WW III ?


PDA






2dogs
December 28, 2002, 12:17 PM
www.prolog.net/webnews/wed/ce/Qisrael-iraq-syria.RNVw_CDR.html

Is it me or is the world situation getting mighty creepy?

Does anyone else think that this is not going to be just U.S and Allies. vs Iraq- but also Israel and U.S. vs several Middle East countries, N. Korea vs U.S. and allies and maybe more. Are we looking at World War III?

Or is this paranoia? Reading too much alternative news?:rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "WW III ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MitchSchaft
December 28, 2002, 12:31 PM
I get that strange feeling, too, sometimes. Except I feel WWIII's cause would not be anything like WWII and I would not want to contribute.

Lennyjoe
December 28, 2002, 12:34 PM
Im feeling like my backside is hanging in the wind right about now. If we get involved in Iraq and North Korea gets aggressive who do you think is gonna get neglected.

US here thats who. Nato aint gonna do crap about North Korea either.

2dogs
December 28, 2002, 12:42 PM
Im feeling like my backside is hanging in the wind right about now.

Lennyjoe

I assume you are in the military, thanks for being there.

Seems lately I do hear talk of pulling U.S. out of S. Korea and letting them deal with their own- maybe your backside would be better off stateside.

Anyway, I keep getting this Barry McGuire "Eve of Destruction" feeling.............................:eek:

AZTOY
December 28, 2002, 12:43 PM
I can see kids in 2050 reading in school how pres Bush and North Korea started WWIII:(

Billll
December 28, 2002, 12:44 PM
I admit up front that this is a nitpick, but I saw WW3 as ending in '92 with the collapse of the Soviet empire. We are now in to WW4, which started with the first of Bin Ladens attacks on US embassies. Or would that be '84 with the attack in Beruit?

Gmac
December 28, 2002, 01:40 PM
2dogs, if you're paranoid that makes two of us. As a Vietnam vet politically somewhere to the the right of Attila the Hun I find myself strangely opposed to war with Iraq. I guess it's because I expect high American Casualty rates.

Jack19
December 28, 2002, 02:15 PM
I admit up front that this is a nitpick, but I saw WW3 as ending in '92 with the collapse of the Soviet empire.

I agree. But I see WW4 as having started in the late 60s/early 70s when Islamist terror went interntional. We're paying the price today for no one having the stomach to deal with them then. And, maybe we're still not......

Waitone
December 28, 2002, 02:56 PM
Several month ago when Korea out of the clear blue announced it had violate a previous "agreement" with the US and that it had X nuke warheads, I'll immediately thought Sadaam just sent Bush an advisory to check his six.

Can't think of a better way to distract a president who can't focus on more than one issue at a time.

Problem is, Korea is a situation that could go real bad, real quick, and kill a lot of people in a short period of time. Lessee here 1 million armed and grumpy Koreans within 5 miles of one another along a 150 mile front. One major capital within artillery range of the bad guys. An estimated 12 million civvies within arty range. North Korea with a society starving itself to death yet making nuke, chem, and bio weapons. The south in an appeasement mode. US with 35,000 troops trained to act like speed bumps. A Japan officially claiming to be non-nuke (something I've never believed), China with nukes and an historic love-hate relationship Korea (you define North or South). The US with plenty of unseen assets in theater. Russia with its historic interest in Korea and its natural resources coveted by China.

I get the willies just thinking how ugly it could get

PATH
December 28, 2002, 03:17 PM
You can be sure we'll be fighting somewhere soon. Probably in several places. Iraq, Korea, amd God knows where else.

We have been at war actually since 9/11! All Americans are now the enemy. We already are in WW4!

Jeff White
December 28, 2002, 03:52 PM
We are about to pay the price for gutting our defense establishment right after we won the cold war. Sometimes I think I was the only one saying that instead of a safer place, the world was going to become a more dangerous place.

Our armed forces, are at the lowest manning levels since before WWII. Even with the reservists that have been mobilized since 9/11. We are about to start the biggest mobilization since the first Gulf War to finish what we started in 1991. The other day Robert Strange Mcnamara err...I mean Don Rumsfeld told the world that we were capable of fighting two major regional conflicts simultaniously in response to the crisis on the Korean peninsula. My quaestion is, which conflict is he going to fight with conventional forces, and which with nuclear weapons? We don't have enough conventional forces to fight two major regional conflicts simultaniously, much less the airlift or sealift to sustain them.

The current administration has lied to the American people and the military, when they promised that help was on the way, after the 8 years of neglect under the Clinton administration. At the same time they are calling up reservists, they are proposing strength cuts and base closings in their budgets for the active forces.

We definately live in interesting times....

Jeff

JPM70535
December 28, 2002, 04:58 PM
As far as I can tell, this whole situation with Iraq stems from the US failure to finish the job started by Bush Sr. Had he listened to Stormin Norman instead of Colin Powell, Sadaam would be a distant memory, and we would have only N.Korea to deal with.

I served during the Cuban missle crisis where we came within a whisker of Nuclear war. If Kruschev had not blinked none of us might be here toay. I get the same feeling when I view the situation today. One wrong step by any of the radical nations in the middle east, including Israel and Nukes are bound to fly.
Add to that mix the always militant North Koreans who have no value for human life, and the independant militant sects and the scene is set for the final war.

Deadman
December 28, 2002, 07:32 PM
IMHO if global warfare is waged within the next few years ( cough, months, cough ), it won't just be the U.S. versus the 'axis of evil'.
It will also be India vs. Pakistan, China vs. Taiwan, Russia vs. the next Russian whipping boy etc, etc.
I.e. once something major occurs, it could well turn into a free for all across the globe.....


But then again I've been accused of being a pessimist in the past.... :p

Gordon
December 28, 2002, 08:39 PM
Taiwan will be invaded as soon as our hands are tied in Iraq and Korea. Why should we send one boy over anywhere when we have capability to totally eliminate threats from inside bunkers in mid west? Who will shoot back? Russia wont if we put them in Nato. I thought thats why we pay taxes for weapon technology since WW2? So that others may die for thier country! F*** sensitivity I want my moneyies worth.:mad:

2nd Amendment
December 28, 2002, 09:25 PM
Korea would love to do anything ugly they can. China would love to leap on Tiawan when we go after Iraq. China would love to leap into the Middle East if the conflict goes broad enough to involve Israel directly. The USSR(yes, I said the USSR) will happily jump to our aid against the hated Chinese. Then we still have to remember India and Pakistan. They haven't incinerated each other yet because the collective eye of the planet has been on their every stupid move. Give them the freedom of a moments' anonymity and watch them turn each other in to sheets of glass.

We've had reports of various outbreaks of Ebola this or that and smallpox around the Pakistani borders and we know that various nations and groups are playing with various biologicals and chemicals.

Let me see, who else is out there that would love to get in on this...

I won't sit here and say anything like "this is it" but I'll go far enough to say that I don't believe we have ever been in a more precarious position across this globe than we are today. I will say that as the nuclear option is acheived by more and more "weak" nations it becomes more assured that there will, eventually, be a serious nuclear clash. Is this the time? If not I don't think we're too far from it and I don't believe Bush is going to do much for our military to help us deal with it.

Frohickey
December 28, 2002, 10:54 PM
Seems like unfinished businesses of the past are now coming to haunt us... and all under GWB. Weird. :confused:

Iraq and Saddam Hussein should have been taken care of years ago. Maybe not immediately after the Gulf War, but as soon as first team of UN inspectors were being given the run-around. But by then, we had Clinton, who is big on appeasement.

North Korea, also started on Clinton's watch, when he sent Nobel Peanut Prize winner Jimmuh Carter to mediate an agreement with North Korea. Another appeasement deal.

Seems that people who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. Neville Chamberlain did the same thing with Hitler, and that got us WW2. If Chamberlain did not, and immediately got the English, French and Polish forces mobilized and chomping at the bit to kick some German posteriors, we wouldn't have had WW2. Even WW2 was a repeat of sorts... of WW1, when Germany was not fully dealt with.

Thing is, we have double the trouble now, and who knows which country will join Iraq/North Korea. I think Iran and Syria will join Iraq, and drag us into a Israeli fight. China will covertly join up with North Korea; easier for China to go get Taiwan back when our attention is elsewhere.

Blackhawk
December 28, 2002, 11:12 PM
There have only been 50 or so years of "peace" in the last several millenia. "War" is a normal state for nations, and it seems to migrate willy nilly.

When several large and militarily strong nations form opposing alliances and start mixing it up, we drag out the term "World War".

I agree that "WWIII" ended with the Cold War, which had its hot spots, including Korea, Angola, Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviet), and Persian Gulf I.

The Islamic nations don't rise to the level of "militarily strong" even if they have good equipment.

China qualifies, but the ChiComs have never been direct antoganists in a war, preferring instead to adopt surrogates. Their detent and cold war with the USSR kept them on edge for decades as they smelled the Russian Bear's breath down their necks. They're also aware of how close they came to having the Soviets take them out in 1969 as they developed nuclear tipped missiles. Had Nixon not gone to China and shared our intel with the USSR, the Soviets may well have launched their planned prophylactic nuclear strike against China. Point is that China doesn't seem to have any history of world wide military ambitions. Why should it? It's become a major manufacturer of goods for the capitalist countries and become capitalistic in the process.

Who else? Fact is that the U.S. alone qualifies as a large, militarily strong nation. The EU may achieve that status, but look what it requires. France and Germany agreeing? England and France agreeing? Europe is a bunch of nations who have never gotten along with one another, and the EU is an attempt to unify for economic reasons against the U.S. that formerly dominated their import markets. I wonder how many "Made in China" imports are floating around in Europe.

There will be wars and rumors of wars just as there have been for millenia, but a hot World War? I think not. The U.S. would be obligated to use its nuclear arsenal against any viable enemy, and that first strike policy was institutionalized by Bush just last year.

Billll
December 28, 2002, 11:24 PM
Re: WW4: There's a really (!) good book covering the worlds current conflicts, including a detailed description of all the principals, overt and covert. It's called "A quick and Dirty guide to War" by Dunnigan and Bay. It's updated annually, and covers everything from the big and obvious, to writeups on fringe groups such as the Texas Independence movement. Well worth the money.

Re: N.Korea: There's nothing in N.Korea that couldn't be taken care of for the forseeable future with, at most, 2 laser guided bombs into the Plutonium facility they're reopening. The Israilis did exactly that to Saddam a few years back. Did it "enrage Iraq and all the rest of the Arab world?" Sure. Were they noticibly more enraged than they were before? NAH!

2nd Amendment
December 28, 2002, 11:33 PM
Blackhawk, China has always been an introvert nation. With the arrival of a Capitalist veneer and the past threat of the USSR that has changed. They are looking outward much more today than ever before. You can no longer judge China solely on its' past. It's very much a new nation and a new game.

As far as militarily strong nations, that's a big part of the problem. it's why things are so much less stable and impossible to predict today than ever before. "Weak" nations increasingly have ways of projecting force by unexpected methods. Methods that our world view would never consider legitimate. We have to think outside the box of our moral constraints and when you start to do that things start to look a lot more dangerous.

I'd much prefer the days of a few strong nations holding sway over the rest who know their place, as much as they may have chafed against it. Today that "place", they increasingly believe, is where ever they wish to put themselves. Nukes and biologicals and "terrorism" open up the doors for them to accomplish just that. Add in simple opportunism and we have a volatile mix like nothing before.

It's that double edged sword of technology.

Drizzt
December 29, 2002, 01:37 AM
I know how you're feeling on this, 2dogs. I remember, during the first go around over the the Gulf, wondering if Israel was going to respond to the Scud attacks. If they had, the coalition probably would have come apart, and the next big scuffle started right there. You gotta figure, the Soviet Union was in it's death throes, but could have easily stumbled into the whole conflict, if they thought it would put them in good with the Arab countries. When the Scuds started falling in Israel was the only time I got even mildly concerned during the whole shindig.

Blackhawk
December 29, 2002, 02:54 AM
2nd Amendment,

China may have a 200 million man army producing toys for the West, but they're basically going to have to walk to where China choses to deploy them. It doesn't have a blue water navy of consequence nor does it have the requisite air lift capability nor the capability of defending its transportation assets enroute.

Irrespective, what would China's end game be? IOW, why bother military adventurism in the face of getting China turned into hot glass? Manaical despots aren't China's style, and those in power are doing quite well as things are.

NK's nuclear braggadocio is sort of like the airhead who claimed to have cloned the first human baby. It makes no sense for NK to take the position it has except to bluff to get favored treatment. It's idiotic to claim you WILL have something the world fears beforehand. Keep it secret until you've tested it, then you're a power to be reckoned with.

Iraq's regime is the target. Everything else is a distraction.

2dogs
December 29, 2002, 08:48 AM
It makes no sense for NK to take the position it has except to bluff to get favored treatment.

Blackhawk

Am I wrong - didn't N Korea have fairly favored treatment during the Klinton years?

As for the Chinese, they do not seem to be reinvesting their "toy making" money into upgraded toy making facilities, but they do seem to be upgrading their military quite a bit while flapping their wings about Taiwan, and running the Panama Canal. They seem mighty busy for the impotent lot they are.:)

2nd Amendment
December 29, 2002, 08:52 AM
Blackhawk, you're discounting, if not underestimating, your enemies. That's an often fatal mistake. I'll just leave it at that.

Nah, no I won't.

How much mobility does China need to meddle in the Middle East? Exactly what it has now. To crush Tiawan? Exactly what it has now. To nuke Russia forward to the Stone Age? Exactly what it has now. Why? To control the Middle East and it's oil, thus directing a large amount of global policy. To kick the stufing out of the loathed Russians. To end the insult of Tiawan. To thumb their noses at the Big Kid on the block, US, and say "We are here now, deal with it".

China can't hit us. Probably. That means little in the big picture. China has content old men. So what? The above reasons and more are better reasons than those for most of the aggressive moves made by nations over the course of history. And, again, you assign Western Values of contentment to these old men who find them alien.

I don't know what's goign to happen but I guarantee you it's going to be outside the box we're accustomed to.

2dogs
December 29, 2002, 09:00 AM
2nd Amendment

"There is no greater disaster
than underestimating your enemy.
Underestimating your enemy
means loosing your greatest assets."

Sun Tzu

Well put.

Blackhawk
December 29, 2002, 01:17 PM
2nd Amendment and 2dogs,

Your opinions are eminently credible, but like mine, they're just opinions.

We are better erring on the side of your opinions than mine if we must err at all.

However, I'm sticking by my opinion previously expressed.

Blackhawk
December 29, 2002, 01:27 PM
2dogs wrote:Am I wrong - didn't N Korea have fairly favored treatment during the Klinton years? It sure did plus Jimmy Carter recently placed a big wet kiss on NK "where the sun don't shine" in certifying that it wasn't working on nukes.

However, NK is still in the throes of famine, it can't pay for its army, and the country is destitute. IOW, the favored treatment it has gotten hasn't helped make its problems tolerable.

Out of its desperation, it must make something change or it will inevitibly collapse. Bluffs are much cheaper to run than actually developing and deploying the nuclear capability it claims to have.

Bragging about such capability before the fact smells like a dangerous bluff. NK may indeed soon get nuclear weapons that were "Made in the U.S.A." delivered courtesy of the USAF or the USN.

Strings
December 29, 2002, 07:19 PM
... that being, "What will the effect be here in the US?".

You're probably right... China is probably unable to project force across the Pacific to CONUS. However, ther HAS been discussion of all the various potential factors ALREADY WITHIN CONUS that could add to any conflict. While I'm not saying those factors would be acting on China's behalf, they could easily have an impact that would be favorable to China...

cratz2
December 29, 2002, 09:59 PM
All I know is I think our guys stationed in Korea are WAAAYYYY underpaid right about now... :(

Gordon
December 29, 2002, 10:04 PM
I think we could get all 30,000 sodiers and 20,000 Us civies out in a week if the ROK pres keeps talking US imperialism. He would be begging for US to use laser guided bombs on plutonium refineries with in a week and they would apreciate US for another 40 years.:cool:

Zorro
December 30, 2002, 02:43 AM
Screw Surgical Strikes.

Strategic Nukes on the Factories.

That would set a precident that THREATS! of Nuclear weapons will be treated as POSSESION! of Nuclear Weapons, with intent to use them.

Makes the Bluff Fatal. Not just a Tactic.

And Jimmy Carter is an World Class Idiot, the stupidest that the USA has ever produced.

johnr
December 30, 2002, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by PATH
You can be sure we'll be fighting somewhere soon. Probably in several places. Iraq, Korea, amd God knows where else.

We have been at war actually since 9/11! All Americans are now the enemy. We already are in WW4!
That's pretty much the way I see it. I've had a gut feeling which started last Spring that things were going to get real nasty, real quick.

2nd Amendment
December 30, 2002, 10:42 AM
You're entirely right, Blackhawk, that all this is just our opinions. I truly hope yours are right and mine wrong, too. But I can't get past the gut feeling this time that we're opening, or allowing to be opened(or just watching it open itself) a Pandoras Box of devastation.

During the Gulf War I kept hearing various people talk about the fear they had that it would blow up into a global confrontation. I was open to the possibility, sure, but I never believed it. I didn't see it going anywhere because the time didn't "feel" right. Not enough nations in a position and with suifficient grudges to get the job done. No gut feeling. This time, though, I can't shake it and I have even less faith in this Bush than I had in the last one.

2dogs
December 30, 2002, 10:48 AM
I didn't see it going anywhere because the time didn't "feel" right. Not enough nations in a position and with suifficient grudges to get the job done. No gut feeling. This time, though, I can't shake it

2nd amendment

You've pretty much summed up what I was trying to get at- there are too many hot spots to be ignored, and the "gut" feeling that something is in the air. Hopefully we are both wrong- and Saddam and the boys will roll over easy as can be and we're done.

Blackhawk
December 30, 2002, 11:31 AM
This time, though, I can't shake it and I have even less faith in this Bush than I had in the last one. That may be the difference, 2A.

I have more confidence in GWB than I've ever had in a president. A major reason is that he's trained as an administrator instead of a lawyer or politician as his dad is. After watching him as the Texas governor and seeing his ability to get opposing factions together to get things done (like CCW laws), I thought he would be able to succeed on the national stage.

We're both ex military pilots, me in combat, and he not, but any combat pilot will tell you that the enemy actively trying to kill you is a VERY small part of flying the machines. Point is that to succeed in the training and survive the experience, you have to learn a LOT about yourself, life, systems, and the law of unintended consequences. In flight school, it used to chap me that crashes were almost always attributed to "pilot error." Later on, I found out that was right. The pilot generally made a mistake at point 23 of the flight which crashed at point 174. Unintended consequences!

GHWB got sucked in by lying politicians time and time again. GWB seems to know they're lying, all of them, and squeezes the good stuff from them anyway.

GWB seems to understand the exigencies of war AND THAT WE ARE IN A WAR far better than most of the rest of us. For the first time in our history, Americans live in a war zone, and there's no reason to like it. I think a lot of the things being done are stupid and short sighted in the way they're handled (airport security, for one), but the objectives are clear even though the people actually doing and managing the projects are still incompetent. They're learning, as we all are.

Zoomies have to come to terms with a few things following which they realize that there are far worse things than dying. For example, having your crippled plane crash into a school if you eject. I think most of us agree with Molon Labe in that becoming enslaved sheep is a fate worse than death. Everytime you strap on a military aircraft you must be mentally prepared to accept the consequences, whatever they might be.

The U.S. has never been able to accept foreign domination or mental domination by those seeking to enslave us mentally, but we're dangerously close to the latter. I lived not far from the Nevada Test Site where they were setting off atomic bombs regularly in the '50s. No big deal. An A bomb is child's play compared to an H bomb. You have to MASTER the first to get a ticket to consider the second. NK, Iraq, and the other pretenders to the Nuke club may be close to A bombs, but not to H bombs much less delivery systems. IMO, the threats are manageable, and that's what GWB is doing as rapidly as possible while being ceaselessly hounded by U.S. politicians and citizens alike.

But you've hit on the key point: Do we trust Bush? I do, as much as is appropriate. Others don't. Would I want to live in a country that submitted to blackmail or refused to use its power for getting and keeping humans free? Highly doubtful.

If this is "IT" as regards Armageddon, Molon Labe. However, I believe that destruction will come about only in God's own time, and there's nothing we can do about that. In the meantime, we just have to do the best we can with what we've got. YMMV.

Russ
December 30, 2002, 12:23 PM
Things are so volitile these days, who knows what combination of events will set it off. Noitce I say "will". Man has been warring with one-another since time began so why stop now. These times seem more perilous to me than times past. Too many flash points. However, had I lived in Europe or some parts of Asia during WWII, I would have thought that Armageddon was here.

moa
December 30, 2002, 01:21 PM
According to at least one security expert I saw recently on TV, a big fear is that North Korea will start making nuclear weapons and start peddling them around the world the way it does its missile technology today.

The North Koreans are blackmailing the world.

North Korea is destitute and will probably do anything to make money.

ruger357
December 30, 2002, 02:06 PM
North Korea has me worried.

Viking6
December 30, 2002, 02:09 PM
I read an article almost a year ago about some Chinese colonels developing a strategy of using cyber-warfare to attack the US, bank accounts, stock market, etc. The scenario being played out right now is dangerously close to one of Clancy's more recent novels where a couple of countries did a little "divide and conquer" routine against ol' President Jack Ryan. I had a discussion at a get together the other night with some other couples and they were ringing their hands over the current sit and how little Donnie Rumsfeld wanted to rule the world. I don't like this squat not one little bit (Iraq, AQ, NK, et al) but we didn't throw this party. But, if we stay strong and resolved, we'll drink the last round. It ain't easy, being right often isn't. I also have trust in President Bush and that's from the gut.

2dogs
December 30, 2002, 02:23 PM
And there is still this mess:

"NEW DELHI, India (AP) -- India has accused Pakistan of becoming a terrorist hub and says Islamabad is doing little to curb attacks by Islamic militants in Indian-controlled Kashmir. "

How about Venezuela?

The cauldron is bubbling folks- stand by.

Cosmoline
December 30, 2002, 02:23 PM
I'm reminded of the buildup to WWI much more than the buildup to WWII. Either way, it's scary. Here's the worst case scenario as I see it:

--Powell's "nice and easy, there" approach to North Korea fails, and they arm a few atomic bombs. Maybe just little ones for firing out of artillery. GW then pulls Powell off the case and starts taking a hard line, threatening this and that unless North Korea gives up the bomb and complies with a bunch of other demands. The North Korean leaders, most of whom are a LOT nuttier than your average Moonie, decide the Day of Purification has arrived and it's time to return to Year Zero or somesuch. Off go the a-bombs and there goes about a million people, including lots of US Marines.

--We respond by erasing North Korea, or a large portion of it quite near the Chinese border.

--Chinese civilians are killed in the fallout, and China declares war on the US.

--In the mean time, Sadam, who has escaped ouster, starts launching scuds and maybe chemical warheads at Israel. The US declares war on Iraq, as does an impatient Israel. Jordan and Egypt break ties with Israel and declare support for Iraq.

--During all this, most of Europe refuses to support us due to our "cowboy overreaction" and NATO is on the verge of collapse.

--In the mean time, Pakistan and India start going at it again over Kashmir. This time, with no superpower able to intervene, they come to blows, possibly exchaning atomics and nukes. India cleans Pakistan's clock, one way or the other. The Arab world decries India's brutality and they break ties.

--Things go down hill from there. China probably tries to re-take Tawain. Possible repeat of the Korean War over control of Korea, only with more radiation in the air.

2dogs
December 30, 2002, 02:26 PM
Here's the worst case scenario as I see it:

Cosmoline

When the movie comes out- no doubt you will have written the script.:D

Bahadur
December 30, 2002, 06:41 PM
All this hysteria over North Korea, China, "WWIII" or whatever else the ratings-seeking hyper-media are selling this evening is precisely the reason why people ought to read more and watch less TV. And when I say "read," I don't mean a two-page Web "exclusive" on why North Korea will initiate "WWIII" either.

Let's look at these things rationally for a minute:

China:

Can China threaten US security? Yes, it surely can. As a significant regional power, it can disturb the balance of power in East Asia and create instability (though without the ability to actually threaten CONUS save for a handful of highly inaccurate ICBMs).

Does China threaten US security? No, it does not (and certainly not in the conventional sense). First of all, as others pointed out, PRC has no power projection capability. Its air force is largely incapable of mid-air refueling. Despite the hooplah over a handful of showcase units made up of EXPORT versions of Su-27's, its air force is largely obsolete while its pilots are woefully undertrained.

Nor does the PRC have any kind of a serious amphibious capability. It is currently incapable of mounting an amphibious assault on Taiwan unless the PLA sees the "million man swim" as a viable strategy.

Sure, all this does not mean that China is not modernizing its forces. It is. But our force modernization is proceeding MUCH MUCH faster. Furthermore, the core concern of the PRC leadership is not Taiwan (though that always remains on the backburner). Its main focus is the preservation of the communist power monopoly while China passes through a precarious economic transition in the WTO era.

North Korea:

North Korea can cry about "weapons more powerful than atomic bombs" all it wants, but it remains a third-rate starving nation with an obsolete military force (in the mean time, its neighbor, and our close ally despite the recent political fracas, ROK is deploying fourth-generation MBTs and soon F-15K's). The only thing North Korea has is its ability to damage Seoul in the early phase of any potential conflict.

That's a mighty tenuous one-shot bolt to hold on to for the North Korean leadership. If it values its personal survival (which it most certainly does), it is unlikely to fling that last bolt.

The latest provocation is merely the rantings of a sad, pathetically desperate regime playing word-games to extort more aid - which it is unlikely to get from an American president with any modicum of backbone. Even the ROK government, which played up the cheap anti-American angle to win the recent presidential election against a conservative, pro-American opponent, is now "condemning" the "dangerous provocations from the North."

Cyber Warfare:

What about the "cyber warfare" stuff? "Information warfare" as its advocates call it, is certainly a worthy aspect of warfare to study. The fact is that the US is the single most dominant military power in the world today, and that dominance is increasing (even over our European allies). In a not-too-distant future, I expect the US military to deploy fully designed and implemented CUAVs and other drones (air, sea, land and space).

Our enemies and potential enemies comprehend this superiority and understand that it would be foolish to fight us conventionally. They'd simply be blown away to kingdom come. It, therefore, follows that they seek assymetrical ways of fighting us (9/11 attacks being an example). To that extent, the PLA planning staff exploring non-conventional means of combating the world's top dog is not that odd or threatening.

It is often said by "cyber warfare" alarmists that complex societies are more vulnerable to cyber warfare. What they often neglect to tell is that complex societies are also more resilient, because of built-in redudancies within the networked society. In fact, the (more primitive) societies with hierarchical systems are much more vulnerable in information warfare than complex, networked societies.

In that sense, our information warfare capabilities are substantially deeper than others in the world, PRC included. As Pearl Harbor, and the destruction of the Pacific Fleet, was but a single battle in a wider war, an "electronic Pearl Harbor" will not be the first and last battle of any so-called Cyber War either. In such a struggle, we are more likely to triumph than not.

Being a fan of Sun Tzu (I happen to own a collection of several different versions and volumes of Sun Tzu) and an early advocate and scholar of information warfare, I try not to underestimate the opponent, but overestimation of one's potential enemies is just as dangerous. Recall that Sun Tzu advocated sound understandings of both one's own capabilities and that of one's opponents.

Monkeyleg
December 30, 2002, 06:53 PM
Bahadur, that was great. Are you perhaps looking at Powell's job? ;)

Bahadur
December 31, 2002, 02:00 AM
Monkeyleg:

Naaahhh. I'm looking for Condi's job when she runs for president in 2008! :)

Thanks for the compliment.

Glock Glockler
December 31, 2002, 12:28 PM
Bahadur,

As far as asymettrical warfare goes, would the best way to harm the US be for countries that normally horde US currency and treasury bonds to dump them into the market and go to something else, like gold perhaps? I hear that the Arab countries are thinking about going to a de facto gold standard backed currency for international trading.

What could these and other economic warfare tactics do to our national security?

2dogs
December 31, 2002, 12:41 PM
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=23FDTUL3KPNKICRBAEKSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=1978147[/URL]

Not to beat a dead horse here folks, but this is not a good thing to throw in to the boiling stew.

U.S. Bombs Hit Pakistan Town After Border Clash
Tue December 31, 2002 09:53 AM ET
BAGRAM, Afghanistan (Reuters) - The U.S. military bombed an abandoned religious school on Pakistani territory after a gunbattle between U.S. and Pakistani troops on the border with Afghanistan, Pakistan officials said Tuesday.
The U.S. military said that one of its soldiers had been wounded in Afghanistan Sunday in an exchange of gunfire with a Pakistani border guard. A Pakistani official said two border guards were also injured.

Pakistan is a close U.S. ally in the war on terror and says it has stationed 60,000-70,000 troops on the Afghan border to help track down remnants of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and leaders of the Taliban regime that sheltered them.

The wounded American was part of a unit conducting a mission with Pakistani forces along the Afghan border when a disagreement appeared to break out, according to a statement released by the U.S. military at their Afghan headquarters at Bagram air base.

"A Pakistani border scout opened fire with a G3 rifle after the U.S. patrol asked him to return to the Pakistan side of the border," the statement said.

"That individual and several others retreated to a nearby structure," it added. "Close air support was requested and one 500-lb bomb was dropped on the target area."

Mohammad Khurshied, a local official in Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal area close to the Afghan border, later told Reuters that a seminary in the Pakistani town of Angor Adda had been hit by U.S. warplanes.

A Pakistani intelligence official said two bombs were dropped on Pakistani soil, but he reported no injuries.

Haji Anar Gul, a businessman in the area, added that the bombs fell on a religious seminary known as the Maulvi Mohammad Hassan madrassah, damaging its boundary wall and main gate.

The U.S. military said the incident happened near the Afghan village of Shkin, which lies on the border with Pakistan.

"We are working with the Pakistanis for an accurate battlefield damage assessment from the incident," it said.

According to Khurshied, a series of talks between U.S. and Pakistani military officials on the border had resolved differences surrounding Sunday's incident.

The U.S. statement did not give details of the joint U.S. and Pakistani mission or say whether it was taking place inside Pakistan or Afghanistan.

U.S. forces patrolling eastern Afghanistan for al Qaeda fugitives say they cooperate with Pakistani forces on the other side of the border, but do not cross into Pakistani territory to pursue fugitives.

The U.S. statement also did not say what the Pakistani border guard was doing inside Afghanistan.

The wounded soldier was flown to Germany for medical treatment and is in stable condition, the U.S. military said.


Musharrif had best watch his back.:uhoh:

Cool new smilies- the OMG wouldn't work though.

Bahadur
December 31, 2002, 01:57 PM
Glock Glocker:
As far as asymettrical warfare goes, would the best way to harm the US be for countries that normally horde US currency and treasury bonds to dump them into the market and go to something else, like gold perhaps?Alas, most of the US currency and T-bonds are held by allies like Japan, the UK and Germany whose economic interests are largely to tied those of ours.

Besides, what would they do with their own mounds of currency if they "cash out"?

2dogs:

The story is not that odd. Waziris exist on both sides of the Afghan-Pak border. The national boundary exists in name only in that particular part of Pakistan.

2nd Amendment
December 31, 2002, 03:02 PM
This is another of those things I get tired of. Discuss possibilities and someone is always there to pop up with some version of "hysterical".

The world is in a situation it has never been in before. Possibilities we can't imagine can occur. We regularly heap our own world view and morals on others as reasons this or that won't happen. The fact is we live in perhaps the most interesting times in history right now. Considering the possibilities doesn't make me hysterical and realizing there are a lot of nuts with great power who look at the world from an angle I can't even recognize doesn't make me fringe.

Bahadur
December 31, 2002, 08:41 PM
2nd Amendment:
This is another of those things I get tired of. Discuss possibilities and someone is always there to pop up with some version of "hysterical". Don't be so hysterical! :evil:
The world is in a situation it has never been in before.Unless you think history is cyclical, the world is ALWAYS in a situation it has never been in before.
Possibilities we can't imagine can occur.True enough. 9/11 rang a lot of people's bells, mine included (I was busy looking at information warfare, WMD and transnational organized crime).
The fact is we live in perhaps the most interesting times in history right now.Then again, I bet a lot of people through various historical periods thought that they were living in "the most interesting times in history."
Considering the possibilities doesn't make me hysterical...Considering possibilities does not. Consider bizzarre possibilities with low chances of occurrence does. Hey, then again, you are crazy when you spout bizzarre theories... until you are proven to be right.

Be that as it may, I tend to think that discussions like this one are better served by cold, rational calculations and estimations of possibilities based on reliable information rather than sensational stories gathered from television news or 2-paragraph Web "exclusives."

gtmerkley
June 12, 2008, 10:36 AM
Who starter this thread back up? I want to Know

Tribal
June 12, 2008, 10:42 AM
...and what does it have to do with "Legal" ?

bogie
June 12, 2008, 10:42 AM
We're already in WWIV...

WWIII was the cold war.

I think we're going to see a bunch more "war by proxy" stuff going on. A small nation funds "deniable outside forces" to get ahead.

China has figured out that it is easier to buy than to invade. And both our conservative right and our liberal left ignore their internal pogroms.

Eventually, some nutjob is going to actually be coordinated enough to do something with a nuke or biohazard, and we're going to end up with a population telling our leadership to either glass the country it is traced back to, or to get out of the way.

Art Eatman
June 12, 2008, 11:32 AM
ot. way ot.

If you enjoyed reading about "WW III ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!