[ReverseEngineer]

In all times of economic distress, War is often the Option taken. Clearly we are in economic distress, clearly also there are numerous flash points around the Globe which could prove a jumping off point for WWIII.

So, let us hypothesize here in this thread that War is coming. Tere are currently numerous skirmishes around the world, any one of them could be a springboard to World War, but its also possible it comes from some place currently not on the Map of things to consider.

What are the most likely WWIII Scenarios right now? How will the Obama Administration sell the War, and how will the reintroduction of the Draft be handled? To what age will the intitial conscription go, and what size army will we be trying to put together here? Will the Unemployed be selectively drafted over the currently employed? Will we put together a Million Man Army like the Chinese? 20-30 year olds in the first wave, or do you go 20-50, taking unemployed people of any age where they can still fire a gun? Men and Women equally, or are mostly men conscripted? What will be the rationale for the war, what will be the announced Objectives?

What Alliances might be formed? Might the Ruskie Gangstahs and Wall Street Bankers team up to fight the Chinese? Will Christians and Muslims team up to fight off the Buddhist Horde? LOL.

Anyhow, plausible scenarios for how WWWII might ignite inside the next couple of years and how it will be sold politically, financed and fought are all questions to be addressed in this thread.

Reverse Engineer

[anarky321]

1) war
2) revolution

those are the only options they will have. guess which one they will pick

when ww2 started capitalism was rumored to be a dying system, one that would not survive much longer; never has it faced another such threat since then....until now. pray for war...a revolution will be much more brutal

[ReverseEngineer]

1) war
2) revolution
those are the only options they will have. guess which one they will pick
when ww2 started capitalism was rumored to be a dying system, one that would not survive much longer; never has it faced another such threat since then until now. pray for war...a revolution will be much more brutal

Granted as true for the purposes of this thread, but the philosphical discourse does not answer the questions of Where, When or How the War will be initiated, sold or fought, which is the main thrust of this thread.

Insofar as the relative brutality of Revolutions and Wars, that could be debated in another thread. Feel free to start one, I will participate. Lets keep this one to the nuts and bolts of how WWIII initiates and progresses.
Reverse Engineer

[anarky321]

im of the opinion that it's going to be massive amounts of proxy wars, not a ww3. the idea of ww3 was doomed when nuclear weapons were created. doesnt mean we can't have so many proxy wars that they cover the entire planet

i can't make a good prediction of where the fun will start and honestly i dont think it even matters where and when, its pretty much a certainty at this point. when economics fail, guns come out to play

[ReverseEngineer]

im of the opinion that it's going to be massive amounts of proxy wars, not a ww3

We already have the proxy wars going, but they aren't sufficient to bring home the bacon, and they also don't motivate the population to self sacrifice, as fighting the Nazis did in WWII.

In order to massively motivate the population to go to War (as opposed to internally fighting in a Revolution), you have to identify some common enemy that everyone in your society can hate, and then you have to sell the conscription.

At some point here I do not see these Proxy wars as being sufficient to quell the internal unrest, so you have to escalate to more genearl warfare. The question is upon whom do you make the war, and how do you justify it to the population in such a way that you can get them to fight it?

Revere Engineer

[anarky321]

the best motivator to fight is hunger. also coincidentally the biggest motivator to protest. they wont be able to support millions of unemployed on welfare which means the numbers of volunteers to enlist is going to soar

if they increase the military size by 5mil and send them all over the world to fight proxies that will do a great job of quelling the unrest at home and at the same time boost the military-industrial complex and make jobs in the only sector that really matters in the long run

the US has a comparative-cost advantage in fighting wars, this is pretty much the only thing we do well anymore, and we WILL use that advantage to the fullest. with the price of oil what it is now, its almost a crime not to fight more wars

[Kristen]

I jus't don't see it in the cards. People in the United States are too divided for one common theme to bring them together. The U.S. also has a huge aging population. They're simply isn't enough people to send to the field. Also people are compacent with their sedimentary lifestyles. You jus't can't break that.

I'm no fortune teller so your guess is as good as mine.

[ReverseEngineer]

if they increase the military size by 5mil and send them all over the world to fight proxies that will do a great job of quelling the unrest at home and at the same time boost the military-industrial complex and make jobs in the only sector that really matters in the long run

5M is an impressive size military machine to be sure, but since even with debt financing we haven't been able to equip our 150K Iraq troops with good Kevlar, just how are we going to send out 5M Soldiers to fight a war? In their BVDs?

If we can't feed said soldiers at home, and this is the motivator to get them to join the military, just how the heck are we going to ship them MREs half a world away in numbers like 5M?

If we wait so long as to use Hunger as the motivator, you would be in the Revolution scenario, not the War scenario. You can only use the War scenario so long as there is sufficient food to both feed your military troops overseas, plus feed the workers back here producing bullets and other hardware to keep your troops moving and shooting.

So, the impetus to war has to come BEFORE we actually descend to the point of inability to feed the population as a whole. I think we still have a good couple of years before we sink that low here in the US.

A manufactured Terrorist Attack of course could be a motivator, but the Believability Quotient is low now after the fiasco of 9-11. The Ruskies might play into the game by say embargoing Oil to the EU, in which case you could see EU and American Troops trying to march on Moscow. A small Nuke detonated in some city, delivered by a container ship and a tractor trailer easily would motivate the population to go to war against whoever the Nuke was attributed to, regardless of if this was true or not. This is a scenario I see as highly likely.
Reverse Engineer

[SuperTico]

It'll start like they all do. False flag ops by the CIA (Corporate Industrial Army), the worlds largest "Terra riss" organization in the world.
It obviously will involve Iran which is a heavy partner with Russia,China and Venezuela (yes, but they provide 20-25% of our oil.) It aint gonna be pretty.....

[EnergyUnlimited]

What are the most likely WWIII Scenarios right now? How will the Obama Administration sell the War, and how will the reintroduction of the Draft be handled? To what age will the intitial conscription go, and what size army will we be trying to put together here? Will the Unemployed be selectively drafted over the currently employed? Will we put together a Million Man Army like the Chinese? 20-30 year olds in the first wave, or do you go 20-50, taking unemployed people of any age where they can still fire a gun? Men and Women equally, or are mostly men conscripted? What will be the rationale for the war, what will be the announced Objectives?

If there is conscription, I would expect following:
1. Draft of men only but women would be allowed on their own request if fit enough.
2. First wave: Men of age 18-30 for combat. Older men are in overwhelming proportion not fit enough these days albeit age group 30-40 would be sent to work for supply lines.
Fortunately I am 40 next year.
3. Men of age 40-60 for territorial defense.

Obviously those with essential skills would rather work in industry.

What Alliances might be formed? Might the Ruskie Gangstahs and Wall Street Bankers team up to fight the Chinese? Will Christians and Muslims team up to fight off the Buddhist Horde? LOL.

Amazing as it might sound but I expect Russian-Chinese alliance against widely understood West.
Russian job would be to provide annihilating power which Chinese are certainly lacking at the moment and Chinese survivors (lets say 10% of their current population) would provide a Genghis Khan alike invading force to conquer remaining ruins of the West.

West would not be able to retaliate successfully against such alliance due to vast Russian land resources compounded with lack of extensive nukeworthy infrastructure - not many obvious targets to nuke. Chinese would provide human resources to make final genocidal onslaught of any survivors in the Western Europe.

They could not invade US but about 90% of Russian and Chinese nuclear warheads would end up there, so there would not be much to invade anyway. Few Inuits could survive on Alaska, maybe few Mormons in Utah and that's about it. American counterstrike could not make anywhere near amount of damage in Russia because of vastness or Russian land and lack of many population centers.

Anyhow, plausible scenarios for how WWWII might ignite inside the next couple of years and how it will be sold politically, financed and fought are all questions to be addressed in this thread.

It will be similar to WW I situation. System will cease to work, peoples will gradually realize that there have to be a war and after some time war will erupt. It may begin as American invasion in some arbitrary location on the world (hence initial drafts etc), but it will quite fast proceed towards General Nuclear Solution.

[ReverseEngineer]

Working on the assumption of a No Nukes War, I project it as being fought predominantly on the Europe/Asiatic Continent, although there will be a component going in North and South America as well.

How the Alliances form up will be the most interesting question. One would figure on the EU to hook up with the Ruskies, with tank battles across Siberia with the Chinese. The Chinese would also be taking on the Indians over the Himalayas, a two front war they would surely lose. However, they may try to buck up the Mexicans for a takeover of Texas, with men and machines if they can get them across the Pacific without either being blown out of the water by cruise missiles or taken by Pirates. LOL.

Iran and Iraq will be caught in the crossfire between the Chinese and the EU/Ruskie Union. The Chinese will then turn on their Mexican buddies and ask the US to help them secure the Middle East against the EU/Ruskie Union. The EU/Ruskie Union will then fund the Hosers in Canada to invade the US. There will be a pitched battle across Alberta for the Oil fields, and then hand to hand Guerilla fighting in the Yukon between Alaskans and Hosers. The Alaskans will then turn to the EU/Ruskie Union and switch sides mid battle.

Africa and South America will be left twisting in the wind. The Rainforest will come back, the people left will be Headhunters once again.

The war will stop when we have around a 50% die off, and run out of bullets and gas for the tanks. Then each of these areas will gradually rebuild independently, with further die off over time to perhaps a total population on Earth of around 100M.

In Poland, EU will be King of a Feudal Estate, running a successful economy based on Prostitution. In Alaska, RE will be Chief of a tribe of Nomads roaming the Yukon in search of Caribou and Elk, fishing for the Salmon until it is time to give himself up to the Bear.

And they All Lived Happily Ever After

Reverse Engineer

[galacticsurfer]

On 15th Nov. I wrote following: link

The worst fears for world peace must necessarily come from China, with the largest population and massive industrial and military production, and from the USA, with largest world military and a large youth population. Both countries are of continental size with very large populations comparatively. In comparison any European countries, Japan, Korea, Vietnam can't be expected to initaite a war alone. Most European and Asian countries are old demographically. People in thmost of these countries are relatively highly educated and used to urban life.

Chinese are mostly just up from the farm, like we were in the 20s and 30s during the Great Depression with less formal education. Factors speaking against war is the large umber of massively spoiled single children in China comprising almost an entire generation. People are supicious towards central government. China has a long history of civil wars every century. Perhaps this would be a more likely scenario but could end with the winner uniting the country in an outward push for global domination.

However Siberia is too much and the Himalayas. Perhaps through Burma and Bangladesh to India and the Middlea East would be possible and like Ghengis Khan north over Caucasus to Ukraine and Russia would be a plan for conquest. A massive investment in tens of thousands of KM of train tracks are in progress over the montainous plateaus to Khazakstan, India, etc. Troops can now be brought to Tibet quickly by train to quell riots. Once the tracks are laid to central Asia and India then perhaps the Transsiberian express could be used to get to Moscow as well. Of course this works both ways. Consider the German Autobahn and such roads in all of Europe used for tanks and other mechanized armour in WWII. The USA interstate highway system is similar. The trains were used to bring troops everywhere in the US Civil War. It would have been a different war without this transport system and machine guns. USA has advantageof physical isolation, like China and can get troops by boat anywhere on earht. Chinese need trains overland and they have a large coast so boats could bring them to Indain and Arabian coast quickly to possess the oil fields or to Africa resource rich countries, East, west, south. Possesion of a few dozen ports in Indian Ocean down to Capetwown would be quick and then a fight across central Asia for a blitzkrieg knockout of Khazhakstan across Northern India and Pakistan to Iran and Iraq. Perhaps Russia could be brought on side in an Axis scenario to isolate Europe from America. Basically from a miltary resource standpoint America wants Eurasian control and uses most resources per capita and controls all ship paths. Essentially the USA as a military and economic power has to be eliminated/ neutralized/ isolated to make Eurasia safe for the Axis.

This whole scenario will take time to work out. Like the 1930s, the 2010s are a military and psychoogical preparation for WWIII. Consider the finance crisis going down. Growth won't return despite whatever they do to rearrange the global finance architecture. PO and the climate problems and so on will guarantee a shrinking pie. Brutal realities will force countries into paranoid and violent stances. Chinese military buildup, resource acquisition has been going on for a long time now already.

I think the Persian gulf is like Ukrainian and Caucasus oil fields for Nazi germany in WWII. Contol of thouse and alliance with Arabs could mean a win. Cutting USA off from Indiin ocean could be a knockout punch. If a land invasion of North America later would be necessary is a good question. Perhaps the midwestern soils would be very important for the Chinese considering their own desertification, drying up water tables, etc. Africa could be an alternative though for growing vegetables and wheat and less difficult to occupy. India would be for China like lots of Eastern Europeans for Hitler and Napoleon to atttack Eastward. They could be forced to fight where the Chinese wish, in Africa and Middle East.
At any rate a sensible WWIII scenario in terms of global interests and balances is worth books.

RE, I think your post above is rather whimsical. We need a serious war historian to sparse the current sitation, maybe ex-cia, to see where this is really going. I think my analysis is ok as far as it goes. we'll see.

[ReverseEngineer]

RE, I think your post above is rather whimsical. We need a serious war historian to sparse the current sitation, maybe ex-cia, to see where this is really going. I think my analysis is ok as far as it goes. we'll see.

I thought your analysis was very good Surfer. Yes, the thread was supposed to be serious, just EU always inspires a comedic response from me
Anyhow, I'm most interested in the questions of how the conscription game will play itself out here at home, and how the war would be financed. Anyone with some *serious* ideas on those questions?
Reverse Engineer

[RdSnt]

A point that was made that the US had a price advantage when it comes to war making is wrong. The US has the greatest disadvantage in that its military is the most technology heavy and most expensive, thus impossible to maintain in any sort of war scenario. Iraq is the clearest proof of that.

While I can see the US, stupidly, being more and more aggressive in the world, it will be the other powers who will trigger a major conflict.

I can realistically see a 9/11 like attack being used by another country to lure the US into a fatal over-reach. Given the selfishness and lack of experience of current and pending US leadership, it will be very easy to goad them into a predictable response.
Any sort of serious conflict with serious players would see the US military brought to its knees within a month.
Just consider what the sinking of six of the mainline aircraft carriers within a few days would do. Shoot down a dozen B1 bombers and the US is left without enough to be operationally effective.
Think of how dependent the US foreign policy has become on such small numbers of highly fragile, extremely expensive and complex toys.

Many here allude to the previous world wars, but you have to think of who was in charge then, particularly in the US. It was led by men who had a much deeper level of international education, most from elite old-money families, with multi-lingual skills and most importantly, real world military experience and exposure.
You don't have any of that with the current crop of US leadership. These are ignorant, narrow people subject to stupid acts with selfish and parochial objectives.

[evilgenius]

Who says that WW III will be initiated by the US? It will surely involve the US, but not of its own volition. When the dust settles and the US rides astride a greatly impoverished world many of those countries will resent what has happened to them. They will form up with the only kid on the block big enough to do something about it, Russia.

[RdSnt]

Watch the Navy. It is what the US uses to project power. See how it is deployed and how it might be dispersed. Really, the key is carrier battle groups. Remove the carriers and you pretty much neuter the US ability to wage effective warfare.

You have the navy deployed in the Black Sea, in response to the Georgia conflict. You have at least two carrier battle groups in the Gulf at all times. I could see a group being deployed off Somalia to deal with the pirates. Look to see what occurs in the Pacific. Some heating up in the Indian ocean maybe or tension with Japan/Taiwan/China, requiring US naval presence.

Having said all this and the previous post, I just don't see anyone triggering a major conflict. The US is committing suicide quite effectively all by itself. If the objective is to ensure the inevitable conclusion then other countries just have to pock at the fire now and then to keep things stirred up enough for the US to continue what it is doing. Bleeding itself dry.

[ReverseEngineer]

Just consider what the sinking of six of the mainline aircraft carriers within a few days would do. Shoot down a dozen B1 bombers and the US is left without enough to be operationally effective. Think of how dependent the US foreign policy has become on such small numbers of highly fragile, extremely expensive and complex toys.

Given that about all the major powers have some type of cruise missile that could take out an Aircraft Carrier or Troop Ship, its hard to imagine how the sea lanes will be used at all, by anybody.

The big bombers would be harder to take out, but not impossible of course, but in any event merely bombing someone from the sky doesn't win any wars, you have to get ground troops in place, and unless you can use the sea lanes to do that, you pretty much are left with continental wars, not a real World War.

Since the US would be pretty much shut off from Middle East Oil, you wouldn't want the other side to have access to it either, so you could use the bombers to carpet bomb the oil fields and reduce all the rigs to rubble. If the Bombers were shot down, you could hit same oil fields with ICBMs loaded with conventional explosives to keep it No Nukes. Or cruise missiles launched off Submarines.

Because the technology is SO good now, on all sides really, its hard to figure out how you could move large armies around without them being sitting ducks, on land or on water. Without a large ground force, you cannot control ANY area.

This leads me to believe you will have plenty of border wars, but most of the action is really going to be in the form of internal fighting, civil wars and revolutions. Trying to mount an invasionary force against any of the other big players seems quite impossible to me.

Reverse Engineer

[evilgenius]

I agree that technological sophistication on today's battlefields has gotten to the point where no force can so easily override another. A good example of this is what happened to the Israelis the last time they tried to project force into Lebanon. In this way military strategy has come full circle round to where it was during WW I, trench warfare was a stalemate warfare practice. Today the same stalemate practices face any country like the US (or anybody else for that matter) that doesn't have the will or the money to commit to total war. Over all of this hangs the one big stalemate breaker, the will to use the nuclear option. In a true world war scenario, not a regional conflict, the first to the button has the best chance of winning, simply because they get to pick the targets. Imagine it like this, the Russians not only shoot first, but they take out all of our ICBMs in their silos, our ports, our military bases, and all of our refineries and big oil storage sites and enough power plants to call the operation good. The only intact thing left is the navy and our will to rebuild. Would we shoot back, even with the ICBMs that survived? I don't think it is likely, given that we need the navy to try and control the flow of enough oil to help us rebuild and we need the other force capacity to ensure compliance in places where out navy won't do (after all it will have become a nuclear world).

[EnergyUnlimited]

Watch the Navy. It is what the US uses to project power. See how it is deployed and how it might be dispersed. Really, the key is carrier battle groups. Remove the carriers and you pretty much neuter the US ability to wage effective warfare.
You have the navy deployed in the Black Sea, in response to the Georgia conflict. You have at least two carrier battle groups in the Gulf at all times. I could see a group being deployed off Somalia to deal with the pirates.

No way. US carrier could never go Somali waters. She could easily end up being hijacked by pirates, towed away to some hidden location and there would be a hefty ransom to pay.

And they would not accept dollars, so Ben and Hank couldn't help.

[RdSnt]

Given your all out Russian attack scenario Evilgenious, would anyone in the US be capable of rational decision making? Likely not, nor would there be much in the way of overall control. Thus, submarine commanders would be on their own.

Come to think of it though, maybe we should encourage a major conflict amongst the major military powers. If they go at it toe to toe, then within 6 months they would all be militarily exhausted and it would take many years to rebuild their hardware. That scenario of course precludes the use of nukes, which wouldn't be likely. Sigh!!!