The Next World War

[Lena_Horne]

People have been constantly guessing at the onset of what will become World War III since the closing of the Second World War. According to Wikipedia (I'll admit though that it isn't the best source) some even thought that the Korean War would turn into another World War when it first broke out. At various points in our history U.S./Soviet aggression has nearly led to disaster, most notably the Cuban Missile Crisis. Other happenstances have been pure technological and/or human error.

But lately the aggression in the Middle East has been prompting some to wonder if Iran, Syria and Palestine (as controlled by the Hamas government) are set to be the new Axis powers of the early Twenty-First century.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060418/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

Now I've never been too keen on this dawning century to begin with, I believe things are going much too fast and people don't seem to be weighing the consequences of their actions too much anymore. Demagogue's have come into power in increasingly volatile areas and it seems that the United States might find itself in an awkward position.

Opinions?

L_H

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Up to now, I've been very thankful for nuclear weapons: they are so dangerous that no one has been foolhardly enough to start a war big enough to call for their use. Nuclear weapons have acted as their own deterrent. :fing28:

What scares me is the prospect of a leader who is nationally suicidal. (Think of Hitler at the end of WWII: this sick man was determined to shove every German into the meat grinder of "defense".) Add nuclear weapons to a suicidal leader's arsenal, and the shield of nuclear deterrence vanishes into thin air.

Strategic alliances did not prevent World War I from taking place. When those alliances were finally tested in 1914, they proved to make the war -- or rather, its massiveness -- inevitable. I wonder if nuclear weapons are fated to be the "strategic alliances" of a third world war.

A fascinating thread topic! Thank you, Lena!

.

 

[jamespowers]

It makes you wonder when you consider what is happening in Venzuela, China, Cuba and the middle east. Then there are elections in Mexico soon.
Communism seems to be spreading and it has its sights on us. Hugo Chavez has even been reputed to have ties with Al-Queda now. He also has Castro's little black book of revolutionaries to call upon.
There are going to be some rough times if what I think is going to happen happens.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Marc Chevalier]

It's funny ... the South American countries surrounding Venezuela don't worry about it as much as the U.S. does. Presumably, they'd have much more to lose if Chavez extended his power. Chile, at least, sees Chavez as a demagogue who's clever enough to cater to his "fan base" and knows how to play the brinkmanship game. He'll be around for a while, but that doesn't mean that like-minded presidents in Bolivia and other countries will have his staying power. My guess is that they won't unless they compromise. Remember when conservatives were screaming that Brazil's president, Lula da Silva, would be Castro's point man? What nonsense that turned out to be.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The next world war, if any, will be due to things that happen in the Middle East. Hardly an original pronouncement, I know, but it's true.

 

[Lena_Horne]

I wonder now if what I feel is that strange, murky feeling of not-quite-fear (I suppose the correct word is "unease") is what they felt in 1914 and especially 1938.

Last night I watched a documentary about the Armenian Genocide (I wonder if I'm going to hear from anyone who believes it was not, in fact, genocide) and also heard the comparisons between Turkey in 1918 to Germany during the 1930s. I've been trying to find this book about this reporter from the Chicago Sun-Times (before it became the gossip and sensationalist rag it is today) and his coverage of Hitler's sudden rise to power before any of the other newspapers even had the scoop. I picked it up one afternoon at Border's and looked it over, thought it amazingly fascinating, and haven't seen hide nor hair of it since.

But back to the subject at hand, just thinking about the absolute bravery that the generation facing WWII had, and the sacrifices they were willing to make to get the job done. It's completely amazing, but at the same time, this generation is (in my opinion) hardly cut out for anything like that. There was a news study (and a lot of those have been coming out lately, or perhaps I'm suddenly paying more attention) that if this generation (meaning my own 1980s-bred and upwards) were to be called to service they would be in such terrible shape physically and mentally that the military would be in a real tight-spot. That's not to say fellows were the very picture of health in the 1930s and 40s, but it was hardly as it is now.

And one topic we've already touched on in another corner of the forum is gas rationing. With the monsterous vehicles we drive today and the distance people place between themselves, their jobs and the city, how realistic is it to expect that anyone would want to sacrifice for defense? Don't even get me started on the amount of electricity we consume for so many different things (computers, televisions [in multiple rooms no less], microwaves, etc.) I can't honestly see us willing to conserve by changing our schedules that much to allow for less. Such as using clotheslines instead of dryers, cooking on the stove and in the oven versus microwaves, re-adopting the old standard of television going off the air at some point (though I don't know how much good it would actually do, I just enjoy the idea of seeing those gray screens). Or maybe I just like the idea of showing restraint.

L_H

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I think that Americans would unite very well, even today. We'd ration and recycle like crazy. Scratch the silly tabloid surface, and we're still an amazing people underneath.

Talk about unease: I was in the 9th grade in 1982. My schoolmates and I were convinced -- absolutely CONVINCED -- that Russian nuclear missiles would hit us in our lifetimes. Lena, have you ever seen the TV movie, "The Day After"? It shook us to the core. There was a sword of Damocles hanging over us then, and that sword was nuclear annihilation (sp?).


.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Get underneath all the rubbish that one hears about the modern generation, and i think you'll find they'd handle things pretty well (me, i'd probably go to prison). Just like the WWII generation did, and the WWI generation - handle things, not go to prison.

Iran is a smokescreen. Look beyond it. I can see nothing but November. Don't get me wrong, Iran with a nuke is a worrying prospect. Simply because Ahmedinejad is nuts enough to use it. Probably against Israel ... And Damn the consequences. All he wants to do is get rid of Israel. Problem is: Short of invasion and overthrow, he ain't going anywhere soon. And the military cannot handle another invasion right now ... unless they have a draft. political suicide. Never happen. They could also flatten Iran with nukes: Never going to happen.

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Israel's airpower will strike Iran's nuclear facilities. The threat of a backlash has never stopped Israel in the past. With the U.S.'s support, they'll weather the storm.

.

 

[scotrace]

A natural defense

We're it. It's harder to imagine a global conflict when all of us can talk directly to each other rather than just get the Official Positions of the leadership.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Israel's airpower will strike Iran's nuclear facilities. The threat of a backlash has never stopped Israel in the past. With the U.S.'s support, they'll weather the storm.

.

Irans underground nuclear research facilities - the ones we know about - are beyond the range of all conventional weapons. Iran, according to various recent intelligence estimates reported in the press, has many more secret nuclear facilities.

They have got far enough along with their research to have a bargaining chip. Though they show no signs of being willing to bargain.

bk

 

[Lena_Horne]

Well (and I'm not trying to bash my generation, though they do worry me) we're putting on the pounds like crazy. I don't think I could expect any guy I know to be able to take basic training as they are right now (heck, even me, but I have asthma so I'm pretty much exempt from active duty. Gee whiz would I love to see the Waves make a come back though. I'd be there in a heartbeat!) Well, maybe a few guys, but definitely not the majority. But our collective weight problem does worry me. I mean--if you've been visiting the Powder Room--you'll have read that our general shape, particularly women, has changed dramatically since the 40s. We don't eat the way they used to. I'm sitting here now thinking about all the food going to waste in our refrigerator. If we were using a rationing system my mother's house would be in definite trouble.

L_H

 

[J. M. Stovall]

You may think I'm a nut, but I don't really care, but I'm alot more worried about Global Warming that WWIII.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Irans underground nuclear research facilities - the ones we know about - are beyond the range of all conventional weapons. Iran, according to various recent intelligence estimates reported in the press, has many more secret nuclear facilities.

This wouldn't happen to be from the same intelligence sources that claimed Iraq was full of WMDs?

 

[scotrace]

Talk about unease: I was in the 9th grade in 1982. My schoolmates and I were convinced -- absolutely CONVINCED -- that Russian nuclear missiles would hit us in our lifetimes. Lena, have you ever seen the TV movie, "The Day After"? It shook us to the core. There was a sword of Damocles hanging over us then, and that sword was nuclear annihilation (sp?).

We were polled in civics class in the late 70's: "Do you think you will see a nuclear war with the Soviet Union in your lifetime?" The 'YES' answers ran well over 90%.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

It wasn't a fun prospect, especially for kids.

 

[BellyTank]

This wouldn't happen to be from the same intelligence sources that claimed Iraq was full of WMDs?

Name the specific source you mean there, Mr.

B
T

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Name the specific source you mean there, Mr.

That's exactly what I wanted to say to Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld.

.

 

[Lena_Horne]

It's not necessarily the war that scares me, or even the massive scale of it. It's the warfare itself that worries me. The prospect of tradional (or semi-traditional if you consider swords and horses versus mechanized weapons) fighting is one thing. But the thought of you fellas melting on the battlefield (not impossible in past wars but you catch my drift) and being subjected to chemicals (though illegal and seen before both during WWI and the Iraq/Iran war) is always disheartening. We won't even get into the implications for civilians and the prospect of even more genocide under the cover of war--hence my earlier reference to Turkey in 1918.

L_H

 

[Baron Kurtz]

This wouldn't happen to be from the same intelligence sources that claimed Iraq was full of WMDs?

lol lol lol lol lol

The difference this time is that everyone is saying it. The IAEA, Britain, USA, Germany, the EU collectively ... even the French intelligence agencies.

The Atlantic ran a feature about a year and a half ago where they got together all these retired military and intelligence types and had them hash out a proposal for how a military action would work in Iran. They were all super worried about the underground facilities we think they have but can't be sure.

As i say, i think this whole thing is a smoke screen that will come to nothing after November.

bk