I don't think the US needs their oil. Personally, I think we could get by with Russian, Canadian, and South American oil an let the other parts of the world fight it out for the Middle East. If that isn't enough we could always tap our own reserves. God knows we find oil in different parts of the country every 10-20 years.
World War III
- Thread starter polaris dude
- Start date
Yep, that is exactly how I figure!!!
and besides, who would want to try and sort out this giant cluster we have gotten ourselves into?
My take....
The limited skirmishes in the middle east will not constitute a "world war." To have a world war you need somewhat equal sides that can somewhat fight to a standstill and hence need allies to help tip the war in their favor. I think the US has shown that even the best army in the middle east (Iraq) was no match to the US when we were fighting a total war and not some limited engagement situation.
Where I see it happening is N Korea. Something will happen there that will cause the US to feel the need to intervene. China will no doubt not want the US meddling in their part of the world. And that is how the skirmish will start. All the major players will choose sides and eventually as all wars do it will lead to a war over natural resources. Oil being the main one. Look how the US got pulled into ww2. Japan was running low on oil and wanted to shore up resources in the pacific.
The big difference now though is that china is already a manufacturing giant. Its not terribly hard to make the switch from producing random products to producing weapons and other war needs.
However none of this will ever happen until china either produces nuclear weapons or steals them. The threat of nuclear annihilation by the US has kept many a crazy dictator from going to war with us.
The limited skirmishes in the middle east will not constitute a "world war." To have a world war you need somewhat equal sides that can somewhat fight to a standstill and hence need allies to help tip the war in their favor. I think the US has shown that even the best army in the middle east (Iraq) was no match to the US when we were fighting a total war and not some limited engagement situation.
Where I see it happening is N Korea. Something will happen there that will cause the US to feel the need to intervene. China will no doubt not want the US meddling in their part of the world. And that is how the skirmish will start. All the major players will choose sides and eventually as all wars do it will lead to a war over natural resources. Oil being the main one. Look how the US got pulled into ww2. Japan was running low on oil and wanted to shore up resources in the pacific.
The big difference now though is that china is already a manufacturing giant. Its not terribly hard to make the switch from producing random products to producing weapons and other war needs.
However none of this will ever happen until china either produces nuclear weapons or steals them. The threat of nuclear annihilation by the US has kept many a crazy dictator from going to war with us.
what ruff said lol. But yes resources are important and as China gobbles them all up it becomes a concern for sure. The only issue is at some point the people are gonna get mad at their poor treatment/wages and demand was is due to them. At this point there will be a civil war and their economy will come crashing down.
Just for the sake of argument. When we invaded Iraq they were considered to have the 4th largest army in the world before the first desert storm.
The incredible logistical success of deploying over 500,000
troops and their equipment in record time into an austere environment was only overshadowed by the mechanized blitz that reduced the Iraqi army “from the fourth-largest army in
the world to the second-largest army in Iraq in 100 hours.”
Quoted by Capt Les Melnyk of the US army. But what does he know
My bad on the china thing. I actually meant N korea, was typing a little too fast and my rant went overboard.
He is just a captain... lol. Everything that I can find shows 300k troops maximum during the invasion then drawn down to about 200k coalition forces. Also, I have no idea where the info about Iraq with the 4th largest army in the world... they only had about 400k troops when we invaded.Just for the sake of argument. When we invaded Iraq they were considered to have the 4th largest army in the world before the first desert storm.
The incredible logistical success of deploying over 500,000
troops and their equipment in record time into an austere environment was only overshadowed by the mechanized blitz that reduced the Iraqi army “from the fourth-largest army in
the world to the second-largest army in Iraq in 100 hours.”
Quoted by Capt Les Melnyk of the US army. But what does he know
This is current sizes.. Sort by total.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel
Note the size of Iran almost 4 million total troops. We didn't take out the big dog in the middle east.
I think Nuclear weapons are more of a status thing. No one seems to listen to countries that don't have them, so it is deemed important for countries to get them. Funny that we are so worried about other countries and nukes yet history shows that we were the only ones to actually use them on other countries... on their cities no less.
Yah, I must have missed you were talking about pre Desert Storm era. Sorry.
Interesting to note that the Iraq army was so large due to the US govt giving out loans and equipment to Iraq in order to aid them in defeating Iran in the Iraq - Iran war. I guess we blew up the Iraq tanks that we paid for?
Weird how the world works..
We are just as bad as big corporate companies. They always pay both sides off so that way they always win.
We pay for our allies which is just disgraceful. We are like the kid no one likes but he pays for everything so the rest of the world tolerates him for that reason. but once the money dries up suddenly we wont have any friends anymore.
We pay for our allies which is just disgraceful. We are like the kid no one likes but he pays for everything so the rest of the world tolerates him for that reason. but once the money dries up suddenly we wont have any friends anymore.
The next conflict will be with N Korea or Iran. If it leads to the 3rd world war, that is unknown.
I think the big players realize the risk, and that they get more done being nice with each other vs. duking it out.
Also, World War II saw the end of the colonial powers. Unless it is in Africa or a 3rd world country with no freedom and little value for human life. I dont think we will see the boarders change very dramatically anymore. To much risk for rebellion and anarchy.
As soon as N. Korea gets power hungry. Although N. Korea will act the hardass untill they run low on food, as they do not have enough food grown in the country to feed everybody, they import large amounts.
The other scenario is, as soon as a tanker in the gulf is attacked by Iran, you can expect things to happen VERY fast.
Last scenario is Pakistan & India. Both have hated each other for over 50 years. Trade shots daily. And India has nukes...
I think the big players realize the risk, and that they get more done being nice with each other vs. duking it out.
Also, World War II saw the end of the colonial powers. Unless it is in Africa or a 3rd world country with no freedom and little value for human life. I dont think we will see the boarders change very dramatically anymore. To much risk for rebellion and anarchy.
As soon as N. Korea gets power hungry. Although N. Korea will act the hardass untill they run low on food, as they do not have enough food grown in the country to feed everybody, they import large amounts.
The other scenario is, as soon as a tanker in the gulf is attacked by Iran, you can expect things to happen VERY fast.
Last scenario is Pakistan & India. Both have hated each other for over 50 years. Trade shots daily. And India has nukes...
As does Pakistan!
Thats true too! Honestly, I would love to see a large scale conflict that the US isn't a part of. Then we could sell arms to both sides
.
Thats true too! Honestly, I would love to see a large scale conflict that the US isn't a part of. Then we could sell arms to both sides
Like we tried to do with Iran - Iraq... Though we ended up going to war with one of them.. and maybe the other...
I think the US needs to get out of the arms business... funny how these are still "Made in America"... lol
Why? Its a profitable business. I'd like to see America get out of the police business.
Don't those two statements go hand in hand?
no. Look at all the countries that deal arms but couldn't care less how they are used.
Similar threads
