What are the odds of a major conflict (even maybe a WW3) taking place within 5 years

Great Debates
1

I am a GD virgin so to speak, but I was genuinely curious of what everyone thought (from any side of the political spectrum).

Quite simply, I would like to know what everyone thinks the chances are of a huge conflict (involving the US) will happen before the end of the decade. Is it possible that the Iraq situation will spill beyond that border into neighbouring regions? (and Afghanistan of course - I don’t mean to gloss over what is going on there)

Are there already precursors pointing to this conflict? What effect will the US election have on the chances? If you think this is possible, how do you think it could be avoided?

I’ll admit that GWB’s govt scares me into thinking that if he is re-elected that the chances for a major wide ranging conflict is very possible. If it does happen, how do you think the world would ally itself? What kind of conflict do you feel it would be?

As I said, please go a bit easy on me. I’m new to this forum.

2

If Red China decides that our current troubles in Iraq are a sign of weakness in us, then maybe.

Or, again, if Red China takes a side in the India/Pakistan troubles, that could cause a major flare-up.

3

I would say low. Very few countries are spooled up militarily to do much. Even the US has about as much as it can handle militarily right now - without a several year long build-up we are very stretched. That said, the portions of our forces not being used are still potent enough, and mobile enough, to give pause to most countries . There just aren’t many countries with sufficient domestic stability and military and economic power for a general war to start. The usual suspects are either not interested or busy with internal affairs.

4

Well, never say never… but…

Conflicts like WWI and WWII are relics. There are two reasons why I think this:

  1. Technology. Nuclear deterrants still can’t be left out of the equation in any world-wide conflict. In fact, I’d argue that the nuclear arms race is why there never was a WWIII. Other technologies, like the electromagnetic pulse, might become deployable in the future to do a soft-kill of enemies. I think future warfare will be more directly aimed at undermining another country’s economics and infrastructure with less of the messy explosions.
    Ground troops would be used as peace-keeping forces after the enemy’s in tatters, probably with similarly awful results to what we’re getting in Iraq.

  2. Change in the face of the enemy. Part of GW’s problem is that we weren’t attacked by any particular country - we were attacked by a trans-national collective of organizations. We respond by attacking a country that was tangentially related to 9/11. I hope that future presidents will understand the futility of such a response - our enemies are no longer countries. The way we fight will have to change because our wars will be against enemies that have no ambassadors, no borders, no capital - in short, an enemy that we can neither see nor bomb.

My WAG: I’d expect a shift in the way wars are fought to something more subtle. More terrorist attacks. Sudden discoveries that there’s no electricity anywhere in large portions of the country, for mysterious reasons. Paratrooper invasions of cities disabled without a drop of blood shed. Biological warfare. World powers leading other countries into economic collapse and civil war.

5

The only way we’d get into such a war would be accidentally. No major power will provoke one, as Germany and Japan did. I can see two powers lining up on opposite sides on a more minor, regional battle, and things escalating from their, until both powers “fall into” a war with each other. Think Korea, only bigger.

6

I smell fear. (Cue ominous Jaws music)

Chances are quite low. The Bush doctrine vis-a-vis Iraq and the Middle East is already pushing rogue states like Libya and Iran to divest of their WMD. Kim Jong-il and the rest of the Tinpot Dictators of the World sleep a little less easily in their beds.

As international trade with China grows, so does what she has to lose if she attempts something against Taiwan. It is still possible, but as the geriatric leadership there goes to that great Collective in the Sky, I look for some Chinese equivalent to Gorbachev to come along and preside over the end of Maoism in that country. Probably in the next twenty to fifty years.

Worst case scenario is a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. Bad enough, but essentially nobody will align themselves with either side. So it won’t spread.

The other potential trouble spot would be if North Korea, driven to desperation by starvation, invades South Korea and threatens to nuke Tokyo if anyone tries to stop them. If that happens, bye-bye North Korea.

The next bad situation will be terrorist incidents, either at the Olympics or timed for the US elections. Probably the Olympics. If they come off in Athens.

Regards,
Shodan

7

Isn’t that how WWI started?

8

Bush is preventing WWIII, huh? Out of all the theories I’ve heard… that’s one of them. :rolleyes:

9

** Shodan** --I disagree.

There is a long-standing regional rivalry between China & India for power, influence & territory in Southern Asia.

An aliance with Pakistan is not out of the question, nukes or no nukes.

Especially if there is a change in who runs China, as is likely in the near future.

10

Yes and no. It is true that WWI was precipitated by a regional conflict but it was not the cause for the war. France was not exactly happy about losing Alsace and Lorraine from their earlier war with Germany. Germany saw France as the obstacle to European dominance and felt that their security hinged on a weak France. In short both France and Germany had reasons to want war outside of the regional conflict. Russia got dragged into the conflict becuase they didn’t want to see a more powerful Germany and had an alliance with France. Britian also did not want to see a more powerful Germany and their involvement was sealed when Germany violated Belgian neutrality.

11

[hijack]IIRC, it was the Premier during the Maoist era, Zhou En Lai, who took one of the major news anchors to task for using the term “Red China.” Might as well start using “Republican United States”. Communist China and Chicom are also outmoded terms.[/hijack]

In Lexus and the Olive Tree, hypotethis that no two countries that have McDonalds have ever fought a war. China, Taiwan, India all have McD’s…Oh, and so it’s clear, his point was that any two countries with a middle class that could support a McDonalds had evolved beyond making massive war stage.

12

In terms of American participation we are already in a huge war. Bushco is scraping the bottom of our troop supply. They are sending your neighbors, your sons and daughters. Notice that yours not theirs.

We have now about 135k troops in Iraq and more are on the way.

13

A conflict in which the USA wouldn’t be involved wouldn’t be necessary minor. A war between India and Pakistan could be envisionned, and it certtainly would have the potential to be a huge, awful and devastating conflict, possibly involving nuclear weapons.

14

Reeder, although I agree with you in general politically, that’s not what the OP is asking. In the overall scheme of things, Iraq, disgraceful as it is, is not a major conflict like WWI and WWII.

I agree with the several posters above who think that major nation states will never again deliberately enter into a war of that scale - at least in the future as easily extrapolated from our own. But human beings in general seem to be pretty darned bad at predicting the consequences of their own actions. Until the past couple of years, the super powers (mostly us, but let’s throw Russia, China, Japan, India/Pakistan, and Europe as a whole in there for good measure) have mostly stuck to things like embargos, sanctions, and surgical military strikes. These measures, while they have had severe consequences for those directly affected, have been sufficiently moderate that the potential for disastrous unintended consequences has been rather limited.

The situation has changed. We currently have an administration guided by ideology over facts, and thus far they’ve shown themselves to be remarkably poor at predicting consequences or dealing with them effectively. I would say that the potential for conflict on a global scale is probably greater now than it has been for forty years or more. If we get four more years of this administration, we will have told the world that it is not just this administration, but the nation as a whole that favors this approach. The world in general is already frightened. Fear drives people, and nation-states to do extreme things.

15

That is more of what I was getting at, not to belittle the losses in Iraq.

16

I guess I’m not following you, then, because that sounds precisely like “two powers lining up on opposite sides on a more minor, regional battle, and things escalating from there, until both powers “fall into” a war with each other.” (With the minor difference that you mentioned more than 2 powers.) I understand you’re saying that those countries already had issues with each other, but countries always have issues with each other.

17

Well, his point is clearly false. While McDonalds might not have existed in 1914 or 1939, all of the major participants in the latter war, and many of the participants in the former including the prime instigators, had middle classes that could have supported McDonalds.

18

Both Korea and Vietnam were test cases for this very issue. In Korea, both China and US backed down from really getting into it (well, China did pretty much what it could). In Vietnam, the same thing: the US was in a tough spot, as the USSR was supplying N. Vietnam, but of course the US could not risk a direct war with the bear.

Let’s hope similar caution keeps India and Pakistan in line. A nuclear war between those two would pretty much guarantee that India does not become a major player in the 21st century.

China and India, and China and Russia, have never gotten along very well. There are areas of conflict between the latter pair, as the Chinese are beginning to leak into Siberia and squat there. China and India will also be vying to become the dominant Asian power, inasmuch as post-war Japan has never tried to dominate militarily/politically, and as its population ages and shrinks its economic power will also diminish.

I think the conflict you see in the Middle East, however, will continue to be the major conflict you’re talking about. That is, I think it’s going to get worse, the US will continue to stay involved, and things will probably not settle down for many more years–perhaps not even until the end of the century.

The culture of the Middle East is starkly incompatible with that of any other in the world. Non-Muslim Asia is extremely secular and has no use for Islam. Western Europe is already in sh*t shape because they have already introduced to many immigrants who have no interest in assimilation. The Americas already have their own kooky religion: Christianity.

The Middle East has oil only. Beyond that, all I see is a region/culture like a 2-year-old child (the terrible twos): nothing but tantrums, whining, and drawing on the walls with crayons. And yes, I include Isreal in that description.

Don’t get me wrong: I have met many Arabs, Iranians, and Muslims from many nations. As individuals, they are very nice people. But there is not a single functional nation in the region. What a mess. They have a lot of growing up to do before they are ready to participate in the world as political “adults.” In the meanwhile, expect more conflict, instability, and terrorism as they take their collective tantrum out on the rest of the world.

19

The chances are pretty well zero for a multipower conflict. With the demonstration of weaponry , and the almost walk through of bagdad, the worlds militarys have been given a glance into the future of conflict ,and its bleak.

Korea is pretty much the only wildfire conflict that could occur in the near future , if dear leader decides that his countrymen are out to get him, and decides one last throw of the dice.

While others have mentioned that the states is pretty much spread thin at the moment , It still has quite an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons that could end a conflict in several hours.

When W stated bring it on , he meant it as a challenge to everyone who thought they could start something and win.

Declan

20

His point is precisely that in the modern post-ww2 age of globalization is that no two countries possessing McDonalds have fought a war. Not sure if Pakistan has McD’s or not. McD’s didn’t exist in 1914 or 1939, and the world has changed and globalized since then.