After the Middle East...

So im thinking over the history of major war fronts throughout the 20th century and what followed through into the 21st.

We had the western front mainly during world war one, all of europe and the pacific theater during world war 2, the korean peninsula in the early 50s, the infamous vietnam from 65 to 73, then since 1980, on and off combat in the mid-east region up to 2003 where it became "permanantly" on

i seriously cant imagine where the next theater is gonna unfold in this world gone mad, the mid-east aint gonna carry on so long....

Originally posted by Kojack

i seriously cant imagine where the next theater is gonna unfold in this world gone mad, the mid-east aint gonna carry on so long....

Probably Asia or Africa. We need all the oil & other natural resources we can get. Go the coalition it is all ours!

Korea or Iran. A shame that nuclear war just feels so impending. It is hard to keep a tab on the US now. Who knows... we could end up in South America... The US could be training contras / agents as we speak to cause havoc ( I can go on and name a million examples of when the US has done this).

Originally posted by phatpackage

Originally posted by Kojack

i seriously cant imagine where the next theater is gonna unfold in this world gone mad, the mid-east aint gonna carry on so long....

Probably Asia or Africa. We need all the oil & other natural resources we can get. Go the coalition it is all ours!

Nigeria seems possible... or even Sudan

but i think they like most of the countries in Africa the way they are now: broke, roughly uneducated, corrupt regime and constant civil war....

"why spoil a good thing? the Africans are doing just fine as third world resident" the elitist assholes would comment... then again, Bush did say something about going into Africa during his terms....

Wars will stop having borders, absolutely...

The next war is already happening. It's within legislation The boundaries of conflict don't have walls, or barriers.. but unjust and immoral legal impositions.

You see the police force today and it is a far cry from 40 years ago when a copper was a kids best friend. Now they have no moral compass, and are led solely by regulations. A machine.. the opposite concept of a clockwork orange.

The war going on now, may not have a body count attributable to conflict... but it certainly has one accountable by the number of lives ruined by laws made simply to keep the populace in it's pen. No reasoning, no requirement for justification.

I really don't see a lasting complacency; eventually people will start to rise against it. it may then be way too late, but it will happen... the peons against the kings and their knights.

reply to post by fordrew


oh yes, Mr. Chavez is another reason for "intervention"

we gonna stretch this military so thin, i wouldnt be surprised if China makes beach landings and airdrops on California....

its difficult to say if there will be a real front like in previous wars. i think the next major war would be between some of the g20, and invasion just doesn't seem to be as practical as it used to. its too easy to predict largescale movement these days. our tech is too sophisticated and too powerful. fronts won't exist because they'll be demolished too fast. i wouldnt even call the middle east a front anymore. were not fighting anyone over there anymore. whens the last time you had two real state sponsored military forces fight against each other? i think the gulf war, and we saw what happened there. i think that's how all wars would end up as, less fighting like we saw half a century ago and more simple annhilation. im not so sure we can have even that kind of full scale demolition anymore now that the entire world is fitting into one large mural. if any nation tried to launch such an attack, 30 other nations would be on their ass. africa is practically already bought out by China, France, and the US.
I think when it comes to asian resources, most of the conflict can be settled with trade agreements, as those nations are too developed as compared to nations in the middle east. they have political leverage and economic leverage, whereas countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, because they lack everything in every sense, might as well have never been considered legitimate states, which makes it easy to invade such a country, unlike say Indonesia or India or even Korea. there could only be battles being fought everywhere or nowhere is what i think, because you don't need as much strategy anymore. you only need a computer and coordinates and you can blow up anything you want from anywhere you want. all that matters is if you can defend yourself from THAT kind of attack, which is the purpose of all these missile defense systems. you only need a platoon of men and a jet to each man with a frigate or two off the coast to completely destroy a place like LA in my opinion. not that an operation like that could be carried out so easily, obviously two enemy frigates off the coast would be sunk in no time, but that is my point in a nutshell. too much destruction in too little time with very little effort is required in modern warfare.
notice that when you play your modern war themed video games you are working in teams of like 4-8 people and yet you are taking down a battalion of enemies and their city. i dont feel it is any different in reality. the only you can do to prevent your own destruction is have a proper defence. having an attack force wont do much good anymore. youll never see 60 F18's in the air like youd see of B 52's in ww2. tanks are only good for quick sweeps, which sounds ironic, but how could you ever get a russian tank onto american soil and expect it to remain in one piece for more than 10 minutes? how could you expect the russian craft taht delivered that tank to ever make it across the sea in the first place?
anyways, if i had to choose a reasonable front, it would remain along the former iron curtain, the himalayas-golden triangle region, oceania for naval battles, maybe the Caribbean and/or just Mexico, and of course the middle east.
the truth is that we havent seen a real war in decades, and the whole way that warfare is played out and the pieces used to play these days has no relation to how it was back in ww2 or even vietnam or korea.

I somewhat agree, but infiltration will also go up, because it's easier to smuggle a few teams over the border, than you can build some sizable bombs from things that you can find at any convieniance store, or ship your tank in parts, or get it off a cargo ship if you own a nice little corporation.

The war that you are saying awaits in our future (and is already here) has been officially titled terrorism. Guess it is officially titled war as well, but how do you declare a war on war while using guns and bombs??

You can be sure that wherever the next battleground is, plans are already being made. It seems like the world is destined to always have some kind of a war, most of the time led by the US.

I think that Iran will be next and then possibly North Korea with all the defense shields being placed in and around the EU. The warmongers will not stop until they destroy the world.

With the problems in Mexico, the US should clean up its own borders before worrying about others IMO.