Where will the next war be?

Recommended Videos

MrEnigami

New member
Nov 23, 2010
77
0
0
Probably North Korea v NATO, I think.

North Korea is going to attack the South again, and the USA is going to get cheesed off. They'll bully the UK into helping out, and then the USA and the UK will bully the rest of NATO into getting involved.

Then China might get involved, but I don't know if they would risk it (yet).
 

Canid117

New member
Oct 6, 2009
4,074
0
0
lostzombies.com said:
Canid117 said:
ahh it's really a shame when people believe so strongly in thing's they have watched on the history channel.

I'm not even going to try and persuade you, if you are actually interested in the facts go down to your local library and get a hold of any of these:

Russia, Ukraine, and the Breakup of the Soviet Union-Roman Szporluk

The Break-up of the Soviet Union (Adelphi Papers)

Dissolution: Sovereignty and the Breakup of the Soviet Union-Edward W Walker

or...you know.....watch some more History Channel......
You mean the UFO, WWII and JFK conspiracies channel?
 

HK_01

New member
Jun 1, 2009
1,610
0
0
The next really big war will be the Second American Civil War. It will be fought between the moderates/left-wingers and the Tea Party. The Tea Party will be led by Sarah Palin. It'll be violent.

I'm not really serious, but I can sort of see the internal conflict in the US becoming violent.

lostzombies.com said:
AssassinJoe said:
Iran........no question.

Hell they're practically giving the rest of the world the middle finger.
but doing it from behind a wall made from ex-soviet nukes lol
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and they won't for at least a couple of years. And I highly doubt that any Soviet nukes are in countries that officially don't have nukes, we'd have heard of that by now. It's been twenty years.
 

bl4ckh4wk64

Walking Mass Effect Codex
Jun 11, 2010
1,277
0
0
Pakistan and India. Nuclear exchange. Russia gains money from selling oil. Invades U.S.
 

Teddy Roosevelt

New member
Nov 11, 2009
650
0
0
Thwarted said:
Iran, it's no longer a matter of "if", but "when"
Iran had better watch its ass. Seriously, from what I've seen of Iranian technological and other advancements related to their ability to threaten the US and its bigger allies/Israel, apparently the will of Allah isn't enough to overcome missiles through your bedroom window, and, if they decide to use nuclear missiles, we(America) can probably use what missile defense systems we have developed since the Cold War and knock those duct-tape and plastic Iranian birds right out of the sky.

Seriously, though. Iran is getting pretty daring in essentially every gesture and word aimed at America/Israel. The truth is, Iran has little to no real military power against the United States or Israel. I think it goes without saying that our forces would kick Iran's ass, but Israel, some would argue, would be more vulnerable. True, but Iran would be painfully defeated in yet another victorious war for Israel.

On topic: I think, most likely, there will be a war between North and South Korea, beginning another round of combat in the ongoing Korean War (Yes, it is still going on, though the ceasefire has held since 1953). First off, South Korea has a military sufficient to pound North Korea into next week, even with Kimmy-boy's nukes. The real problem would be China. As was mentioned above somewhere, maybe in the OP, China would almost certainly be dragged in in support of the north. I'm not so sure about that. China would likely join if we were really aggressive in the course of the conflict and took no account of Chinese concerns, but if we do things right, China probably won't bother fighting. Neither side is as stupid as people like to think, where the slightest incident will set off a nuclear war. Sure, China has a government based on what used to exist under the communist system, but Mao isn't in charge anymore, and the Cold War has been over for 20 years. China and the US are both huge trading partners, with relations that are somewhat better than people believe, though they are not quite perfect. Anyway, I've also heard from my friend, who is South Korean, meaning from South Korea, not just ethnically Korean, that China and North Korea are pulling apart somewhat on account of Kim Jog Il's rowdy behavior. N. Korea is no longer as much in line behind China as it once was, so, while China would probably support North Korea over the US, the Chinese would not send in the cavalry to save the north unless we send in another MacArthur and really give them a reason to be defensive.
 

Teddy Roosevelt

New member
Nov 11, 2009
650
0
0
MrEnigami said:
Probably North Korea v NATO, I think.

North Korea is going to attack the South again, and the USA is going to get cheesed off. They'll bully the UK into helping out, and then the USA and the UK will bully the rest of NATO into getting involved.

Then China might get involved, but I don't know if they would risk it (yet).
I think logical Americans as a whole would appreciate it if people didn't see us as bullies to our allies, because that damn-sure isn't true. If it helps my point get across, take it from me as an enthusiast in military history/science (both of which require understandings of politics and such workings) rather than an American patriot.

Anyway, I think that such an illusion is really baseless, founded only in the fact that people prefer to look at the US as that one guy that gets in everyone's business for no reason whatsoever. That is really not so. The US has to be the world police, because since 1991 there has been only one superpower, and that superpower, having the resources to maintain the world order of the UN and the Geneva Convention, is the US. That is the best reason I can give for the constant American "meddling" in foreign affairs. The fact is, the world would go right back to the political state that it was in before both world wars, where every Imperialist was fighting all the others for land and such. Now, Britain and the NATO nations are involved because they are connected to the US through NATO (sounds weird, but break up the acronym and it makes grammatical sense). With the US being the top NATO dog since the Cold War, NATO was built around the support of the United States, because it was the leader of the free world. Without the Soviet Union to worry about, NATO, still in existence, remains behind the US, but it is not bullied to do anything. NATO provides the staging points necessary to carry out operations to enforce the UN around the globe. In addition, the military aspect of NATO means that the US has help in terms of allied troops and resources. However, the US does not bully NATO to support it. In fact, if you want to go down the chain of power, we would turn to France after Britain. Guess which specific nation is not part of the coalitions in the Middle East (when last I checked). In fact, much of NATO would provide little help. The US and Britain have the top two power projection capabilities of any nations on Earth. They are, therefore, the effective police force.

Anyway, don't bash the US for the sake of bashing the US.