WWIII)... As are a total of 54 nations (including France, Germany, Pakistan, & Canada) In fact, the French Navy makes up 1/4 of the Operation Enduring Freedom's (OEF) Naval forces. There is definite friction among the diplomats at the UN over the war in Iraq, there is also much friction within the citizenry, but when it comes to the rest of what is becoming WWIII, the nations are with us.

Take a look at this website and learn for yourself. The nations of the world are not against us, merely against one part of our anti terror policies I can't seem to get the link function to work. The URL is:

http://www.centcom.mil/operations/Coalition/joint.htm .
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good info to have, Ted. I appreciate the links and the added info. I'm glad you're on top of this -- by the way I posted your collection of press releases about the military in Iraq outside my classroom at school Lots of kids have read it. I put in big red maker "Thanks, U.S. Soldiers!!!!" on it.

I think perhaps I'm a little perterbed at what the French and Germans say about us publicly and about the "food for oil program" stuff. Is it that crazy to think that we could tick them off so much so that they wouldn't be with us? (Turkey, Pakistan, Japan in on the Security council for instance?) Who knows.

And between India and Pakistan, I know we're trying to keep out. Good policy for now I think. But WERE we to call sides... which would it be, really?

I guess I was trying to look further ahead and call things as they could be if things really got screwed up. I don't think the French and Germans would exactly be "With" the terrorists, as much as I think they'd be "against" certain policies, actions, and nations. I wasn't really thinking of it as a terrorist thing, except in N Korea and China's concern. Those two really scare me.

Guess we have to find out about Ukraine right now and see how that will turn out. I think I'm going to have to call my senators on that one...
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
India may indeed tag along as it were with what you termed the left....most likely because of its dealing ecconomic and military with China...but who knows...

another thing, you omitted South Korea....even considering the anti-us sentiment there now...which is large, between 35 to 45% are staunch pro-us/pro-west.....and frankly I'd rather have the ROK forces on my side instead of the lefts or standing on the sidelines...On Japan you cited right..just recently its goverment finished a force posture review of the JSDF and it looks like the naval arm of it will be increased...fears real or not over China have prompted this as much as the War on Terror.....Canada will most likely come onto the rights side....they may be annoying neighbors and play the anti-US card at every chance but they still know where their butter is bread.......Pakistan is a varible I can't ponder at this time...depends if Gen. Mushariff is alive or his successor is of a like mind which would put them in the "right" side...your theory bout Europe is dead on solid...with one very specific exception..Spain....it may well depend on if the socialists are booted out of power again..remember last time they were in power...early 90's I believe...they had death squads, etc with the gov full knowledge and authority....Austraila....the aussies will come into the rights side without a doubt..remember, aside from ROK forces, the aussies were the only other country to fight with the US in vietnam...and they were more concerned bout communist expansion in that region than even the US was....France is a no brainer....and your right...Germany is another varible...depending on its goverment....

South America is another varible no one can conceive...yet it is highly possible it will either stay on the sidelines or become a limited member in the right...(really need better names)...Cuba..ahh...wont do d*ck because they are still an itch the US would be willing to scratch harshly if they did anything.....

Scandinavia, and the other lesser nations may become akin to what I described S. American nations..but with more involvement....

Russia....there are still scares of China's eyeing Siberia..which would pull them into the right....though they'd be less of a help and more of a hindrence in areas....

If the war stays conventional, the left loses...one reason...the US' ability to project power faster and more deadly than any other nation....
now for the con....within 15-20 years China will become a real regional power conventionally instead of the paper tiger they are now.....by then I'm sure they will develope a serious bug up their ass to create havoc

as to the names..try these....for the left...the axis of Envy(thank you John Gibbson)...for the right, maybe AltPacAl...Atlantic/Pacific Alliance...hey you never know with pentagonese
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting article. Yes, WW3 started about 30 years ago, and we're just now entering the next phase of it.

I've often said that the next world war won't be a political war, though...it'll be a religious conflict with the Islamics on one side and everybody else on the other. Of course, with the MidEast, the line politics and religion is so blurred that one might as well be the other. All we can do is hope to end it before one of them gets a nuke. It's coming very soon, so I don't think we'll make it that far.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Couchman -- a lot of great analysis to think about. I like what you did there --- including with the names. Pentagonese it is! With the US moving to squelch Iraqi military expansion so completely, what is the liklihood of doing the same with China? Of course there are SO VERY MANY variables to consider. One: a change of guard in the US after four years could mean a total sweeping change of policy regardless of the party in the Whitehouse. Also, I doubt we'd deal so very militarily with China even if it is a "paper tiger." We'd probably pile on more strict embargos, tariffs, taxes, and other economic warfare type stuff. In otherwords, we're more likely to pick a fight with China and push it to the brink before actually throwing the first punch.

Oi! How did I forget S. Korea! US money is sweet there, though. If we pave the way with the dollar, we will probably have S Korea as a launch pad for military maneuvers (sharing with Japan?)

You're right; I did underestemate the Aussie. They are a grand bunch and we owe them a great deal of gratitude. They are fine soldiers and reliable and trustworthy... I forget how close that region is to them, perhaps.

Germany -- Gerhard is playing the polls. If we get a stiffer-spined person in the lead (an anomole -- Learning Spanish has screwed up my English spelling skills -- for continental European politics?) then perhaps Germany can be more easily called. And I'm grateful I don't live in Spain right now. What about South America to provide assistance in the way of military bases (cha-ching!), resources (cha-ching!), and non-combative personell. I suppose it depends on the threat they face themselves and what they stand to gain/lose.

India in the Ax. of E? Interesting... but I can see it. However they do desire a place on the security council and recognition by the countries in the AltPacAl. And Israel is associated so closely with the States... would Pakistan join the alliance?

Cuba is trading with the US right now for agriculture... we may have their support (in name only) because of an aging Castro. (Can anyone say puppet?) Perhaps he's not yet inconsequential, but it's only a matter of time before Cuba rejoins the world's stage. Not much for conspiracy theories, but there is no doubt the US is operating quietly to poise the right people for power. I'm thinking they're not so much a volitle snake or even a mean old dog that stays quietly under the porch anymore.

Rightwinger... don't know about long-term phase warfare. I might buy it with more analysis... but I'm not sure. Yeah politics and religion are the same in the MidEast. They have bombs that could level 1/3 of NY and other similarly-sized cities. They fit in Hondas. Heck, suitcases even. The states foil so many terrorist plots we never hear of... Israel does this on a much GRANDER scale. Anyone read "A Handmaid's Tale?" Margaret Atwood called the Islamic war years ago and predicted a bleak future...
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Rightwinger... don't know about long-term phase warfare. I might buy it with more analysis... but I'm not sure. Yeah politics and religion are the same in the MidEast. They have bombs that could level 1/3 of NY and other similarly-sized cities. They fit in Hondas. Heck, suitcases even. The states foil so many terrorist plots we never hear of... Israel does this on a much GRANDER scale. Anyone read "A Handmaid's Tale?" Margaret Atwood called the Islamic war years ago and predicted a bleak future...
----Shulamite

Think about it.....there have been problems, literally forever, between Isreal and Palenstine, and it's involved other Islamic countries: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon......several wars have, of course, been fought already over that region.
Islamic terrorism has been a major threat to world security since the 1970s, and the '80s were, until recent years, of course, considered the "Golden Age" of terrorism. Most things only get one crack at a Golden Age, but terrorism has enjoyed a major resurgence lately.
Eventually it will come down to it that the Palestinians and/or Fundamentalists will stir up enough shit that the world will tire of it. Either that or the Isreali problems will get out of control. The Islamic world will unite and that will be that. It's coming. Islam has been called an "imperial" religion....I think that's a fairly accurate description.
You can't reason with them.....they're right and you're wrong, tough shit if you don't like it. People like that can only cause trouble
for the world.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
So how does this analysis affect the "map" or the division of powers in a possible WWIII?

And is it more likely to have Three sides with two uniting for facility's sake? (WWII had some interesting alliances with different agendas...)
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another varible is the possible scenario that the who and why is changed....regarding a possible global war on Islamic terrorism....which makes whats currently going on pale in comparison...why do I say that...nearly all countries we listed have some form of disturbing problems with the muslims in their country...for example, China itself is dealing with an alarming rise with probs with their muslims in western China....so its not out of the realm of possibility that the big global powers with others in toe may very well indeed unite not out of idelogical commonality but outright neccessity.....akin to ww2. One important factor in this thats been generally overlooks by the main stream media is that when several Chinese workers, aid and otherwise were taken hostage in Iraq months ago, forget how many exactly, Chinas reaction to that was somewhat ignored....privately when that happened....many in its leadership actually paused to consider whether or not deployment of Chinese troops to Iraq as part of the coalition was an option they should consider, but that was discounted initially after the release, rather quickly, of the Chinese hostages...another similar factor in this thinking was Chinese hostages taken in Pakistan...in which one was killed in a rescue attempt....remember outside of 2025, I dont forsee China acting on it's bug up its ass regarding Taiwan...but who knows
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
No one is in a huge hurry to stir the red giant...

Taiwan is such a messed up deal. I wish Britain still owned Hong Kong...
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
So how does this analysis affect the "map" or the division of powers in a possible WWIII?


I'm not sure it would so much affect the "map". Islamic peoples, as couchman pointed out, exist in many parts of the world.
Of course, if there were to come to power some kind of (hypotheical) Islamic "Hitler" (bin Laden in the future, if he continues to thumb his nose at us with impunity and continues to gain the respect of the Fundamentalists?) who could call with authority all the world's muslims to war against the world, this would affect the map in that the Islamic nations would unite against the others. There are what, two billion muslims in the world (unless I'm wildly misquoting that number)? Those sort of numbers would require the rest of us to circle the wagons, despite our politcal/ideological differences.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Im not quite sure Bin ass would be the one unifying figure....most likely because he's a sunni muslim and sunnis tend to hate shia...although someone else down the road might possibly become that person...who could cross religious boundries
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
We'll need China to take the place of our dwindling industrial base.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
So Stevo, you say we invite China in only to exploit them for cheap labor in wartime? This will give them a tremendous boost in their economy. Scratch that. The Government's pocketbook will be the only thing that enlarges. Gotta love commies. This enables them to stab us in the back as we turn, walking away with our goodies. We're feeding and strengthening the beast that would have us dead.... None of the workers will see any of this moolah, of course. They'll be quickly turned from factory workers to soldiers on short notice... All just "whatifs," were we to use China in that way.

Yeah, I think Bin Laden would have hard time personally unifying the muslims... but similar things have happened before. Caiphas (Pharisees) and the Sadducees who despised each other joined to kill Jesus. Visit any high school: two girls who don't like each other will suddenly become friends when they have someone in common to dislike. The key to combining forces is to find a common enemy and I think Bin has that. However, the second part of the deal is to have a leader who represents your side equally. Will Bin Laden suddenly "warm up" to the Shia's because he recognizes a need for manpower, bidding them "come join our picnic!" Will a S leader rise up and give the equivalent to a smiling handshake for photographers with Bin Laden to join the two forces? Differences will be played down and common goals and common enemies will be played up. If Bin Laden is the politician I believe he is.

Re: the "map." With some countries having sections of concentrated muslim populations (like Spain) what do you think the war would look like on these fronts? An irony I've noticed is that Nigeria has a large Muslim population and yet all of the largest churches in Europe (esp. Evangelical churches) are led by Nigerian pastors. I've left most of Africa out to this point, but with it very well could be a hinging point on the war's front. In fact, it could turn out to be a very hot point for the fighting, with Egypt there and the Mid East being so close. Europe is near. The Mediterranean sea is a key point to control. Southern Spain is the Muslim part, after all. South Africa may be dragged into this more than they'd care to be.