Do you think there will ever be another war like WWII?

[m72_ar]

I don't really believe in mutually assured destruction because it only applies when all parties involved don't want to die/cause the apocalypse. You put those weapons in the hands of say, Religious Extremist, that don't care if they live or die and suddenly you have a real big problem.

That's true...but religious extremists don't seem to be able to get in charge on large, industrialised nations with nuclear arsenals to speak of. They might acquire the odd device, but all that means in the grand scheme of things is that the retaliation is horrific.

OT: I actually do believe, in my life time, that if China continues to grow it will become imperialistic and attempt to invade the U.S.

They conceivably could win just based on the man power they have alone.

Not a chance. Yes, they have lots of soldiers, but that is totally irrelevant. They have to get their troops from China across a rather large ocean to the US. The US has the world's mightiest navy, and China hasn't invested much in the way of one (they might be looking to change that, though).

The US also has the two mightiest air forces in the world (USAF and USN).

Once the Chinese get to the US, it's a long walk from the coast.

Oh, and the US has a mighty nuclear arsenal as well.

Your typical war of that scale would have at most about a week of conventional fighting and this is assuming of course the ICBM's did not start flying in the first few minutes. Even a conventional war would involve the use of tactical nukes, EMP and cyberweapons. Not to mention the potential use of Biological and chemical weapons as well.

EMP weapons don't really work, and you don't have a conventional war using nuclear weapons. The moment one gets used, so do the rest. Because of this, nobody lets themself get into a position where they might be used.

It's also true from the opposing perspective,China can't invade US and win but US also does not have the capability to decisively invade and conquer mainland China or Russia without the use of Nukes.

Next gen war will be following the current model of Insurgency funded,armed and trained by foreign Special Forces or war by proxy performed by armies of mercenaries

The key difference being America would actually be able to get troops on the ground, and once you captured the coast of China, you have all of China the really matters. There are a few large cities inland (large being relative to China), but most of the important once are along the coast. This is all assuming nukes aren't used.

That maybe the case, then what next? Americans are not strong enough to pacify a nation billion strong assuming no nukes from both sides are used.

Especially with such a massive ideological differences if it does not work at a much smaller Vietnam and it will not work on China.

The only way to pull it off is as much as I hate saying this is by winning the "Hearts and Minds" of the populace first. Saturate the area with Lady Gagas and Jersey Shore to make the populace choose you over the current regime then you might have a chance. Of course this works from the opposite sides as well

 

[Adon Cabre]

3rd Gulf War: Saddam Hussein and Regime removed for it's 22 violations of UN Sanctions including genocide on the Kurds.

Wars should be listed in their geographical location and consistency with the politics following each.

We could trade blows on when we think this war in Iraq started and ended. I think Iraq was destabilized by the US invasion, and that it remains destabilized because of bad management by US occupying forces and post-modern guerrilla and terrorist tactics on the part of the insurgent forces.

The idea that the war was about getting revenge on Saddam Hussein for his treatment of kurds is utterly ridiculous. I don't even think it was about that in full when they first attacked. He did a lot more than merely attack the kurds. Anyway that all went by the wayside after a few months in country.

I think that until conflict has ended, palpably, until there are as many cases of suicide bombings in Iraq as there are in more stable nations in that region - no more - this will still be considered a war that the US started, the US failed to see through and the US merely handed down to future generations of Iraqis.

We're an occupational presence in Iraq in the same way our 50,000 troops in Germany still linger years after WWII and the Cold War.

You're comparing Iraq to a World War? Really Mr. Statmaster?

Coalition totals for casualties in Iraq come out to about 5,000 (and that's rounding up generously). In five weeks in Okinawa, the US lost 55,000 Marines in World War Two. We lost 13,000 in Iwujima.

The total body count including civilians in Iraq is nearly 120,000.

World War Two claimed 60,000,000 lives. World War One, 20,000,000. And you're bringing up multicultural diversity?

You have no idea what kind of chaos a world war descends from. We all try to rationalize why we make it, because it's insane -- War is legalized murder, after all; but most wars have ridiculous origins coming out of fear or pride, not misunderstandings. People launch an assault because they believe they can win.

The Iraq War is over. We've overthrown the regime and have established a less corrupted, more nationally stable government that won't be attacking Israel, or it's neighbors like their previous dictator. Not only that, as a result of our invasion years ago, Gadaffi gave up his own WMD's, thereby setting into motion the Famous Arab Spring.

Insurgents are not soldiers. They are terrorists. Terrorism is a form of combat, it isn't a group of people. And these insurgents have been fighting any and everyone who do not submit to their beliefs for hundreds of years. They are religious extremists.

Oh no, attack of the militARAY history stats buff.

Are you trying to say that it couldn't possibly be WWIII just because the scale of the effects of Bush's war in Iraq does not match up to the scale of WWI or WWII? Fewer deaths? At no point in my post did I assert that; I was basing my designation of the conflict as - and I quote:

the descendant to the Second World War

If we're gonna juggle around words like Total War et al, one could argue that it was a 'Total War', certainly for Iraqi and Afgan civilians (though the idea that these are humans might seem a bit alien to the kind of people who believed W. when he said 'Mishun Accomplished')

Sure not every country on earth gave a crap, but it was a multinational conflict on both sides and, previously rather unknown in US-led wars, it played host to nation'less forces, insurgents and such (perhaps the Viet got help, but they hardly got help from a multinational force of insurgents on the same scale to what happened in the Iraq War). New weapons, tactics and technologies.

Look, I have no interest in numbers. I'm no armchair historian, I've lived in many countries, never for less than three years, and I have a better understanding of cultures than any homeboy would have gleaned from websites and textbooks. I went to all of those museums multiple times, instead of during a few summers between semesters. So I am never going to be intimidated by a war buff's insolence and indignant.

EDIT:

As for your thing about US troops in Germany, how about some local knowledge for you?

The US keep troops in Germany, they live in giant basis like Gateau in Brandenburg just outside Berlin, or outside of Stuttgart. I've been to those bases. I played golf at Gateau every weekend, and I went to the base at Stuttgart when I wanted to get American junk food, invited by friends. The chairs were very plush in the executive suite of hotel in Stuttgart. I can still remember the taste of skittles and Bailey's Irish Cream.

There are also many thousands of US troops in Brussels, where I lived aswell, because of it's being the center of NATO.

The US troops are not in Germany for some brave defensive reason, they're just there because America owns the land and they like having bases closer to hot spots in the world - like Iraq and similar.

No. If you wanted a different reaction, then you should have chosen your words more carefully than saying it's a descendant of WWII, because a whole lot happened between 1945 and 2003. This just tells me that you don't know enough of the Middle East, and that's fine, because few do.

The culture of battle changed in the Cold War. That was the descendant of World War 2. If you want to bring up geopolitics, international turbulence and technological warfare, then you'll be forced to dissect the forty years of the Cold War. It's brought about the origin of the internet (ARPANET).

The Iraq War (or the 3rd Gulf War), is a culmination of events that started in the Middle East with the founding of Israel way back when.

The US failed in Iraq because it attempted something never before tried in the history of war: to assist in the restructuring of a third world country after destroying the previous totalitarian regime. Iraq was already broken when we got there. Of course, history would have told us that -- and with the exception of Israel -- the Middle East is one big theocracy. It will never be stable, and that's what I'm trying to tell you: that war you're talking about hasn't even begun.

 

[Sean951]

I don't really believe in mutually assured destruction because it only applies when all parties involved don't want to die/cause the apocalypse. You put those weapons in the hands of say, Religious Extremist, that don't care if they live or die and suddenly you have a real big problem.

That's true...but religious extremists don't seem to be able to get in charge on large, industrialised nations with nuclear arsenals to speak of. They might acquire the odd device, but all that means in the grand scheme of things is that the retaliation is horrific.

OT: I actually do believe, in my life time, that if China continues to grow it will become imperialistic and attempt to invade the U.S.

They conceivably could win just based on the man power they have alone.

Not a chance. Yes, they have lots of soldiers, but that is totally irrelevant. They have to get their troops from China across a rather large ocean to the US. The US has the world's mightiest navy, and China hasn't invested much in the way of one (they might be looking to change that, though).

The US also has the two mightiest air forces in the world (USAF and USN).

Once the Chinese get to the US, it's a long walk from the coast.

Oh, and the US has a mighty nuclear arsenal as well.

Your typical war of that scale would have at most about a week of conventional fighting and this is assuming of course the ICBM's did not start flying in the first few minutes. Even a conventional war would involve the use of tactical nukes, EMP and cyberweapons. Not to mention the potential use of Biological and chemical weapons as well.

EMP weapons don't really work, and you don't have a conventional war using nuclear weapons. The moment one gets used, so do the rest. Because of this, nobody lets themself get into a position where they might be used.

It's also true from the opposing perspective,China can't invade US and win but US also does not have the capability to decisively invade and conquer mainland China or Russia without the use of Nukes.

Next gen war will be following the current model of Insurgency funded,armed and trained by foreign Special Forces or war by proxy performed by armies of mercenaries

The key difference being America would actually be able to get troops on the ground, and once you captured the coast of China, you have all of China the really matters. There are a few large cities inland (large being relative to China), but most of the important once are along the coast. This is all assuming nukes aren't used.

That maybe the case, then what next? Americans are not strong enough to pacify a nation billion strong assuming no nukes from both sides are used.

Especially with such a massive ideological differences if it does not work at a much smaller Vietnam and it will not work on China.

The only way to pull it off is as much as I hate saying this is by winning the "Hearts and Minds" of the populace first. Saturate the area with Lady Gagas and Jersey Shore to make the populace choose you over the current regime then you might have a chance. Of course this works from the opposite sides as well

You don't have to pacify a billion Chinese. You have to pacify a couple hundred million urbanites who already live a nearly American life. The majority of China's landmass isn't terribly important, and once you have the cities, which a war time US is strong enough to hold, with or without winning the hearts and minds, you have all that the US would really hope to gain.

Note: I don't think the US could actually go to war with China, but to say they wouldn't be able to hold the cities isn't true. There are something like 3 million soldiers who could be called to active duty and have the training already. There are another 71 million males who could be drafted and about the same number of females who could volunteer. Assuming the US only takes 10% of the males and 1% of the females, that's still around 10 million soldiers. Put a million or so around 5 or 6 of the most important cities, scatter 2 or 3 around the country side and keep 2 or 3 for home defense and to rotate in as needed, and I think the US could hold a sizable chunk of the coast.

 

[Goro]

I think it may well happen off planet. Chinas space program is cracking along nicely, and I wouldn't be surprised if they landed on the Moon and announced it a colony, then did the same on Mars. Then a lot of outer space treaty signatories would go the 'no fair' route, and it would all come tumbling down.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Yep. It will be pretty much all of us against Israel. You wouldn't believe me if I told you how I know.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Moving on. There's only one country in the world that is virtually unconquerable, and that's America. It's not a patriotic thing either, we just hold pretty much all the best cards. We have the most technologically powerful and second most numerous military force in the world, we have the second biggest nuclear arsenal, and we have a massive terrain advantage. After Russia, the continental United States is probably the hardest land to conquer, and the fact that many citizens own guns and have a hell of a fighting spirit doesn't improve those chances. I'm not even including the large number of significant military and political allies we have. If it sounds like I'm bragging, I challenge you to prove any of those points wrong. It doesn't mean the US can't be beaten in a war, we just can't be invaded successfully. Not at this stage in history at least.

A few of those points are wrong, at least to an extent. In terms or raw numbers, the US is a few steps down from 2nd most numerous (depending on what you count as military), though that's irrelevant.

I'm not sure if Canada or Australia might have a more unconquerable landmass.

But anyway, all that is irrelevant, because your first point is wrong. Any nuclear capable nation is unconquerable. They can be destroyed, certainly, but there's not much that can happen between that and being left alone. What was left could be invaded, but the society that was isn't there anymore either way.

 

[Lord Kloo]

Probably won't happen because of nukes and globalisation and shit..

As far as how the war will be fought I'll use Einstein's quote:

"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

Look forward to the apocalypse people

 

[Adon Cabre]

No. If you wanted a different reaction, then you should have chosen your words more carefully than saying it's a descendant of WWII, because a whole lot happened between 1945 and 2003. This just tells me that you don't know enough of the Middle East, and that's fine, because few do.

I know a lot about a lot and if you bring up anything I don't already know in this post I will tell you about it.

Furthermore, to say something is a 'descendant' of WWII is not to say it's the little frigging brother of WWII. For pete's sake, you could say some crazy Zaha Hadid building is a descendant of the cave-homes of the Anasazi and it would not be incorrect. A hell of a lot of things have happened since WWII, but that doesn't somehow sever the connection between WWII and Bush's Iraq War. That's like saying the last chapter of a novel has nothing to do with the first chapter and expecting that to end an argument.

I stand by saying that this war is a descendant of WWII. Did you notice - if you were old enough - how the US attacked across Iraq in tank platoons? Do you remember journalists travelling with them while they streaked across the desert? Do you think any of that would have happened if WWII had not revolutionized the concept of tank warfare? If WWII hadn't happened, who knows where we'd be now, but there's a chance our tanks would still have giant tracks on either side and fixed turrets like some Steam Punk anime.

The culture of battle changed in the Cold War. That was the descendant of World War 2. If you want to bring up geopolitics, international turbulence and technological warfare, then you'll be forced to dissect the forty years of the Cold War. It's brought about the origin of the internet (ARPANET).

Or you can take into account the upshot of the Cold War in the region, destabilized nations with underdeveloped infrastructures, governments, systems of management and education, etc, systems. You don't need to know 50 years of Afgani history to know that in the year 2001 the Americans decided to take out the Taliban - who were genuine assholes - and that the war went nowhere.

The Iraq War (or the 3rd Gulf War), is a culmination of events that started in the Middle East with the founding of Israel way back when.

Very true, I don't disagree, it also has to do with Iraq's historical roots as an arm of the British Empire, it's relationship and dynamic with Saudi Arabi and other nations lead by theocratic Islam despots who adhered to differing sects of the religion. I don't think any of that has any bearing on the Iraq war's status as a global, era-defining conflict. All wars have backstory.

EDIT: I might even go as far as to suggest Bush's Iraq War has it's roots in the Crusades, but that might just be a bit too long a line of descent to draw for you.

The US failed in Iraq because it attempted something never before tried in the history of war: to assist in the restructuring of a third world country after destroying the previous totalitarian regime.

Germany is a pretty obvious example of people trying to rebuild a former totalitarian country after destroying the previous regeim. The only difference between Germany and Iraq is that the two great powers around Germany both had stakes in the country - if the Soviets didn't have any of Germany and they had wanted a piece of it, they might have done something about it. Though obviously to suggest that they might have resorted to terrorism is absolutely insane; terrorism on the scale seen since the turn of the century is a new development.

EDIT: and to say Germany was a first world country after the second world war would have to be an absolute joke.

Iraq was already broken when we got there.

Not really. Iraq was one of the stable entities of the Middle Easy when Saddam was in power. Sure he pissed people off, and sure he fucked with his civilians, but so does Iran, so does Syria, so does the great Saudi Arabia.

The US raped Iraq like so many Iraqi women were probably raped by US soldiers and left it shuddering in a pile of it's own oil. And it was not done as some rescue effort, it was done as a kind of giant pressure release valve for the utter devastation and fear of the greatest nation on earth - pretenses like WMDs and Oil reserves did count, but to say this war was inevitable would be drastic. If the Iraq war was so inevitable then Iran would have been attacked a long time before it developed nukes.

Of course, history would have told us that -- and with the exception of Israel -- the Middle East is one big theocracy.

Like I said already - many big theocracies. The Sunni vs. Shi'ite, and the various other sects of Islam, give the Middle East a fractured and, honeslty, far more terrifying complexion.

It will never be stable, and that's what I'm trying to tell you: that war you're talking about hasn't even begun.

I hadn't picked up on anything that 'prophetic' before this final sentence.

Anyway, the Middle East is unstable because the patriarchal structure of every society in the whole damn region renders democracy impossible. Now, I hate democracy as much as I hate theocracy - if you ask me, and I have the experience required to make this statement, the way the Chinese do things is the most effective way to go about government - but it would definitely be a step in the direction of stability. I think Egypt has proven to us that Democracy is a fool's dream in the Middle East.

Well, I think you're preference to China sort of clears things up. And you haven't any idea of the wealth discrepancy between the poor and rich. China's day of reckoning is coming when they're economy crashes because of the social disorder they've committed.

You know, WWII was not the worst world event in human history. No, that goes to the estimated 90,000,000 were killed during the Chinese revolution, and cultural experiments that followed under communism.

How these facts seem to elude you is absolutely astonishing. A word of advice, don't make any comments about China to anyone smart around you, but I guess if you did have at least one braniac cerebral enough to tear himself away from Liberal and Socialist propaganda, I guess he would have convinced you by now to tone it down.

Germany was a world effort to rebuild because of Communism's spreading influence in the north east. The reasons for rescuing both are very, very different.

Today's terrorism isn't really anything astounding. There were over 32,000 driver related deaths in 2010. You don't see everyone selling their automobiles or politicians fighting to lower the speed limit in the US. The truth is that this 24/7 cable news sensationalizes every story for suckers like my parents (and maybe you) to get all bent out of shape about how "it's never been this bad before in history!"

Circumspection would help you.

And you're view of the US Marines as a Mongolian hoard riding across the world is laughable.

 

[Fijiman]

No because it would end a lot faster because it would be resolved with nukes fairly quickly. Even if you took away the nukes I highly doubt that most of the citizens of most countries would be willing to give the same level of support for a war like they did in WWII.(not that we would have to worry about it as much these days considering how much most militaries already have stockpiled)

 

[Adon Cabre]

Well, I think you're preference to China sort of clears things up. And you haven't any idea of the wealth discrepancy between the poor and rich. China's day of reckoning is coming when they're economy crashes because of the social disorder they've committed.

I love it when self-righteous 'free people' talk about wealth inequality and shit like that in China. And Tibet! I'm so glad you haven't bought up Tibet! China has an economy with many tiers, if you go to a store in a rich suburb of Beijing then a bottle of coke will probably cost the equivalent of $3.50, or whatever, but if you go just a block from there and enter a store that caters for poorer classes it might cost the equivalent of just $1. Then if you go to a village way out in the west a 600ml bottle of coke might only cost you the equivalent of 20c.

Wealth inequality is not as pronounced in China as it might be in the United States, and the only reason your apparently 'more responsible' United States hasn't got a revolution on it's hands in response to the unmitigated stack of shit that Wall Street and co pulled is that in this day and age the concept of 'revolution' in countries like China and the US is just as 'laughable' as you think my concept of the US Marines (you've got me wrong there, too, surprise surprise) is.

And the idea that China is getting what's coming to it should scare the hell out of you, China's resilience during the GFC a few years back should tell you that it would take a global fuckup of unprecedented proportions to bring down China, and that if China ever went, the US would surely have gone too.

Stop looking at China as if it's a nation of hundreds of millions.

You know, WWII was not the worst world event in human history. No, that goes to the estimated 90,000,000 were killed during the Chinese revolution, and cultural experiments that followed under communism.

If you're trying to imply that I have 'adopted' communism like some hipster then I'm afraid you're "laughably" (I'm gonna use this delightful term some more) off the mark, the Chinese gov't today is no more 'Communist' in the way that Mao's was than it is a group of schoolchildren. On the outside it sells itself as communist but it's more of a pseudo-capitalist technocracy, a one party state whose only objective is growth and keeping it's people satisfied - resulting in it's perpetuation. Their form of nationalism is not too far removed from the 4th of July and the Superbowl.

For the record I think Mao's communist 'revolution' and cultural experiments were disgusting abominations. Oh, and my god, holy heck what about the Native Americans you guys wiped out? At least China failed at wiping out entire cultures. And those poor buffalo. I mean seriously, what kind of pseudo-erotic national desire to bugger a dead buffalo carcass must be in your bloodstream? (said with pointed irony)

You're about to say these facts about China have eluded me. I'll not bother writing that quote. I will tell you the moment you state a fact that I don't know, I will make it very clear. As for not talking about China to anyone 'smart' around me, in four hellish years I've spent back in the western world I've yet to meet anyone with anywhere near as informed an opinion on China as mine. You have to live there, you see? Live there for years, travel throughout, interact with all levels of the wealth and political spectrum in very real ways. Sorry, I can't put my life online for you to google.

Liberals and Socialists are nauseating. At least conservatives live in the suburbs and don't bother me much. I couldn't give less of a crap about Western government systems, look at the Australian and US government systems and you might see why.

Germany was a world effort to rebuild because of Communism's spreading influence in the north east. The reasons for rescuing both are very, very different.

Half of Germany was communist laser-brain, and both sides of the country were rebuilt at equal pace, it was only later when the Communist efforts became antiquated and did not get renewed that the gap started to really show. (and, incase you would like to know, I have seen 'the gap' with my very own two eyes, and lived in both sides of it for years at a time. I can describe this gap to you with joy) And I'm pretty sure the US air force was responsible in the main for airlifting supplies during the Blockade of West Berlin, not 'the world'. The thing about 'rescuing' Iraq is that the US gave up on it and no one else in the region or around the world ever had any reason to. They're on their own now.

Today's terrorism isn't really anything astounding. There were over 32,000 driver related deaths in 2010. You don't see everyone selling their automobiles or politicians fighting to lower the speed limit in the US.

You're acting like people are rational enough to differentiate between an explosive death at the hands of militants in airplanes and a car crash. People in the US no less. That's - wait for it - - - wait for it - - - laughable! If there is one thing that is very straightforward indeed about the US society it is that their sense of 'threat' across the whole range of potential sources of it is wacky and distorted. I'm pretty sure despairing documentarians have wondered at polls showing that Americans are more afraid of Terrorism than guns, I agree that it's insane but it's a reality. People in all countries are irrational.

The truth is that this 24/7 cable news sensationalizes every story for suckers like my parents ([snip]) to get all bent out of shape about how "it's never been this bad before in history!"

My parents are too smart to fall for news stories - they've traveled even more than me and continue to do so - but I am surrounded by the kind of homeboys you describe and I tell you that I am neither one of them, nor impressed by them. I'm on your side there. In Australia everyone thinks they know precisely what's wrong with everything, but one talk about China with them and they quickly show you that they borrow their opinions from Facebook and TIME magazine.

As for things never being this bad before, I'm inclined to think that is the case. Not because of the news but because I have eyes and we all have access to this great Lovecraftian inter-web of mind control and evil. ^_-

And you're view of the US Marines as a Mongolian hoard riding across the world is laughable.

If you are making some comment on what I said about rape then I defy you to mention a single war in history in which no women were raped, I am utterly certain that countless unspeakable atrocities were committed by Marines, and ditto by the Taliban, by UN Peacekeepers in Africa, hell even by every day civilians in all the countries of the world. If you think rape equates to a Mongolian Horde then I've got news for you - the Marines are indeed a 'Mongolian Horde'. Laughable as it may seem.

I've noticed a trend among Escapists recently for adding in sentences like "read a book and you might come across as more knowledgeable" - I don't know where that has come from, I guess it's just another insolvable mystery of the evolution of Internet Speak but in my case I want you to know that a) I do read books and b) associating your knowledge with books is just putting yourself a shelf or two lower than me on the knowledge bookcase, for as I have said, I've lived a dozen lives thus far and plan to live a thousand more.

Why can't you just admit that I'm right and move on to another thread!



Oh, I know what would happen if China went down. I'm not underestimating their power, but I'm also not underestimating the damage that they've done to their social infrastructure (one child policy) and the general limitations of a one party system -- civil liberties suffer, for one.

Native Americans and Chinese freaking mass deaths are entirely different. You have to know about America's founding history. For starters, Indians weren't all under one banner. There were nations of Indians all across America, and if it wasn't for European settlers, they'd still be praying to deer, flowers, or trees with their primitive technology. Indians have no history, except for what passed down by word of mouth, because they never actually developed a written language -- at least, not until the colonials came, and by then, it was too late.

Sorry, that's just how history goes.

Manifest Destiny.

Of course Germany was freaking split by western and eastern powers! In fact, my favorite comedy is a 1961 flick "One, Two, Three" [link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcCv8JYeTKA[/link] about the Berlin borders.

The west rebuild their side, and turned it back into a somewhat more flourishing economy. But there were far greater stakes at play in that era than can be said of Iraq.

The Iraq War was covered very well, and by all major news channels. The live feed and in-depth coverage pretty much made every secret apparent. Abu Ghraib. Executions. Crime. Soldier/Civilian marriages.

It is unlikely that Modern Armies and occupations just get away with things, because they are constantly policed themselves. That said, you're right, and it is a sad fact to a tragic facet of mankind, War.


Everyone I was around in college was too busy to give a damn about the world let alone American politics; but the future of America's prosperity will be determined by this presidential election. It will effect the Middle East, Europe and China.

2012 is a huge year for American politics.

Oh, and the Superbowl is the greatest sporting event in western civilization!

 

[Shaved Apple]

I'm surprised World War 3 hasn't started yet because of Obama.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Moving on. There's only one country in the world that is virtually unconquerable, and that's America. It's not a patriotic thing either, we just hold pretty much all the best cards. We have the most technologically powerful and second most numerous military force in the world, we have the second biggest nuclear arsenal, and we have a massive terrain advantage. After Russia, the continental United States is probably the hardest land to conquer, and the fact that many citizens own guns and have a hell of a fighting spirit doesn't improve those chances. I'm not even including the large number of significant military and political allies we have. If it sounds like I'm bragging, I challenge you to prove any of those points wrong. It doesn't mean the US can't be beaten in a war, we just can't be invaded successfully. Not at this stage in history at least.

A few of those points are wrong, at least to an extent. In terms or raw numbers, the US is a few steps down from 2nd most numerous (depending on what you count as military), though that's irrelevant.

I'm not sure if Canada or Australia might have a more unconquerable landmass.

But anyway, all that is irrelevant, because your first point is wrong. Any nuclear capable nation is unconquerable. They can be destroyed, certainly, but there's not much that can happen between that and being left alone. What was left could be invaded, but the society that was isn't there anymore either way.

There's no doubt rougher terrain on Earth, sure, but I'm also referring to population density. Most Canadians live near the border, so a lot of their icy terrain doesn't help them much. And last I checked the US has the 2nd largest military in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops

As for the nukes thing, I see where your coming from, but I'm not certain just having nukes is enough to prevent an invasion. You'd still have to have serious crazies to use them even as your country is taken over.

 

[ssgt splatter]

No, there will not be another one like it.
Everything that you said is why we wouldn't either. If WW3 were to happen, it would only last like 6 weeks to 3 months because of the immense leap in technology from WW2.

 

[rayen020]

yes it could and probably will happen again. Soon probably. Nukes do change the equation in some conflicts, but nukes are, ironically, a defensive tool.

The causes will be different, WW1 was about nationalism and caused by a cross stitch of alliances, WW2 was political in nature and caused by belligerent expansion. WW3 will be about the dwindling resources and sparked by our current political and social upheaval and economic turmoil.

Nukes are a defensive tool, the Americans and the Russians were both willing to use nuclear weapons because of clashing ideals, they didn't want to occupy their opponent. At least not immediately. This is why both the USSR and USA drew rules of engagement ruling they had to be fired on first. We're all still here because both were waiting for the other to attack or aggressively occupy international space (Berlin, Atlantic, Pacific, Cuba(sorta)).

If we're fighting over resources (which i predict we will be) Nuclear weapons will be useless. Nukes are an absolute and fighting to occupy will require infrastructure and areas not drenched in radiation. Also killing all the people takes away from your workforce. Places being attacked if they have access might use nuclear weapons, but only as a last resort, and on their opponents homeland in a bid to initiate a withdrawal.

 

[Russirishican]

What I haven't seen discussed so far is Missile Defenses. I don't know about other countries (I would assume that the most militarily advanced powers have them though) but the U.S. has a very advanced 3 layer missile defense system. As seen here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69uXXiJan_o
Its sort of a game changer, because if it can stop nuclear missiles, which I believe it can, any power who uses one against the U.S. is going to be a radioactive parking lot within a matter of hours, with no harm to the U.S.

 

[Bocaj2000]

No. I believe the next step in human history will either be unification or corporate armies.

EDIT: I only say this because I don't think that any country has the balls to use nukes. The political ramifications would be suicidal.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There's no doubt rougher terrain on Earth, sure, but I'm also referring to population density. Most Canadians live near the border, so a lot of their icy terrain doesn't help them much.

Ah, ok, fair enough.

And last I checked the US has the 2nd largest military in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops

Well, depends if you take reservists and so on into account.

As for the nukes thing, I see where your coming from, but I'm not certain just having nukes is enough to prevent an invasion. You'd still have to have serious crazies to use them even as your country is taken over.

When the choice is between defeat and conquest, or using nuclear devices, surely they'd get used?

What's the point of having them if they won't be used? As a deterrent, perhaps, but if you won't use them, they aren't much of a deterrent.