Future wars and their geographic breakdowns

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1443
Future wars and their geographic breakdowns

As the world financial crises worsens I think that global warfare is inevitable. I've thought a lot about how that would break down and what the implications would be. I would like to see what your thoughts are on a few topics.

1. Israel. I've thought many times about what I would do if I were president (God forbid that would ever happen. It would usher in the apocolypse) about siding or not siding with Israel. My thoughts have nothing to do with religion just practicalities. If your position was to not to let Israel drag the US into a war then in all likelyhood once the Arab nations, and others, realized that Israel did not have the support of the US then I think they would be overwhelmed at some point. The downside for the US is that we would lose an ally and a dependable foothold in the middle east.

If we sided with Israel then we are basically along for the ride. If Israel decided to 'act' then we would be accomplices and would be guilty by association and all that goes with that. It seems like a lose-lose situation.

2. BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China). I think this alliance speaks for itself which means in case of an Israeli/ Iranian conflict the breakdown would most likely be: USA, Britain, Israel, Canada, perhaps Germany and maybe France after a long hold out. Against: China, Russia, India, Brazil, Iran and several other Arab nations, Perhaps even the batic areas since there is a high Muslim population there.

If you look at this line up it doesn't look good for the US. Yes we have a huge technical advantage but not the oil to sustain it. Our pool of soldiers is not as great in number as the Chinese or the Russians and I wouldn't count on the draft to make up the difference.

3. What would it be called? The war for oil, power, control? What a strange conflict. The conflict of 'sides'? Would it play out like the First World War? A blind allegiance to treaties with self preservation as a motivator?

I'm sure there are many more aspects. I'm curious to hear others thoughts on this topic, particularly Chris's.

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1325
Re: Future wars and their geographic breakdowns

Yes we have a huge technical advantage but not the oil to sustain it.

Even now, the US is still the 3rd largest producer of oil in the world.  So while we may have a shortage, I certainly think if necessary the US could carry out a rather large war.  If you include Mexico and Canada in the mix #6 and #7 then there's quite a bit of oil still floating around North America.  You would have it going for war and not consumerism.  We also have a lot of nuclear powered vessels with nuclear weapons.  So I don't think anyone would push the US into a corner, because ultimately the use of nuclear weapons would occur as a last chance scenario, something which I think none of the parties desires.

That being said, Iran has openly stated they want to wipe Israel out.  The question is, do they actually have the conviction to do that knowing that if pushed into the corner, Israel would clearly use nukes.

We are still fortunate enough here in the US to have a large amount of moderately usable land area (and resources because of it) for the number of people in the country.   If you look at Arable land, we are much better off than many countries, so baring war, we have a better chance of surviving on less energy than many parts of the world.

Here are some useful links to peruse while thinking about this stuff:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/geo_are_lan_percap-geography-area-land-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/agr_ara_lan_hec_percap-arable-land-hectares-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro-energy-oil-production

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

http://www.mint.com/blog/finance-core/mint-map-the-worlds-resources-by-country/?display=wide

For myself, I suspect we are going to see a breakdown of a large federal system when resources run out and you will move to more localized communities out of necessity all over the world. I believe the quicker that transition the safer we all become.  I would rather have many small government  entities than a few large ones.

rowmat's picture
rowmat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 15 2008
Posts: 358
PNAC - Project for the New American Century

http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

By the very same Neocons that brought you 911

'Rebuilding Americas Defenses' - Pages 62-63 wrote:

"...A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor..."

The above was published exactly one year before 911.

Download this...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

... read it and then many things will become MUCH, MUCH clearer.

rowmat's picture
rowmat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 15 2008
Posts: 358
'The Grand Chessboard' - Zbigniew Brzezinski

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives -  Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1997

'The Grand Chessboard - Zbigniew Brzezinsk wrote:

"The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power..."

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)

- "...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

- "Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

- "America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

- "That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)

- "The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

- "For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

- "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

- "The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)

Zbigniew Brzezinski is a current Foreign Policy adviser to President Barack Obama

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1325
Re: Future wars and their geographic breakdowns

That being said, Iran has openly stated they want to wipe Israel out.

Someone has sent me a private message taking issue with this statement.  So I did a bit of research since I have to admit I threw it out there based on things I have heard in the MSM.   I did find this and this which discuss the "wipe Israel out" comments we hear in the media.  So, I take back that portion and would instead simply say there is clearly conflict between Israel and it's neighbors .  I still believe that if Israel was faced with being toast or using nuclear weapons they would use their nukes as I suspect most countries would if pushed into a position with no other option.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments