|
Thayendanegea
quiet walker



Registered: 02/20/12
Posts: 7,596
Loc: 7 Lodges Nation
|
Re: Alright, here's my theory about World War 3 [Re: PatrickKn]
#23662140 - 09/20/16 03:31 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Great points...but what if a hacker were to get into one of the surveillance computers and make it appear that there was a launch when there really wasn't? 7-10 minutes is not a lot of time to make a thorough evaluation ...there has already been one very close call because of misinformation.
It is a very scary world we live in and there are thousands of Islamic extremists that would love to do away with civilization. Lets hope they don't get that chance.
-------------------- Look Deep Into Nature,and Then You Will Understand Everything Better. Albert Einstein
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Alright, here's my theory about World War 3 [Re: Bodhi of Ankou]
#23662469 - 09/20/16 05:36 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PatrickKn said: Iran
I don't think Iran would last very long in a war with the US, Iraq also had a formidable Army, and that came to absolutely nothing. Occupations are always ugly, but in a conventional war I doubt they would hold out for long.
Same goes for N Korea, who were saved by the Chinese hoard last time around.
Quote:
Bodhi of Ankou said:
Quote:
Repertoire89 said: We can't go to war with Russia, because of MAD. Its a shame Putin isn't American.
I think the destruction of our ecosystem is more tangible threat than WW3
Personally I think that's going to be the primary cause. When coastal cities start getting wiped out in the next ten years all the strain and desperation is probably going to be funneled the same way it always is. Into war.
Could be, things are definitely going to change drastically when 2/3rds of the human population are starving or dying of thirst.
|
PatrickKn



Registered: 07/10/11
Posts: 20,564
|
Re: Alright, here's my theory about World War 3 [Re: Repertoire89] 2
#23662987 - 09/20/16 08:12 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Repertoire89 said:
Quote:
PatrickKn said: Iran
I don't think Iran would last very long in a war with the US, Iraq also had a formidable Army, and that came to absolutely nothing. Occupations are always ugly, but in a conventional war I doubt they would hold out for long.
Same goes for N Korea, who were saved by the Chinese hoard last time around.
Iran has an active duty force of ~550,000, with reserve force of ~1,800,000, for a total of nearly 2.5 million soldiers if attacked (for reference, the US has about 2.2 million total, and it would never commit that many to an invasion like that. Army policy is not to go into a battle unless there are 3 american soldiers to every 1 of the enemies anyway). That's not including a large police force. They have 50,000,000 more citizens than Iraq, and significantly more in number and more accurate anti-air defense systems in place. They are more ethnically homogeneous compared to Iraq, and would continue a fight long after their military is crippled ensuring a difficult occupation. Iran could be defeated in a world war scenario enough to cripple it and send it's remaining troops back home to await terms of surrender, but it cannot be invaded and occupied in it's current state. Especially when it's alliance with Russia and (to a now smaller extent) Syria is taken into account.
Granted, we have a far superior military than Iran. That's not up for debate - and yes we would destroy a large amount of their military capacities from afar before a ground invasion. However imagine a country the size of Germany buckling down it's defenses militarily, though with more soldiers, more tanks and more artillery capabilities and you begin to get a broad picture of why it's strategically impossible to attempt an occupation of it without instigating a world war effort to do so. We've barely been able to contain Afghanistan and Iraq, countries with considerably smaller populations, weaker military infrastructures and considerably different ethnicities living amongst each other (and with the support of half their countries while doing so!). Once Iran's military is destroyed, they would revert to guerrilla warfare and ware us thin until it effectively became a Vietnam scenario - except with near non-existent support from the inhabitants of the region. Imagine a fight not with 2.5 million soldiers, but with 15 million able bodied citizens forced to fight back.
On North Korea, yes they got saved by China. But you also need to realize that the Korean war was the deadliest war in terms of ratio for the American Army (other than the civil war) and the 5th deadliest war overall. We also were fighting with 20+ other countries after the North Koreans had pushed their military all the way down. The North Koreans were pushed out of South Korea, effectively counter-invaded. However an occupation of North Korea was not in the cards despite all of that. Occupations are much more extensive and deadlier for the aggressors than counter invasion and defense is.
Edited by PatrickKn (09/20/16 08:15 PM)
|
Bodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*


Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan
|
Re: Alright, here's my theory about World War 3 [Re: PatrickKn]
#23662997 - 09/20/16 08:16 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Absolutely brilliant breakdown of the geopolitics in the region
|
PartoftheSource
NAUT GUILTY



Registered: 05/27/15
Posts: 3,023
Loc: MIDWEST
Last seen: 5 years, 11 months
|
Re: Alright, here's my theory about World War 3 [Re: Bodhi of Ankou]
#23663207 - 09/20/16 09:08 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah - I agree.

Who was that guy?
-------------------- Shroomery Stickers!
|
Crystal G



Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 8 months, 6 days
|
Re: Alright, here's my theory about World War 3 [Re: Patlal]
#23663246 - 09/20/16 09:19 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Patlal said: In my opinion, here's what's gonna happen:
The minute China develops a decent navy and air force, there will be a big alliance between Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan. All with massive armies.
- North Korea will dessimate South Korea and secure that peninsula. - China's new navy and air force will chip away at Japan. - Chinese ground forces combined with the Pakistanis will roll over south east Asia and India. - Iran's entire forces will roll on the middle east. - Russia and Turkey will take over A large chunk of Europe - Upon seeing this, the Saudis will flip on their side and go after Northern Africa - Brasil will be the landing base for the Russian's and company
In the meantime,
- England and France will cling on to Western Europe - The US Navy will be over stretched - The US Air Force will fly to Japan and England - The Japanese will be tangled up with North Korea and China, essentially paralyzed.
And then suddenly, the world as we know it is gone.
All they are waiting for is for China to secretly build an navy and air force.

You should make a YouTube video claiming to be psychic and post it, that way if this comes true you'll get like a billion hits. Then you'll have clients from all over the world offering to pay you $500 an hour to have readings done by you. You'll be booked solid for an entire year and become rich!
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Alright, here's my theory about World War 3 [Re: PatrickKn]
#23663511 - 09/20/16 10:40 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PatrickKn said:
Quote:
Repertoire89 said:
Quote:
PatrickKn said: Iran
I don't think Iran would last very long in a war with the US, Iraq also had a formidable Army, and that came to absolutely nothing. Occupations are always ugly, but in a conventional war I doubt they would hold out for long.
Same goes for N Korea, who were saved by the Chinese hoard last time around.
Iran has an active duty force of ~550,000, with reserve force of ~1,800,000, for a total of nearly 2.5 million soldiers if attacked (for reference, the US has about 2.2 million total, and it would never commit that many to an invasion like that. Army policy is not to go into a battle unless there are 3 american soldiers to every 1 of the enemies anyway). That's not including a large police force. They have 50,000,000 more citizens than Iraq, and significantly more in number and more accurate anti-air defense systems in place. They are more ethnically homogeneous compared to Iraq, and would continue a fight long after their military is crippled ensuring a difficult occupation. Iran could be defeated in a world war scenario enough to cripple it and send it's remaining troops back home to await terms of surrender, but it cannot be invaded and occupied in it's current state. Especially when it's alliance with Russia and (to a now smaller extent) Syria is taken into account.
Granted, we have a far superior military than Iran. That's not up for debate - and yes we would destroy a large amount of their military capacities from afar before a ground invasion. However imagine a country the size of Germany buckling down it's defenses militarily, though with more soldiers, more tanks and more artillery capabilities and you begin to get a broad picture of why it's strategically impossible to attempt an occupation of it without instigating a world war effort to do so. We've barely been able to contain Afghanistan and Iraq, countries with considerably smaller populations, weaker military infrastructures and considerably different ethnicities living amongst each other (and with the support of half their countries while doing so!). Once Iran's military is destroyed, they would revert to guerrilla warfare and ware us thin until it effectively became a Vietnam scenario - except with near non-existent support from the inhabitants of the region. Imagine a fight not with 2.5 million soldiers, but with 15 million able bodied citizens forced to fight back.
I agree we couldn't practically occupy Iran, more speaking about a conventional war.
You make a good point about their population being more united in general, shock and awe was obviously a big deal in Iraq, likely because of the divisions and past defeats.
Quote:
On North Korea, yes they got saved by China. But you also need to realize that the Korean war was the deadliest war in terms of ratio for the American Army (other than the civil war) and the 5th deadliest war overall. We also were fighting with 20+ other countries after the North Koreans had pushed their military all the way down. The North Koreans were pushed out of South Korea, effectively counter-invaded. However an occupation of North Korea was not in the cards despite all of that. Occupations are much more extensive and deadlier for the aggressors than counter invasion and defense is.
Americans made up almost 90% of the UN forces during the war, and quickly decimated the Koreans upon landing. It was the Chinese that made the war bloody and drawn out.
I'm not for occupations in general. I think it would make more sense to defeat & disarm a nation, cripple their civilian infrastructure, impose a puppet government and blockade from a distance. Occupying on the ground requires more brutality than Westerner's are really capable of at the moment, total war and all that.
|
twighead
mͯó



Registered: 08/27/08
Posts: 29,560
Loc: Glenn Gould's Fuck Windmill
Last seen: 3 hours, 53 minutes
|
Re: Alright, here's my theory about World War 3 [Re: PatrickKn]
#23663714 - 09/20/16 11:43 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PatrickKn said:
Quote:
Repertoire89 said:
Quote:
PatrickKn said: Iran
I don't think Iran would last very long in a war with the US, Iraq also had a formidable Army, and that came to absolutely nothing. Occupations are always ugly, but in a conventional war I doubt they would hold out for long.
Same goes for N Korea, who were saved by the Chinese hoard last time around.
Iran has an active duty force of ~550,000, with reserve force of ~1,800,000, for a total of nearly 2.5 million soldiers if attacked (for reference, the US has about 2.2 million total, and it would never commit that many to an invasion like that. Army policy is not to go into a battle unless there are 3 american soldiers to every 1 of the enemies anyway). That's not including a large police force. They have 50,000,000 more citizens than Iraq, and significantly more in number and more accurate anti-air defense systems in place. They are more ethnically homogeneous compared to Iraq, and would continue a fight long after their military is crippled ensuring a difficult occupation. Iran could be defeated in a world war scenario enough to cripple it and send it's remaining troops back home to await terms of surrender, but it cannot be invaded and occupied in it's current state. Especially when it's alliance with Russia and (to a now smaller extent) Syria is taken into account.
Granted, we have a far superior military than Iran. That's not up for debate - and yes we would destroy a large amount of their military capacities from afar before a ground invasion. However imagine a country the size of Germany buckling down it's defenses militarily, though with more soldiers, more tanks and more artillery capabilities and you begin to get a broad picture of why it's strategically impossible to attempt an occupation of it without instigating a world war effort to do so. We've barely been able to contain Afghanistan and Iraq, countries with considerably smaller populations, weaker military infrastructures and considerably different ethnicities living amongst each other (and with the support of half their countries while doing so!). Once Iran's military is destroyed, they would revert to guerrilla warfare and ware us thin until it effectively became a Vietnam scenario - except with near non-existent support from the inhabitants of the region. Imagine a fight not with 2.5 million soldiers, but with 15 million able bodied citizens forced to fight back.
On North Korea, yes they got saved by China. But you also need to realize that the Korean war was the deadliest war in terms of ratio for the American Army (other than the civil war) and the 5th deadliest war overall. We also were fighting with 20+ other countries after the North Koreans had pushed their military all the way down. The North Koreans were pushed out of South Korea, effectively counter-invaded. However an occupation of North Korea was not in the cards despite all of that. Occupations are much more extensive and deadlier for the aggressors than counter invasion and defense is.
Occupations aren't really necessary for many war goals to be achieved though.. I mean what would the point of war with Iran really even be? As long as they don't have nuclear weapons and aren't invading neighboring states, war isn't really a necessity at all - and if they did have a strong nuclear program active - it would not require an occupation to destroy. Sure an occupation would probably be necessary if the goal was economic subjugation - but I don't think anyone could seriously be interested in that at this point.
Numbers are impressive on paper yes, and effective when unexpected - and the terrain of Iran is very difficult - however if the only goal in the war was a crippling of the state and military - it could probably be achieved without significantly entrenching the US in a long term situation - involving an occupation that is at least. The US has the power to significantly cripple their economy (and Russia's for that matter) even without physical weapons.
Case in point? Dem sanctions... and this isn't even considering the havoc we could wreck in combination with industrial cyber attacks as well.
We can fuck their countres hard without even firing a single shot.
|
|