Will there ever be a heavy-weight military clash?

timshatz · 01-10-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

That is an interesting idea.

Yeah, that's what I figured. Read an article that the reason Bush hired an Admiral as his top spy was because of a possible scenario such as this. Wanted somebody with a Naval backround, considering where to send intelligence assets with regards to the Persian Gulf getting hot.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-10-2007, 01:51 PM

The Persian Gulf getting hot? When has it not been hot?

timshatz · 01-11-2007, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The Persian Gulf getting hot? When has it not been hot?

Good one

Was trying to figure that one out and I think the last time the area wasn't hot was before Cain whacked Able. From there on in it's been downhill.

Had another thought about China having and the Persian Gulf. If the US and Allies were to blockade Iran after firing off a nuke, one Chinese response to a slow strangulation of it's economy would be Naval. Odds do not favor them much, they do not have much in the way of an ability to project power. In short, the Aircraft Carrying ships are not mature nor is their doctine. Goes for the rest of their Navy. Have a ways to go.

But they could hurt the US big time by simply not buying Treasuries. Worse, they could start dumping them. Even worse than that, they could start demanding payment in Euros. It is all a long shot but desperate times would call for desperate measures. The cumulative affect of such actions would be worse than the Great Depression. And it would spread around the world.

Just a thought.

HealzDevo · 01-14-2007, 08:55 PM

For them to dump treasury bonds would damage them as well. The US is the main market for Chinese exported goods, therefore China while it could hurt the US economically would also be shooting itself in the foot at the same time. Also this would assume that European Union would allow them to switch to Euros and remain friendly with China, which I don't think they would. The EU would want China damaged as punishment for all its dumping of cheap goods onto EU markets. There are very few countries that would actually be for China if it started anything. China would be in a situation very similar to Germany in WW1 and WW2 where it has very few effective allies. Russia is no longer there as a power and has had a frosty relationship with China. North Korea is like Italy in WW2, a lot of passion and spirit, but probably will fight and then end up needing China to save them when things get hairy. Plus North Korea has to worry about South Korea and Japan... North Vietnam has to worry about a lot of the same issues... All in all those are the main Allies of China that might seem like an asset at first but then when you drill down are possibly liabilities....

timshatz · 01-15-2007, 08:00 PM

Good point about China being a lot like the Kaiser's Germany of 1890s. Very close in terms of political systems, economic strength and expanding military power. I believe Germany was in a better spot militarily, but it is just splitting hairs. All in all, the parrallels work.

Getting back to the shutdown of the Persian Gulf Scenario, I don't believe China would willingly get to such a place. It has more to lose than win in such a situation. But, my thoughts that it would be place in a spot where it either sided with one of it's major suppliers of Oil or one of one of it's major Customers. I question the Chinese Govt allowing weakness to be shown in allowing the US (or any other Country) to control the inflow of raw materials to it's economy. It could be domestic political suicide.

Neither the US or China would want such a scenario. For both, it is a loser. True, it is only a possible occurence. Far fetched but possible. But most situations where large wars have occured happened because a nation's interest were threatened, in either real or imagined circumstances. Germany in WW1, Japan in the Pacific War, ect. Things get out of hand fast. Dumping the bonds, attacking the US Fleet, Attacking into Siberia, all would be acts of desperation.

HealzDevo · 01-15-2007, 10:20 PM

Yes, exactly Timshatz, they would all be acts of desperation. I was just attempting to analyze the historical background that is relevant. The Persian Gulf has a lot of trouble yes. It has been ages since there has been the same trouble in the Mediterrianian except for one little island disputed between Greece, and Turkey, there has not been a conflict in the Mediterrianian since WW2, and even that one was minor. Well a known conflict anyway... The Balkans is another area with a troubled history that has a lot of problems even to this day, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, and others, come to mind.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-17-2007, 02:08 PM

and most of the long standing conflicts all over the world come down to religion- how much simpler life would be without it!

mkloby · 01-21-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

and most of the long standing conflicts all over the world come down to religion- how much simpler life would be without it!

Man is a passionate creature. If man was as passionate about anything as he is about religion, then conflict would arise from that in similar proportions.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-21-2007, 04:32 PM

Lanc has a point though. Religion has been the cause or a major part of every war that has been fought on this planet.

I know what I believe in, but who is to say who is right?

Matt308 · 01-21-2007, 08:27 PM

Religion is not the cause of violence. But rather Man's search for reason of existence. Philosophical debate captured back to Socrates exemplifies these soul searching discussions and debates. Remove religion and Man will continue to philosophize about superior oversight of will and morality. Whether those who worship an anthropomorphic superior being or those who worship the all benevolent government. Irrespective, if you don't believe appropriately, you will either be made to believe, stifled or eliminated.

Have a nice day.

HealzDevo · 01-21-2007, 09:40 PM

Reminds me of the Borg. "You will be assimilated. All resistence is futile." A group mind entity that couldn't tolerate real diversity in thought. I suppose though that in some ways that is the keystone of the human race...

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-23-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

I know what I believe in, but who is to say who is right?

i think most people think the winner of a conflict hence they keep fighting.........

HealzDevo · 01-23-2007, 10:29 PM

If there is another World War, chances are it would come from the Balkans area of Europe, considering that two previous wars have come from there... As for who would be involved it would definitely involve the EU. France might be on the opposite side from Britain and hopefully the rest of the EU going by its recent form in opposing measures like Iraq and its underhand dealings there... Kosovo, Bosnia, and Yugoslavia, Gorgia are all places where there is a lot of tension that could spill over at any time...

timshatz · 01-24-2007, 09:34 AM

Think that might be a stretch. Only if Europe goes broke or the unassimilated populations get their panties in a bunch. Otherwise, status quo will rule and Europe is one big beaurocratic mess. What, with the EU and each individual Nation, Province, Commune, City, ect with it's own set of rules and stamps (God do the Euros love stamps), the paperwork to START a war will never get done.

Think the next one will come out of the Far East (or roughly in your neck of the woods Heazldevo). Wealth is building fast and putting pressure on countries to get what they need for their economies. Add in a long history of fighting each other, a bunch of semi-repressive governments and exploding populations, accumulations of wealth and you have the right mix. How it will happen is anybodies guess but the Spratleys or other offshore rights will be a stepping stone. See how that and Tiawan play out (also how China handles a developing middle class in the middle of a Communist society) and you'll have a good line on it.

davparlr · 01-24-2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Lanc has a point though. Religion has been the cause or a major part of every war that has been fought on this planet.

??? I need an expansion on this. Exactly how large a part did religion play in Russo-Japanese, WWI, Spanish Civil War, WWII, Korean War, and the Vietnam War? Religion is often used by a tool of the power greedy because it causes a rise in emotion, but that does not mean it was the cause. And, just because the opposing side have a different religion, does not mean it is a cause. It is idiotic to think that war would not occur or would not be as violent if religion was not involved. Remember the two biggest monsters of the twentieth centry, Hitler and Stalin, were athetist (although Hitler may have been a occultist). Even the war in Northern Ireland is not religious, other than as a tool of those who hate, but rather a deep dislike based on historical subjugation. No authentic Christian philosophy, Catholic or Protestant, approves violence. Religion does provide a certain separation, or grouping, which people readily use to vent fustrations, bad luck, poor economy, and just about anything. This is a basic fault of people not of religion. If there was no religion, people would find some other reason to blame someone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lancaster

and most of the long standing conflicts all over the world come down to religion- how much simpler life would be without it!

Of course, just look at how peaceful and simple life was in the athetistic Soviet Union under Stalin and China under Mao and other non-religious leaders.

When studied in detail, most religions are anti-violent, certainly Christianity ("let us love one another, for love is of God", "turn the other cheek", ad infinitum), if one takes the time to understand it. To blame religion for man's violent behavior is bigoted or uninformed.