So, i was reading an article today, and apparently some folks think we might have upcoming conditions for WW3. No guarantees of course, and of course there are no clear "reasons" for a possible WW3. But I have been wondering, where would the lines be drawn.
I think the simplest would probably be "east vs. west".
Got North America, EU, Saudi Arabia, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, Japan, South Korea & allies (some african states like Liberia, some south American states like Chile) on one side.
Got Russia, China, Iran & allies (unsure what allies).
A bunch of "loose ends" I know of would be India & Brazil.
And to be honest, I'm unsure who would win. The west has strong militaries & the best tech. BUT they have almost no manufacturing left. There are also serious lacks in the resources department.
The east has excellent manufacturing, a well-develloped resources sector (and the willingness to pollute) and massive numbers. However, they have poor naval forces (or at least china does), limited tech, and some social problems that can be exploited.
So, where do you all think the lines will be drawn?
China can't side against the us. We're too big to fail.
Its russia vs all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, i was reading an article today, and apparently some folks think we might have upcoming conditions for WW3. No guarantees of course, and of course there are no clear "reasons" for a possible WW3. But I have been wondering, where would the lines be drawn.
"Some folks" will think anything, but if history is any guide at all, the absence of clear lines is the strongest possible proof that WW3 will not happen. Both World Wars were immediate consequences of global military alliances where the Great Powers had broken themselves into clear camps of Us vs. Them, which meant that any act by Them would be immediately responded to by Us or vice versa.
Part of the reason for this is that people do stupid things when they think they've got their posse backing them up -- the 1914 "blank cheque" from Germany to Austria-Hungary, for example, enabled Austria to make unreasonable demands of Serbia, while Russia offered Serbia unconditional support (backed by the explicit promises of France to open a two-front war with Germany in support of Russia).
There won't be a WW3 precisely because no one offers unconditional support any more. It would have started already over Ukraine if anyone were actually committed to military action in support of allies. In the (unlikely) event that someone does call Putin to account over Ukraine, China wouldn't offer support to the Russians, and.... let's face it, if Germany did send troops to Ukraine, the US certainly wouldn't support them in any significant military capacity.
No world-wide escalation, hence no world-wide war.
And to be honest, I'm unsure who would win. The west has strong militaries & the best tech. BUT they have almost no manufacturing left.
This, by the way, is completely untrue. The largest manufacturing economies in the world (data is as of 2008-9) are:
* United States
* European Union [yes, I know, this is cheating as it double-counts the component states]
* Japan
* China
* Germany
* United Kingdom
* France
* Italy
* India
* Canada
* Brazil
* Spain
* Mexico
* Saudi Arabia
* Australia
... and only then * Russia
Even if China has moved up a few places, there's still hardly "almost no manufacturing" in the West.
Your statement about "serious lacks in the resources department" is equally unfounded if you actually check the stats.
Thank you Citizens Oak and Orf, I was wondering where I was going to put this:
"Signs the mammoth property bubble is finally bursting belie Beijing’s upbeat GDP data"
Apparently, the era of ghost cities is coming to a close. What international capitalism is going to do next, I have no idea. Also, apparently, China made more cement in 2011-12 than the United States made in the whole 20th century. Also, also, apparently, in the six years since the 2008 crash they have built 200 million housing units which, apparently, is 1.5 the total existing housing stock in the United States.
Interesting shiznit.
Stanislav Petrov, hero of the Cold War and real life savior of the planet.
Way I figure, the more bobo's that end up getting nukes, the closer the chances of something like a flock of seagulls beginning armageddon approach 100%.
There will be no sides, no lines,
Just a recreation of this episode of Three Stooges with ICBM's instead of pies.
Then, we can have The Road, and the starvation, and the redneck cannibals with shotguns.
I also predict that, within 20 years, we will see the first nuclear exchange brought about by a discussion on twitter.
And to be honest, I'm unsure who would win. The west has strong militaries & the best tech. BUT they have almost no manufacturing left.
The east has excellent manufacturing, a well-develloped resources sector (and the willingness to pollute) and massive numbers.
There is a pretty good chance that WWIII would not be a war of production like WWII, however, because it takes a massive amount of worker expertise and time to construct an F-16 compared to a P-51. F-35 is even worse. It's also much, much, much harder to retool factories now compared to WWII. We couldn't even have that done by the end of the first year. Do to the massive number of SAMs possessed by both NATO and Russia, air forces are not believed to have a particularly long life span. It will most likely hit the stage where production can't even keep up with a small fraction of losses rapidly. Tanks are in a similar situation. It also takes a LOT longer to train competent pilots and tankers than it used to. Chances are, this would be a war fought with whatever vehicles you brought on day one and dug out of your reserves. Ammunition and small arms will comprise most of production, which the US is as capable of manufacturing as Russia, if not more so. The war itself either ends quickly as air forces and tank divisions get depleted and can't be replaced, causing one side to fold or press the button, or it grinds down into trench warfare because there aren't sufficient vehicular assets for a mobile fight.
Got North America, EU, Saudi Arabia, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, Japan, South Korea & allies (some african states like Liberia, some south American states like Chile) on one side.
Got Russia, China, Iran & allies (unsure what allies).
On the political end, I severely doubt this. China's economy is far too dependant on the US (and vice versa) for them to ditch us for the Russians. It would literally be economic MAD. Russia has nowhere near enough to offer in return. China might make some noises and seize some disputed islands (not Taiwan, though), but for the most part they'd sit it out. Iran doesn't really have anything to gain in supporting Russia. They are more worried about handling Iraq right now. Saudi Arabia likewise has no real reason to go to war with Russia, and to be honest they aren't that useful as an ally anyway. South America and Africa just aren't anywhere near the front or in a position where their interests are at state.
There is a pretty good chance that WWIII would not be a war of production like WWII, however, because it takes a massive amount of worker expertise and time to construct an F-16 compared to a P-51. F-35 is even worse. It's also much, much, much harder to retool factories now compared to WWII. We couldn't even have that done by the end of the first year. Do to the massive number of SAMs possessed by both NATO and Russia, air forces are not believed to have a particularly long life span. It will most likely hit the stage where production can't even keep up with a small fraction of losses rapidly. Tanks are in a similar situation. It also takes a LOT longer to train competent pilots and tankers than it used to. Chances are, this would be a war fought with whatever vehicles you brought on day one and dug out of your reserves. Ammunition and small arms will comprise most of production, which the US is as capable of manufacturing as Russia, if not more so. The war itself either ends quickly as air forces and tank divisions get depleted and can't be replaced, causing one side to fold or press the button, or it grinds down into trench warfare because there aren't sufficient vehicular assets for a mobile fight.And to be honest, I'm unsure who would win. The west has strong militaries & the best tech. BUT they have almost no manufacturing left.
The east has excellent manufacturing, a well-develloped resources sector (and the willingness to pollute) and massive numbers.
You're right about air forces having a short lifespan, but I suspect that WWIII will be as different from both WWI and WWII as they were from each other, and for roughly the same reason -- the current crop of generals don't really know how to use new technology on a large scale and so are overinvesting in new iterations of fundamentally old technology.
WWI, for example, literally opened with a cavalry charge. (Aug 22, 1914, 4th Dragoon Guards). Of course, between the artillery, the machine gun, and the mud, the soldiers (and eventually even the generals) learned better. World War I, at least the Western Front, was dominated by fortifications and artillery, with massive waves of infantry to take the fortifications once they had been softened up.
So everyone planned for fortifications and artillery battles in the rematch, only to find that the new tank models and dive bombers made overrruning and penetrating the Maginot Line a relatively simple task in WWII.
So now we have too many tanks and aircraft. If WWIII happened tomorrow and turned into a long-term, stand-up, nation to nation slugfest, I suspect the dominant weapon would be something no one has seen before in large-scale use. (And if I actually had an idea of what that weapon were to be, I probably wouldn't be allowed to tell you.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Give me your pump, the oil, the gasoline, and the whole compound, and I'll spare your lives.
Just walk away ....and there will be an end to the Horror.
|
I'm gonna agree with the others that China won't side against the US. The primary reason? We are the worlds #1 supplier of food. (LINK). We outpace China 3.3:1 in agricultural exports. The rest of the top 10 with the exception of China are all NATO or EU members. The Food Power that this bloc commands all but guarantees that the high density Asian nations like China, Japan and India will need to align themselves with the Western food producers in at least a passive noncombatant position or worry about scarcity and starvation. Yes the EU has enough food power to overrule any US/CA actions, but they won't.
On a global WW scale battle, I really think its been going on since the internet became prevalent. The transnational anarchists, militant groups like Islamic State, and clandestine global societies like Al Qaeda leverage their underground revolutionary movements against the status quo, with nothing real and concrete to go on surviving on once they've toppled their current targets. Its stability versus chaos on a global scale.
My money is that the battle lines will be borders involving fresh water and that it won't be one side against another, but a lot of small sides and individual nations duking it out.
We have a problem with dwindling water supplies, and if they get low enough alliances and peace treaties are going to disappear rapidly.
Though, if you want to be technical, World War 3 already happened. It happened in the 1940s. World War 1 is known as the French and Indian War.
I count 5 world wars in the modern period before the Great War.
People keep talking about fresh water as possible cause for WW3, it's like battery efficiency, when there is a big enough market for it, desalination is going to be the next money spinner and money will go into making desal more efficant.
The other problem with a Russia-China alliance is that for most of the cold war those two nations didn't get along well, and even had the occasional border skirmish. I don't believe Russia and China have really grown closer since the collapse of the USSR, at least not as close as China has grown to the USA.
I honestly don't see a Worldwar III any time soon. We (the USA) doesn't like what is going on with the Russia and Ukraine, but I don't think we are invested enough to move beyond sanctions and strong language, especially coming off a decade of wars in the middle-east and the current problems in the region.
Give me your pump, the oil, the gasoline, and the whole compound, and I'll spare your lives.
Just walk away ....and there will be an end to the Horror.
No one in the rest of the world calls it that, the North American theatre was a sideshow to what was happening in Europe.
Though, if you want to be technical, World War 3 already happened. It happened in the 1940s. World War 1 is known as the French and Indian War.
Bah! Everyone knows this is the correct map of the solar system. No worries. We'll educated you Yoo-Oh-Pee-Uns eventually
:P
Fragging American education system not covering the entirety of a massive fragging war...
No one in the rest of the world calls it that, the North American theatre was a sideshow to what was happening in Europe.
Though, if you want to be technical, World War 3 already happened. It happened in the 1940s. World War 1 is known as the French and Indian War.Bah! Everyone knows this is the correct map of the solar system. No worries. We'll educated you Yoo-Oh-Pee-Uns eventually
:P
Fragging American education system not covering the entirety of a massive fragging war...
It's really all just a matter of what's interesting or cogent.
For example, in Indian reckoning of history, there was absolutely no mention or record of Alexander the Great invading them. He failed there, so they really didn't give a s$!@ one way or the other to even remember him.
There was this thing I call the "F*#%ing 1,945 Year War" in Europe, and we went over there and put the Kybosh on it in 1945 for the most part.
If WW3 happens, it depends on what sparks it on where the battle lines are.
If it is a US Civil War (which could be more likely in the next Century, which is a long time...but trends could be going that way, tensions are probably as high in the US in regards to moral differences as they were in the early 19th century regarding slavery and such...which escalated over 50 years to a Civil War), it is possible that it would be a more of a poor or rural factions vs. Richer or Urban populations.
In that instance, to stand a chance to win, it wouldn't be outside the realm of thought that they would appeal to the moral ground that Russia and some other nations are trying to take these days...meaning that it could be a West vs. Russia and friends type scenario.
On the otherhand, if could erupt in Europe. If the have not nations get overly unhappy, it could create a scenario of the haves vs. the have nots in Europe. In that instance, it's very hard to predict which side the US or Russia would fall on. The bigger question is how the oil lines fall, which I think would actually define where the lines were drawn.
In China, it could be that certain groups try to seize the initiative and take over...which could lead to the US and Russia allied in support of those two groups. However, landwars in China tend to be hard to make progress on historically, and as such, unless nuclear strikes took place, could turn globally catastrophic. With China's bigger investment into oil and the middle east, it could be that the ME joins with China in some instances...especially if Russia is against china (competing oil industry and all), with the exception of Israel which probably would join in with the US and Russia. Europe would be caught in the middle at that point...and who knows which way they would turn as Oil and their dependence on Russia and the Middle East could tear Europe apart in some ways.
In Africa...well...don't think Africa has the global influence to start a WW yet, much less WW3.
If WW3 happens, it depends on what sparks it on where the battle lines are.
If it is a US Civil War (which could be more likely in the next Century, which is a long time...but trends could be going that way, tensions are probably as high in the US in regards to moral differences as they were in the early 19th century regarding slavery and such...which escalated over 50 years to a Civil War), it is possible that it would be a more of a poor or rural factions vs. Richer or Urban populations.
In that instance, to stand a chance to win, it wouldn't be outside the realm of thought that they would appeal to the moral ground that Russia and some other nations are trying to take these days...meaning that it could be a West vs. Russia and friends type scenario.
On the otherhand, if could erupt in Europe. If the have not nations get overly unhappy, it could create a scenario of the haves vs. the have nots in Europe. In that instance, it's very hard to predict which side the US or Russia would fall on. The bigger question is how the oil lines fall, which I think would actually define where the lines were drawn.
And, again, this argues against WWIII at all. Taking your last scenario at face value, if two random European nation-states start scrapping with each other, it's not going to turn into a world war unless both sides have firm support from the Great Powers. (Again, think of Russia's support for Serbia in 1914, or Germany's support for Austria-Hungary.)
One of the characteristics of both World Wars so far is that the actual spark has been irrelevant. Everyone has been able to see the war coming for year if not decades by reading the geopolitical alliance map, and it's not merely obvious, but explicit, that the world is divided into Us vs. Them. The NATO/Warsaw Pact division could have sparked WWIII over any of a thousand flashpoints -- Cuba, Berlin, Afghanistan, Korea, et cetera and it wouldn't have made that much difference because everyone knew that the actual conflict was between Us and Them. But this is more or less exactly what Bismark was saying in 1878, about the 1914 war.
Europe today is a powder keg and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal ... A single spark will set off an explosion that will consume us all ... I cannot tell you when that explosion will occur, but I can tell you where ... Some damned foolish thing in the Balkans will set it off.
The mere fact of the Great War was evident to him from the alliances nearly 40 years earlier. It's not about the spark, but about the powder.
Another relevant quote is the following
Your map of Africa is really quite nice. But my map of Africa lies in Europe. Here is Russia, and here... is France, and we're in the middle — that's my map of Africa.
Again, look to the Great Powers if you want to see how the war will look, since the Great Powers will give structure to the world conflict. If they don't give structure, there won't be a world conflict.
Despite popular belief, what split the country wasn't so much moral differences, but economic tensions between an industrial North and an almost totally agrarian South. Those differences don't exist any more. The various regions of the country are too tied together economically to make that kind of neatly drawn Civil War probable.If WW3 happens, it depends on what sparks it on where the battle lines are.
If it is a US Civil War (which could be more likely in the next Century, which is a long time...but trends could be going that way, tensions are probably as high in the US in regards to moral differences as they were in the early 19th century regarding slavery and such...which escalated over 50 years to a Civil War), it is possible that it would be a more of a poor or rural factions vs. Richer or Urban populations.
China, where I live, is dying for war, but it has to be one they can win...so they need to find which ally will the US throw under the bus, India, Vietnam, Philipines, Japan, Taiwan or the South Koreans...Notice each country gets tested in turn...
...China has a several MILLION extra men they need to kill off, for social stability. They don't even need a victory.
Despite popular belief, what split the country wasn't so much moral differences, but economic tensions between an industrial North and an almost totally agrarian South. Those differences don't exist any more. The various regions of the country are too tied together economically to make that kind of neatly drawn Civil War probable.
It was only an economic difference insofar as the souths agrarian model required slavery for individuals to amass large amounts of wealth.
The south was explicitely clear on why it was trying to succeed
. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. Linky
Its not a coincidence that they split right after the election of Lincoln
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
It really. Really was about slavery. Arguments to the contrary are apoligia for the south so they didn't/don't have to admit they were unabashedly the bad guys here.
I'm gonna agree with the others that China won't side against the US. The primary reason? We are the worlds #1 supplier of food. (LINK). We outpace China 3.3:1 in agricultural exports. The rest of the top 10 with the exception of China are all NATO or EU members. The Food Power that this bloc commands all but guarantees that the high density Asian nations like China, Japan and India will need to align themselves with the Western food producers in at least a passive noncombatant position or worry about scarcity and starvation. Yes the EU has enough food power to overrule any US/CA actions, but they won't.
Plus, we owe China a ton of money.
You don't kill the guy before he can pay you. Though you might do nasty things involving kneecaps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Despite popular belief, what split the country wasn't so much moral differences, but economic tensions between an industrial North and an almost totally agrarian South. Those differences don't exist any more. The various regions of the country are too tied together economically to make that kind of neatly drawn Civil War probable.
It was only an economic difference insofar as the souths agrarian model required slavery for individuals to amass large amounts of wealth.
The south was explicitely clear on why it was trying to succeed
It's not always a good idea to take government pronouncements at face value. If South Carolina and the various governments had said "we want to secede to protect the ability of our plutocrats to amass large amounts of wealth," most of the Confederate soldiers -- who were not typically plantation owners and for the most part not even slaveholders -- wouldn't have been quite so quick to join up.
The economic tensions were what tore the country apart. The moral tensions were what allowed people to justify the tearing.
WWIII... I think I am with Bradbury on this. The war will happen suddenly and be over in minutes, billions will die, and nobody will know why after the fact. It is a good thing to understand that much of what we call wars these days would be counted as skirmishes historically, considering the percentages of the entire population involved. Yes, it is not uncommon that a war today kills off tens of thousands of people... But compare that to the Somme, or Stalingrad. WWII killed around fifty to a hundred MILLION people. Those horrors happen when countries pit everything they have against one another. Such a war today would undisputably involve massive numbers of nuclear warheads.
And the economic question at hand was slavery.
The economic tensions were what tore the country apart. The moral tensions were what allowed people to justify the tearing.Pretty much this. When you look for reasons for wars, there's only one force that matters, economics. Everything else is window dressing laid on top of the fact is that at the bottom line, things like money and resources are always at stake. It's why Japan invaded China, Why Russia entered into an alliance with the Central Powers in the Great War, it's why the settlers of Texas cut off from Mexico, and even why the elite landowners of the American colonies organized a revolution.
While the Civil War may have kicked off with Lincoln's election, the crisis that spawned it pretty much dates back to the conflicting economic policies of Alexander Hamilton, who was looking to an industrial future, and Thomas Jefferson who was enamored of the feudal past.
Except that slavery isn't an economic question. It's a social construct, supported by political/legal structures. In more detail, the question wasn't "slavery," the question was whether or not the economic, social, and political structure of the antebellum South could have been supported by other systems than slavery. In the absence of viable alternatives, and in the absence of paths to those alternatives that enabled the elite to protect their eliteness, war was the preferred alternative.
Slavery would have disappeared by itself, for example, had it not been for the invention and widespread use of the cotton gin. Slave labor wasn't particularly profitable on indigo, rice, and tobacco farms, which were the main agricultural exports before about 1820. On the other hand, slavery was enormously profitable in cotton growing.
Similarly, had the boll weevil shown up in 1800 instead of in 1900, slavery likely would have disappeared by itself. Cotton wouldn't have been as profitable a crop, and the southern plutocrats would have found other ways to support themselves that didn't hinge on armies of slave labor (as indeed they did in the 20th century).
So, no, the Civil War was not about slavery per se, but about conflicting economic systems and the need for the political/social/economic elite of the South to protect their way of life.
Of course slavery is an economic question, as well as a political, moral and social one.
If it's a question, where's the verb?
Slavery is not a question.
Slavery wasn't even particularly an economic issue; it was a social and political issue that limited the available solutions to the actual economic questions that were behind the war.
Such a war today would undisputably involve massive numbers of nuclear warheads.
I think the same would have been said about chemical warfare before WWII. Nukes have significant drawbacks, and would probably only see widespread use only under a very specific set of circumstances.
I see the sides shaking out to something like the "coalition" for teh second Iraq war as the starting point. US, UK, Australia, Israel - basically the Rupert Murdoch countries on the same side. Some of the former Nato countries would also be pulled in such as Germany and France, and maybe even Poland.
Then there is Russia and several former Warsaw countries, especially in the Balkans.
North Africa, and much of the Middle East would form a third group, probably based on Jihad against foreigners coming after their oil. Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey would probably fall into this side as well.
China, North Korea, and one or two other neighbors would probably join up to maintain China as a upcoming world power.
India is surrounded by possible aggressors, and would probably be more concerned about maintaining balance and keeping its neighbors from nibbling away at its borders.
Then you have some real questions such as Brazil and a few other Central and South American countries. I also have no idea where some parts of southern or far Northern Europe might end up, although I would think it would be more a reaction to threats from Russia or the Middle East then love of allies.
Finally, I think there would be a whole lot of shifting, sneaking diplomacy such as between Hitler and Stalin before WWII. The alliances and map before the conflict would look very different then a year or two into things.
If WWIII involves use of nuclear weapons, the only line will be between the living and the dead. The living will be vastly outnumbered.
... Exactly.
|
So, i was reading an article today, and apparently some folks think we might have upcoming conditions for WW3. No guarantees of course, and of course there are no clear "reasons" for a possible WW3. But I have been wondering, where would the lines be drawn."Some folks" will think anything, but if history is any guide at all, the absence of clear lines is the strongest possible proof that WW3 will not happen. Both World Wars were immediate consequences of global military alliances where the Great Powers had broken themselves into clear camps of Us vs. Them, which meant that any act by Them would be immediately responded to by Us or vice versa.
Is that really an accurate description of world war 2, though? If I recall my history correctly, the only clear cut alliance that was there from the start was Germany + Italy due to the common fascist values. Other than that it was Germany invading country after country in a continent that really didn't want to be dragged into another war, until finally the British snapped out of it and started to fight back with some vigor. And then, later, Germany betrayed the alliance it had with the communists and invaded Russia, too. And the Americans were begrudgingly forced into participating too, at some point. And there was a whole lot of serious stuff going on with China and Japans, too, but i don't know much about that.
What I'm driving at is that unlike in WW1, the second world war was mostly instigated by one country working almost without allies, with the opposition being composed not by a ready counter alliance, but by those who had the strength to fight back when their turn came to be the focus of the third Reich.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.