Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Countries Most Likely to Start World War III

MrVan
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 6:08:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Initially I wasn't sure if I should have put this on the 'politics' forum or the 'society' forum, since both topics have a habit of being so interchangeable at times (to me, at least). I ultimately decided to put it on 'politics' because the topic involved foreign relations and decisions made by different governments.

List five countries which you believe will most likely start World War III, with number five being the least likely and number one being most. Justify why each country is deserving of being on your list. Feel free to critique and comment on other people's posts.

Here are mine:
5. Israel- An 'unofficial' nuclear state, Israel is surrounded by mostly hostile Islamic countries. It has no problems assassinating individuals abroad which it considers threats and has openly threatened Iran with military action. A war between Iran and Israel could incite a region-wide conflict in the Middle East, leading to more powerful puppet nations getting involved in order to protect their assets abroad. If Israel were to go to war with an Arab state, other Arab nations may feel more emboldened to fight alongside them against Israel- with similar results. Though, Israel itself probably has little to worry about, especially considering China, the US, and Russia would all probably be more than willing to back it.

4. Iran- Unlike the other countries on this list, Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. What it does have is a psychotic supreme leader and a religiously-charged government. Iran has expressed willingness to shut down the Straight of Hormuz, which 2/5 of the world's oil supply is ferried through, in case of a conflict with Israel or the United States.

3. Russia- A nuclear power with a deep-seeded dispute with the United States. Like China, it also claims certain east-Asian islands of it's own and has flown planes into other countries' airspace. Russia has an aging military systems which could become more susceptible to compromise and risk launching nuclear weapons.

2. People's Republic of China- China has the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, and has a tense relationship with the United States. On top of that, China has several disputes with other east-Asian countries involving border lines and disputed islands in the China Sea. In recent years it has taken up a policy of flying into other country's airspace, aggressive naval standoffs, and inciting rhetoric.

1. United States- The US is a nuclear superpower with a knack for getting caught up in the conflicts and affairs of other nations. It has a hostile political relationship with China and Russia, and is viewed in a less than favorable light by the majority of the populations of most Islamic countries. The US has also shared it's nuclear stockpile with other countries, like Germany, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Belgium. It also has an almost imperialistic military presence all over the world, including several which surround China in countries like Japan, Guam, Kyrgyzstan, South Korea, and Pakistan.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 12:53:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Looks good. I'd probably add India/Pakistan, and maybe even Brazil in there as honorable mentions.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
reimer1725
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 6:46:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was discussing this with a friend the other day. If there was a war in the middle east involving the U.S., Russia, China, Europe, and of course the middle eastern countries, could Canada and the U.S. work together to take over China and Russia? Could they do it just politically or would they have to use military power?
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 7:10:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Good list. I would change Israel to Israel and Arab states, and move it up to 3. Also, I would likewise include India/Pakistan, at #4, with Russia sliding down to #5.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 7:21:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Looks pretty good. Would Definitely add India/Pakistan and possibly even North Korea. NK is really just a fat weak country that's main power is taking $hit but with the leadership they have who knows what stupid thing they may do in the future. Such as invade SK. And one other possible conflict I heard of though I don't know for sure of oys true or that serious so please don't hate if I'm wrong, but I heard that Russia and Canada of all people may actually get into it soon over some oil field disputes in the north.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 7:24:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 6:46:14 PM, reimer1725 wrote:
I was discussing this with a friend the other day. If there was a war in the middle east involving the U.S., Russia, China, Europe, and of course the middle eastern countries, could Canada and the U.S. work together to take over China and Russia? Could they do it just politically or would they have to use military power?

One of the things I see with this is that the US already has a huge advantage here in the fact that we are already all over the Middle East in force. China and Russia would be hard pressed to gain footholds in place where we are already statistically placed and defenses set. Possibly a reason the US is always getting into the Mid East business??? Dun dun dun.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 7:53:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
5. North Korea
4. China
3. Russia
2. Iran
1. Israel
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
MrVan
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 10:28:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 7:53:06 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
5. North Korea
4. China
3. Russia
2. Iran
1. Israel

I never really considered North Korea to be a likely candidate to start WWIII. Yeah, they have nuclear weapons, could cause a lot of damage, and kill a lot of people, and a war with them would be extremely costly. However, they don't really have any allies which are really willing to risk confronting the US for their sake - at least not officially.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 10:54:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
- Israel- Not totally sure if this would cause a ww3, but maybe a huge war.
- Iran- Same as above.
-Taiwan- Come on, this is a war waiting to happen. Taiwan doesn't have a lot of allies because of China, but an invasion would start some international outrage. No one wants a democratic country with a high standard of living to be sacked.
-India/Pakistan-Obvious.
-North Korea- China has historically defended Korea in general. While Russia make back out of there alliance, China might be hesitant. We've already seen the destruction north korea/China have done when they were both much weaker.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 12:00:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 10:28:55 PM, MrVan wrote:
At 1/24/2014 7:53:06 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
5. North Korea
4. China
3. Russia
2. Iran
1. Israel

I never really considered North Korea to be a likely candidate to start WWIII. Yeah, they have nuclear weapons, could cause a lot of damage, and kill a lot of people, and a war with them would be extremely costly. However, they don't really have any allies which are really willing to risk confronting the US for their sake - at least not officially.

I was thinking the same thing as I was coming up with this list. You do have a point. However, there was a point where they were all over the news, threatening to nuke the west coast and testing missiles. Nowadays I don't take them as seriously, but I remember being scared a few years ago. They're still somewhat a threat.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 3:29:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 6:08:04 AM, MrVan wrote:
Initially I wasn't sure if I should have put this on the 'politics' forum or the 'society' forum, since both topics have a habit of being so interchangeable at times (to me, at least). I ultimately decided to put it on 'politics' because the topic involved foreign relations and decisions made by different governments.

List five countries which you believe will most likely start World War III, with number five being the least likely and number one being most. Justify why each country is deserving of being on your list. Feel free to critique and comment on other people's posts.

Here are mine:
5. Israel- An 'unofficial' nuclear state, Israel is surrounded by mostly hostile Islamic countries. It has no problems assassinating individuals abroad which it considers threats and has openly threatened Iran with military action. A war between Iran and Israel could incite a region-wide conflict in the Middle East, leading to more powerful puppet nations getting involved in order to protect their assets abroad. If Israel were to go to war with an Arab state, other Arab nations may feel more emboldened to fight alongside them against Israel- with similar results. Though, Israel itself probably has little to worry about, especially considering China, the US, and Russia would all probably be more than willing to back it.

Even if an Israel-Iran conflict could incite region-wide conflict in the middle east, you have offered nothing which leads me to believe that Israel is likely to start a war with Iran (or any other middle eastern nation). Btw. assassinations do not imply war, nor do they lead to it. Your understanding of Russo and Sino-Israeli relations is a bit shortsighted, too.

4. Iran- Unlike the other countries on this list, Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. What it does have is a psychotic supreme leader and a religiously-charged government. Iran has expressed willingness to shut down the Straight of Hormuz, which 2/5 of the world's oil supply is ferried through, in case of a conflict with Israel or the United States.

Willingness to shut-down the Strait of Hormuz does not mean that Iran is at all likely to start WWIII. Btw. when the US first imposed major sanctions on Iran, Dempsey said it would take the US military about ten minutes to "re-open" Hormuz and contain any Iranian hostility, should the Revolutionary Guard (the only military outfit in Iran willing to tango with the US) decide to act boldly. So, shutting the Strait of Hormuz not likely to lead to war of any kind. Moreover, Iran's military weakness would require two or three days worth of strategic strikes before Tehran would be crippled to wreak further harm on anyone or anything within its reach.

3. Russia- A nuclear power with a deep-seeded dispute with the United States. Like China, it also claims certain east-Asian islands of it's own and has flown planes into other countries' airspace. Russia has an aging military systems which could become more susceptible to compromise and risk launching nuclear weapons.

This has absolutely no basis in reality, because Russia is probably the least likely to start a war with any other country out of all the countries on this list because Russia has experienced negative population growth for the past two decades and therefore doesn't have the manpower to actually fight a war -much less an incentive to start one -especially of the magnitude that would impel the world into conflagration. Even still, your reasons do not lead to the conclusion that Russia is at all likely to start any war.

2. People's Republic of China- China has the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, and has a tense relationship with the United States. On top of that, China has several disputes with other east-Asian countries involving border lines and disputed islands in the China Sea. In recent years it has taken up a policy of flying into other country's airspace, aggressive naval standoffs, and inciting rhetoric.

China is a semi-developing country well on it's way to full industrialization. War of any kind that involves China comes directly at the expense of China's economic interests, and therefore not only is it exceedingly unlikely that China will start a war of any kind that it is involved in, but a close examination of Chinese foreign/economic policy yields the conclusion that China is very likely to actively resist and quell any kind of military belligerency. Your ranking here, like all your others, has no basis in reality.

1. United States- The US is a nuclear superpower with a knack for getting caught up in the conflicts and affairs of other nations. It has a hostile political relationship with China and Russia, and is viewed in a less than favorable light by the majority of the populations of most Islamic countries. The US has also shared it's nuclear stockpile with other countries, like Germany, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Belgium. It also has an almost imperialistic military presence all over the world, including several which surround China in countries like Japan, Guam, Kyrgyzstan, South Korea, and Pakistan.

The US and China are not hostile with one another and even though Washington is not pleased with Moscow at the moment, that does not mean that Russo-American relations are hostile. Whether the US is viewed favorably abroad, what defense pacts it shares, etc in no way impacts the extent to which the United States is likely to go to war. The fact that the United States projects its power abroad, rather, acutely decreases the probability that it will go to war due to its overwhelmingly strong global presence. Even still, the United States, like China, not only is not likely to start a global conflict, it is most likely to sharply avoid any large-scale military conflict because doing so comes at the expense of domestic/economic priorities.

--

I don't think the OP here probably has much of a background in IR/global security, etc., so it makes sense that this is wholly nonsense. This list is baseless, and to the extent that other people endorse it, they reveal their ignorance. There are conflicts going on right now that could result in near-global implications, but none of those conflicts take place in countries presently on this list.
Tsar of DDO
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 4:24:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Please name one time China has invaded another country without provocation. (Other than the Khan era)
0x5f3759df
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 6:47:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 4:24:12 PM, Bullish wrote:
Please name one time China has invaded another country without provocation. (Other than the Khan era)

http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 6:51:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 4:24:12 PM, Bullish wrote:
Please name one time China has invaded another country without provocation. (Other than the Khan era)

Some more:

http://en.wikipedia.org...(1765%E2%80%9369)

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, Qing China turned Tibet into an administrative region, something the CCP has mimicked.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm sure there's a lot more.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 7:35:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 6:47:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/25/2014 4:24:12 PM, Bullish wrote:
Please name one time China has invaded another country without provocation. (Other than the Khan era)

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Starting from the bottom:

258 BC: Van Lang - The article didn't mention China once (other than the fact that the country's only reliable history is recorded in Chinese text), and states at the end, clearly, that it was the Au Viet tribe that conquered them.

221 BC: An Duong Vuong - No mention of China invading Vietnam either. In fact, the link said the Viets invaded China: "[Au Lac] was a talented general who knew how to exploit the confusion and turmoil in China during that period, not only to grab a piece of land for himself..."

Not going through the rest...

If you'll notice, the only other language your Wikipedia article had in was anglicized Vietnamese ("Tieng Viet"). This is a significant source of bias, since there are tons and tons of Asian nationalism around this time.

I'll admit that "name one" is a bit arrogant. But the point of the matter is, putting China on the list, yet not, say, France, is headshake inducing.
0x5f3759df
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 7:41:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 6:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/25/2014 4:24:12 PM, Bullish wrote:
Please name one time China has invaded another country without provocation. (Other than the Khan era)

Some more:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, Qing China turned Tibet into an administrative region, something the CCP has mimicked.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm sure there's a lot more.

I forgot to exclude the Qing, another "non-Chinese" dynasty.

Tibet was incorporated into China, for all intents and purposes, the way South Carolina was incorporated into the United States. Suppressing an extremest independence movement isn't an invasion. I have rather strong opinions about Tibet and I'd be glad to talk about it.
0x5f3759df
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 7:47:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 7:35:19 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 1/25/2014 6:47:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/25/2014 4:24:12 PM, Bullish wrote:
Please name one time China has invaded another country without provocation. (Other than the Khan era)

http://en.wikipedia.org...



Starting from the bottom:

258 BC: Van Lang - The article didn't mention China once (other than the fact that the country's only reliable history is recorded in Chinese text), and states at the end, clearly, that it was the Au Viet tribe that conquered them.

You gotta go up the food chain. The Au Viet were invaded by the first Chinese dynasty, the Qin dynasty.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

221 BC: An Duong Vuong - No mention of China invading Vietnam either. In fact, the link said the Viets invaded China: "[Au Lac] was a talented general who knew how to exploit the confusion and turmoil in China during that period, not only to grab a piece of land for himself..."

You may be right, I don't know much about Vietnam.

The point remains, China is as aggressive as any other nation.

Not going through the rest...

If you'll notice, the only other language your Wikipedia article had in was anglicized Vietnamese ("Tieng Viet"). This is a significant source of bias, since there are tons and tons of Asian nationalism around this time.

What about the Ten Campaigns under Qianlong?

I'll admit that "name one" is a bit arrogant. But the point of the matter is, putting China on the list, yet not, say, France, is headshake inducing.

IMHO it's warranted, although I understand your reasoning and agree with it.

I interpret your reasoning that any prominent Western country has a long history of initiatory violence, so to put China as #2 whereas these other Western countries get an ostensible free pass seems to be unduly biased.

However, most if not all of these prominent Western countries are currently occupied by the most prominent Western country, the US. All of these countries respect the hegemonic influence of America as superseding any traditional balance of power considerations in the region and globally. Basically, they're militarily impotent. This has been proven in nearly every major conflict post-WWII.

Given the military impotency of western Europe currently, Russia and China easily become #2 and #3.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 7:49:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 7:41:31 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 1/25/2014 6:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I have rather strong opinions about Tibet and I'd be glad to talk about it.

lol, unfortunately I cannot reciprocate. I don't know much about Tibet myself.

All I would say is that China is just like any other nation. Yes, it's been relatively more peaceful than Europe for most of its history, but IMHO that's more a factor of geography than culture. China really didn't have anywhere they COULD invade.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 8:10:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 7:47:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
IMHO it's warranted, although I understand your reasoning and agree with it.

I interpret your reasoning that any prominent Western country has a long history of initiatory violence, so to put China as #2 whereas these other Western countries get an ostensible free pass seems to be unduly biased.

However, most if not all of these prominent Western countries are currently occupied by the most prominent Western country, the US. All of these countries respect the hegemonic influence of America as superseding any traditional balance of power considerations in the region and globally. Basically, they're militarily impotent. This has been proven in nearly every major conflict post-WWII.

Given the military impotency of western Europe currently, Russia and China easily become #2 and #3.

Understood. Thank you.

All I would say is that China is just like any other nation. Yes, it's been relatively more peaceful than Europe for most of its history, but IMHO that's more a factor of geography than culture. China really didn't have anywhere they COULD invade.

I think it is culture. Even today, it is considered to be virtuous to defend a friend rather than family. China tends to be conservative, being one of the biggest government creditors in the world. Chinese dynasties also tend to be self-contained, contrasting to the dynasties in Europe. Granted, the size of China and it's relatively higher immunity from invasion than Europe may be the cause of this culture, instead of being implicit in the people.

This is an article about the biggest series of expedition in ancient history by China:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The first thing one would see is the word "treasure" in the article. But in contrast to what one may think, China is the one giving out the treasure.

"Chinese presence and impose imperial control" isn't the "beat you into submission then force you to plant cotton for us" kind. One will notice that the skirmishes in the section can all be said to be defensive. There are sources that say the foreign counties actively enjoyed Chinese imperialism, because the Chinese emperors tend to feel insecure, and give out lavish gifts regularly to show how rich they are.
0x5f3759df
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 8:15:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 7:47:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
However, most if not all of these prominent Western countries are currently occupied by the most prominent Western country, the US. All of these countries respect the hegemonic influence of America as superseding any traditional balance of power considerations in the region and globally. Basically, they're militarily impotent. This has been proven in nearly every major conflict post-WWII.

Interesting idea here. I haven't thought about it in this perspective, but it fits my view.
0x5f3759df
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 8:22:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 8:10:37 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 1/25/2014 7:47:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
IMHO it's warranted, although I understand your reasoning and agree with it.

I interpret your reasoning that any prominent Western country has a long history of initiatory violence, so to put China as #2 whereas these other Western countries get an ostensible free pass seems to be unduly biased.

However, most if not all of these prominent Western countries are currently occupied by the most prominent Western country, the US. All of these countries respect the hegemonic influence of America as superseding any traditional balance of power considerations in the region and globally. Basically, they're militarily impotent. This has been proven in nearly every major conflict post-WWII.

Given the military impotency of western Europe currently, Russia and China easily become #2 and #3.

Understood. Thank you.

All I would say is that China is just like any other nation. Yes, it's been relatively more peaceful than Europe for most of its history, but IMHO that's more a factor of geography than culture. China really didn't have anywhere they COULD invade.

I think it is culture. Even today, it is considered to be virtuous to defend a friend rather than family. China tends to be conservative, being one of the biggest government creditors in the world. Chinese dynasties also tend to be self-contained, contrasting to the dynasties in Europe. Granted, the size of China and it's relatively higher immunity from invasion than Europe may be the cause of this culture, instead of being implicit in the people.

See, here's the thing. America believes in almost the exact same moral principle you're outlining here. America also has geographical advantages that protect it, and for most of its history it was isolationist and non-imperialistic (outside of the Monroe Doctrine). Yet America is unquestionably extremely aggressive.

China is only now developing the technologies that would allow it to overcome the various geographical barriers that traditionally bound it to east Asia.

This is an article about the biggest series of expedition in ancient history by China:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The first thing one would see is the word "treasure" in the article. But in contrast to what one may think, China is the one giving out the treasure.

"Chinese presence and impose imperial control" isn't the "beat you into submission then force you to plant cotton for us" kind. One will notice that the skirmishes in the section can all be said to be defensive. There are sources that say the foreign counties actively enjoyed Chinese imperialism, because the Chinese emperors tend to feel insecure, and give out lavish gifts regularly to show how rich they are.

Ok, if you're going to discuss the Ming in any significant fashion, I would most definitely agree with you that the Ming specifically had a cultural aversion to invading and subjugating other countries. IMHO this had to do with an identity crisis, as China at this point was recovering from what nearly any calculus would be considered a near-impossibility - the conquering of China by a band of nomads. So, they sought out their "Chineseness" for lack of a better word. This is easily supported by observing the borders of the Ming...they did not add ANY non-Han peoples during that entire dynasty.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 8:36:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 8:22:04 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
See, here's the thing. America believes in almost the exact same moral principle you're outlining here. America also has geographical advantages that protect it, and for most of its history it was isolationist and non-imperialistic (outside of the Monroe Doctrine). Yet America is unquestionably extremely aggressive.

China is only now developing the technologies that would allow it to overcome the various geographical barriers that traditionally bound it to east Asia.

I have to disagree here.

First, although this is based solely on anecdotal evidence, American TV tends to portray selling out a friend for family to be the morally high decision, where as Chinese media (ancient and modern) all showcase presenting a good outer image while neglecting the inside. I can think of at least one example of in media of an American killing his friends for family (24), and a Chinese husband lending fortunes to his friends' business instead of sending his son to college being portrayed positively.

Second, the United States has only formed for 200 something years, and there is NO denying that the U.S. has driven out the Indians, conquered Mexico, and tried to invade Canada; America has a tendency to say "let's leave'em on their own", but then can't resist intervening. I'd say the reason that the U.S. haven't been globally aggressive until the 1900's is because there was so much loot on it's own continent.
0x5f3759df
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 8:41:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 8:36:41 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 1/25/2014 8:22:04 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
See, here's the thing. America believes in almost the exact same moral principle you're outlining here. America also has geographical advantages that protect it, and for most of its history it was isolationist and non-imperialistic (outside of the Monroe Doctrine). Yet America is unquestionably extremely aggressive.

China is only now developing the technologies that would allow it to overcome the various geographical barriers that traditionally bound it to east Asia.

I have to disagree here.

First, although this is based solely on anecdotal evidence, American TV tends to portray selling out a friend for family to be the morally high decision, where as Chinese media (ancient and modern) all showcase presenting a good outer image while neglecting the inside. I can think of at least one example of in media of an American killing his friends for family (24), and a Chinese husband lending fortunes to his friends' business instead of sending his son to college being portrayed positively.

Ok, I misread this part, but I'd have to ask you what relevance this has to the discussion?

Second, the United States has only formed for 200 something years, and there is NO denying that the U.S. has driven out the Indians, conquered Mexico, and tried to invade Canada; America has a tendency to say "let's leave'em on their own", but then can't resist intervening. I'd say the reason that the U.S. haven't been globally aggressive until the 1900's is because there was so much loot on it's own continent.

This all supports my perspective. Where the US could, it did act. Where China could, it did act, and will act.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 9:34:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 6:08:04 AM, MrVan wrote:
Initially I wasn't sure if I should have put this on the 'politics' forum or the 'society' forum, since both topics have a habit of being so interchangeable at times (to me, at least). I ultimately decided to put it on 'politics' because the topic involved foreign relations and decisions made by different governments.

List five countries which you believe will most likely start World War III, with number five being the least likely and number one being most. Justify why each country is deserving of being on your list. Feel free to critique and comment on other people's posts.

Here are mine:
5. Israel- An 'unofficial' nuclear state, Israel is surrounded by mostly hostile Islamic countries. It has no problems assassinating individuals abroad which it considers threats and has openly threatened Iran with military action. A war between Iran and Israel could incite a region-wide conflict in the Middle East, leading to more powerful puppet nations getting involved in order to protect their assets abroad. If Israel were to go to war with an Arab state, other Arab nations may feel more emboldened to fight alongside them against Israel- with similar results. Though, Israel itself probably has little to worry about, especially considering China, the US, and Russia would all probably be more than willing to back it.

4. Iran- Unlike the other countries on this list, Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. What it does have is a psychotic supreme leader and a religiously-charged government. Iran has expressed willingness to shut down the Straight of Hormuz, which 2/5 of the world's oil supply is ferried through, in case of a conflict with Israel or the United States.

3. Russia- A nuclear power with a deep-seeded dispute with the United States. Like China, it also claims certain east-Asian islands of it's own and has flown planes into other countries' airspace. Russia has an aging military systems which could become more susceptible to compromise and risk launching nuclear weapons.

2. People's Republic of China- China has the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, and has a tense relationship with the United States. On top of that, China has several disputes with other east-Asian countries involving border lines and disputed islands in the China Sea. In recent years it has taken up a policy of flying into other country's airspace, aggressive naval standoffs, and inciting rhetoric.

1. United States- The US is a nuclear superpower with a knack for getting caught up in the conflicts and affairs of other nations. It has a hostile political relationship with China and Russia, and is viewed in a less than favorable light by the majority of the populations of most Islamic countries. The US has also shared it's nuclear stockpile with other countries, like Germany, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Belgium. It also has an almost imperialistic military presence all over the world, including several which surround China in countries like Japan, Guam, Kyrgyzstan, South Korea, and Pakistan.

North Korea is much more likely than Israel or the US.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
MrVan
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 3:34:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 3:29:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/24/2014 6:08:04 AM, MrVan wrote:
Initially I wasn't sure if I should have put this on the 'politics' forum or the 'society' forum, since both topics have a habit of being so interchangeable at times (to me, at least). I ultimately decided to put it on 'politics' because the topic involved foreign relations and decisions made by different governments.

List five countries which you believe will most likely start World War III, with number five being the least likely and number one being most. Justify why each country is deserving of being on your list. Feel free to critique and comment on other people's posts.

Here are mine:
5. Israel- An 'unofficial' nuclear state, Israel is surrounded by mostly hostile Islamic countries. It has no problems assassinating individuals abroad which it considers threats and has openly threatened Iran with military action. A war between Iran and Israel could incite a region-wide conflict in the Middle East, leading to more powerful puppet nations getting involved in order to protect their assets abroad. If Israel were to go to war with an Arab state, other Arab nations may feel more emboldened to fight alongside them against Israel- with similar results. Though, Israel itself probably has little to worry about, especially considering China, the US, and Russia would all probably be more than willing to back it.

Even if an Israel-Iran conflict could incite region-wide conflict in the middle east, you have offered nothing which leads me to believe that Israel is likely to start a war with Iran (or any other middle eastern nation). Btw. assassinations do not imply war, nor do they lead to it. Your understanding of Russo and Sino-Israeli relations is a bit shortsighted, too.

4. Iran- Unlike the other countries on this list, Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. What it does have is a psychotic supreme leader and a religiously-charged government. Iran has expressed willingness to shut down the Straight of Hormuz, which 2/5 of the world's oil supply is ferried through, in case of a conflict with Israel or the United States.

Willingness to shut-down the Strait of Hormuz does not mean that Iran is at all likely to start WWIII. Btw. when the US first imposed major sanctions on Iran, Dempsey said it would take the US military about ten minutes to "re-open" Hormuz and contain any Iranian hostility, should the Revolutionary Guard (the only military outfit in Iran willing to tango with the US) decide to act boldly. So, shutting the Strait of Hormuz not likely to lead to war of any kind. Moreover, Iran's military weakness would require two or three days worth of strategic strikes before Tehran would be crippled to wreak further harm on anyone or anything within its reach.

3. Russia- A nuclear power with a deep-seeded dispute with the United States. Like China, it also claims certain east-Asian islands of it's own and has flown planes into other countries' airspace. Russia has an aging military systems which could become more susceptible to compromise and risk launching nuclear weapons.

This has absolutely no basis in reality, because Russia is probably the least likely to start a war with any other country out of all the countries on this list because Russia has experienced negative population growth for the past two decades and therefore doesn't have the manpower to actually fight a war -much less an incentive to start one -especially of the magnitude that would impel the world into conflagration. Even still, your reasons do not lead to the conclusion that Russia is at all likely to start any war.

2. People's Republic of China- China has the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, and has a tense relationship with the United States. On top of that, China has several disputes with other east-Asian countries involving border lines and disputed islands in the China Sea. In recent years it has taken up a policy of flying into other country's airspace, aggressive naval standoffs, and inciting rhetoric.

China is a semi-developing country well on it's way to full industrialization. War of any kind that involves China comes directly at the expense of China's economic interests, and therefore not only is it exceedingly unlikely that China will start a war of any kind that it is involved in, but a close examination of Chinese foreign/economic policy yields the conclusion that China is very likely to actively resist and quell any kind of military belligerency. Your ranking here, like all your others, has no basis in reality.

1. United States- The US is a nuclear superpower with a knack for getting caught up in the conflicts and affairs of other nations. It has a hostile political relationship with China and Russia, and is viewed in a less than favorable light by the majority of the populations of most Islamic countries. The US has also shared it's nuclear stockpile with other countries, like Germany, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Belgium. It also has an almost imperialistic military presence all over the world, including several which surround China in countries like Japan, Guam, Kyrgyzstan, South Korea, and Pakistan.

The US and China are not hostile with one another and even though Washington is not pleased with Moscow at the moment, that does not mean that Russo-American relations are hostile. Whether the US is viewed favorably abroad, what defense pacts it shares, etc in no way impacts the extent to which the United States is likely to go to war. The fact that the United States projects its power abroad, rather, acutely decreases the probability that it will go to war due to its overwhelmingly strong global presence. Even still, the United States, like China, not only is not likely to start a global conflict, it is most likely to sharply avoid any large-scale military conflict because doing so comes at the expense of domestic/economic priorities.

--

I don't think the OP here probably has much of a background in IR/global security, etc., so it makes sense that this is wholly nonsense. This list is baseless, and to the extent that other people endorse it, they reveal their ignorance. There are conflicts going on right now that could result in near-global implications, but none of those conflicts take place in countries presently on this list.

I can't say I really disagree with your critique, as brutally honest as it is. I've honestly spent the last few days trying to think of a way to counter your arguments, but I honestly couldn't only really think of one (I'll get to it later). You're also right about my expertise on the subject, as I have none! :DI have absolutely zero background in foreign military relations, I'm genuinely interested by it though.

I'd like to hear what countries or conflicts that you think have the potential to start something that could be classified as a 'world war'. So far, you've been swaying me into the camp that thinks the prospects of a third world war as extremely unlikely and not something to fret about. I started this thread on the "Doomsday Clock/five-minutes-to-midnight" camp.

I can't help but stand by my inclusion of Russia, China, and the US on my list though, because of their sizable nuclear stockpiles and the USA's willingness to let other countries 'barrow' nukes. These countries possess the largest stockpiles of nuclear arms, and are arguably the most capable of starting a nuclear holocaust (which may or may not be the same as a 'world war'; again, pretty interchangeable). Human error should especially be put into consideration, especially considering how many slip ups have actually occurred which have resulted in some pretty scary close calls!

Anywho, I look forward to your two-cents on the whole issue!

Source:
http://nuclearfiles.org...
MrVan
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 3:37:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I can't say I really disagree with your critique, as brutally honest as it is. I've honestly spent the last few days trying to think of counter-arguments to yours, but I honestly could only really think of one (I'll get to it later). You're also right about my expertise on the subject, as I have none! :DI have absolutely zero background in foreign military relations, I'm genuinely interested by it though.


There, all fixed! Sorry if you get confused reading the post above, I posted it by mistake before I could make the changes.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 3:56:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 3:37:52 PM, MrVan wrote:
I can't say I really disagree with your critique, as brutally honest as it is. I've honestly spent the last few days trying to think of counter-arguments to yours, but I honestly could only really think of one (I'll get to it later). You're also right about my expertise on the subject, as I have none! :DI have absolutely zero background in foreign military relations, I'm genuinely interested by it though.


There, all fixed! Sorry if you get confused reading the post above, I posted it by mistake before I could make the changes.

Nuclear weapons do not mean that a country is more likely to go to war. In fact, the opposite is the case -and there is ample data to support that. The reason is because the stakes of war are infinitely greater when nuclear powers skirmish. That's the reason why the cold war remained cold, and why the US, Russia, China, etc. will never war with one another.
Tsar of DDO
MrVan
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 1:08:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 3:56:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/27/2014 3:37:52 PM, MrVan wrote:
I can't say I really disagree with your critique, as brutally honest as it is. I've honestly spent the last few days trying to think of counter-arguments to yours, but I honestly could only really think of one (I'll get to it later). You're also right about my expertise on the subject, as I have none! :DI have absolutely zero background in foreign military relations, I'm genuinely interested by it though.


There, all fixed! Sorry if you get confused reading the post above, I posted it by mistake before I could make the changes.

Nuclear weapons do not mean that a country is more likely to go to war. In fact, the opposite is the case -and there is ample data to support that. The reason is because the stakes of war are infinitely greater when nuclear powers skirmish. That's the reason why the cold war remained cold, and why the US, Russia, China, etc. will never war with one another.

Great point! That wasn't really my argument though. It's my fault for trying to write like a "smart" person I guess, so I'll clarify; the potential for human error ( an alarm going off on accident, accidentally 'pushing the button', misunderstanding, etc.) resulting in a nuclear holocaust should be put into consideration when making your list. I'll concede that it's not likely, but even when you consider the fail-safes put into such systems, the unlikely event of all of them somehow failing would have devastating consequences.

I'm not sure if a nuclear holocaust would constitute a 'World War' though; but like I said in the above post, 'WWIII' and 'nuclear holocaust' are usually pretty synonymous terms.

I'm also curious about the conflicts you spoke of earlier that could potentially lead to potentially World War III-ish territory. Even if it isn't not the glorious 'Red Dawn' doom-bunker version of WWIII that Hollywood has to offer us, I'm still genuinely interested about conflicts you think could erupt into something on a global scale.