WW3: The map. (Input needed)

reply to post by 00nunya00


I think I did argue with that person. PNG would only be orange would be IF Indonesia, Japan, China etc used it as a base to attack Australia. If not it is much less important than NZ and Tasmania, (until you count it's resources)

You have to colour Tasmania yellow to be authentic. It IS NOT a country. It is a state in Australia.

It seems I'm speaking to myself. Of course Tasmania is Yellow. Unless you know something I don't, it hasn't been annexed :-)

Good luck

Originally posted by squandered
reply to post by 00nunya00

 

I think I did argue with that person. PNG would only be orange would be IF Indonesia, Japan, China etc used it as a base to attack Australia. If not it is much less important than NZ and Tasmania, (until you count it's resources)

See, these are the things I'm trying to gather with this map----of course, if no one wants to use PNG for its strategic location, or its resources, then yeah, it won't matter---obviously. But if it's in a location between a few major powers and/or their allies, and has resources, then I want to know who's going to capture it! How is Australia going to stay out of WW3 when they have the same major issues the rest of the first world countries do----where to buy their oil from, who's got nukes in the neighborhood, who's messing with the people they call "friends"? If they're in the fray, then PNG comes into play as well, because it's situated not only close to US military bases and resources, but also between China, Japan and Australia. Who gets to it first? Do they leave it alone and hope no one else wants to take it to get a little closer? How long does that realistically last?

These are the things I'm trying to figure out with this map.

You have to colour Tasmania yellow to be authentic. It IS NOT a country. It is a state in Australia.

It seems I'm speaking to myself. Of course Tasmania is Yellow. Unless you know something I don't, it hasn't been annexed :-)

Good luck

Sigh......I will color it yellow. Just for you.

reply to post by 00nunya00


Iran, Russia, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya and Etheopia will try to invade Israel in WW3 the Gog-Magog war. Israel will nuke the hell out of them and then you know who makes a 7 year BS peace deal.

WW4 is when the whole world comes against Israel in the last days for nuking these nations so bad, although Israel had no choice.

THE END

reply to post by 00nunya00


Australia would be a target just as in WWII for the exact same reasons. People say that an invasion would need to be staged from the North, though I don't know if that's a safe bet.

PNG is a possible staging point, as was Malaysia and Indonesia.
East Timor has been mentioned. That would be another danger. There's no control there, nothing. Indonesia destroyed the place a decade ago when they split away.

Japan attacked in WWII, but the military in Australia is currently reacting to China's push Southward for resources (corrupting influence / gifts etc) though more than a few countries are increasingly trying to assert their influence here. India is supposed to be a firm ally but when asked they adamantly refused to join Australia in a defense pact. India is / was too angry about Australia withholding uranium from India.

Indonesia used to include Australia on their maps. A lot of work has been done there and they listen to the USA.

There is an agreement not to spend up big on military hardware. Most South Asians countries are the same in that regard. This could change quickly.

What I think is important to note and has been left out, is that some of these booming 200 million people, resource super-rich countries have the ability to vamp up their military expenditure 100 x
During WWII Japan rolled over these countries without a fight. It won't be like that at all.

I hope this helps. PNG itself is mountainous. You could call it Indonesia or Australia and you would probably find America's influence carrying through South Asia making more yellow. People in this region have no reason to hate America, although 3rd world Asian racism is far more severe than people here might realise.

reply to post by squandered


So some of the key questions for any of those regional states is whether the yellow side will be able to come to their aid should they need it, and whether they want to be either a front in the war or allow China to walk on through and fight somewhere else? How many fronts could China hold, and would they deploy forces in any areas outside their country realistically? Or would they do the vast majority of their fighting by launching missiles and ICBMs?

Plus, how do the Koreas figure into this? In the event of war, N Korea is likely to want a piece of it and try to attack S Korea, right? So the US is now committed to a major offensive there, in coalition with Japan most likely (?), and much of the China/US fighting will center there for a long while----does Australia need to come to the aid of S Korea in the event of an invasion? Are they prepared to do so and hold their own country's borders safely? If so, again, does China fight them by sea only, or do they try for a closer base of operations? That will bring us back to "doe" (a deer, a female deer...)

(Thanks for the thoughtful reply, BTW)

reply to post by 00nunya00


Thanks for the thanks. I'm waffling mostly ;-)

Australia will not fight China and neither will America IMO
These countries need each other too much.

China doesn't need to attack. They can bribe their way to almost anything.

China is exerting pressure into South Asia. We know they are trying to sure up resources in the seas.
I don't see China doing much more than that. They share power in South Asia, but they also have large tracts of land in all the major food producing countries.

China spends up big and takes advantage of the short-term thinking of elected governments. For example, they make governments look good at the end of their term by buying something, yet in the long term it's a different story. America's gov't it ripe for this because of the campaign funding rules there. Actually Indonesia won't allow Chinese Indonesians to buy land (or something to that affect).

I think Korea was the kick off point. WWIII is simmering over there.

Russia doesn't want to fight either. They want to make money off war though.
Iran.. I think they are with Israel or something. They will hold onto their land. I don't know what they are fighting for.

Islam is a destroyer. I can only see an end to that with them not just loosing but...
going with us into a better modern age after they change some of their backward ways

Short term for your map. I'd place the chess pieces at areas with resources - food being #1, oil #2
I don't know if that will be after we damage the planet or over time

War is inevitable as the time passes. The more scarce things are the more greedy TPTB are

reply to post by squandered


Okay, so help me attack this from a different angle: let's play the Israel/Iran wargame. If Israel strikes Iranian targets severely, say, takes out all of their nuclear program installations (or most) but civilian casualties are minimal, let's say a few hundred at the most. Let's also say the US decides to take a position of not helping directly with the attacking, but helping with keeping Israel safe. How do the countries around Israel react? Do Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc, do anything? Do they even take their chance to attack Israel while it's heavily invested in another front, but before it takes significant damage at home? Does *anyone* come to the direct military aid of Iran? Iran has a large population of ethnically Turkic people----does Turkey play their hand in this, and what does that mean with them being a NATO state?

reply to post by 00nunya00


If you view Syria and Lebanon as client states of Iran, it is very likely they will attack Israel, or at least that elements within those states will move swiftly to facilitate a response against civilians.

Saudi Arabia doesn't want Iran getting weapons, so they do nothing, and their gulf neighbors will follow their lead. The US has too much influence in Iraq and Egypt isn't settled enough to be a real threat like it may be a few years down the road.

Turkey is the interesting nation and the key pivot. The ideal western solution is to have Turkey move into Syria and Lebanon instead of Israel to stabilize the situation, and lessen the threat to Israel. Turkey wins in that it gains territory and prestige, but it risks alienating the Arab world.

I actually think this is why nothing has happened in Iran yet, because a settled situation in Syria that removes the threat to Israel from its northern border eliminates Iran's best ability for reprisals. There'll still be attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas, but not in the same intensity and scope.

If you assume this incursion into Iran consists only of a series of strikes and infiltrations, I do believe that's all you would see in the short term, and no greater escalation.

If it goes longer, I think Pakistan could be the one potential key Iranian ally. But things have to go a certain way for that to happen, and I wouldn't rate that as probable if this is a surgical strike.

reply to post by cassandranova


Are we assuming that Turkey, then, will take action to thwart Iranian retaliation in Lebanon and Syria if Israel is bombing Iranian civilians under the pretext of taking out missile systems "hidden in civilian areas" like we heard so much about in Lebanon? Is there a line that Israel could cross in terms of its actions against Iran that would cause Turkey to no longer be interested in holding anyone off them?

reply to post by 00nunya00


I think you're asking the right questions, but I don't know the answers. What I would suspect is these conversations are being had between the U.S., Turkey, and Israel to what extent they are willing to assist one another. Their interests aren't really in conflict with each other in fundamental ways, but how much each is willing to risk will determine the outcomes.

I think Turkey's action would be to destabilize the Syrian state. The first question to be answered is if the Assad regime is still hanging onto meaningful power at the time of the Israeli strike. If it is removed, then I think the threat of chemical weapons being launched at Israel is substantially reduced.

Frankly, I doubt Syria, Turkey, or anyone can fully rein in Hamas and Hezbollah. But, I think if Turkey removes Syria from the equation, Iran is less likely to give nonconventional weapons to those non-state actors.

The best hint we have is that Turkey has agreed to host missile tracking radar.

I don't think Turkey could accept something that involved carpet bombing Iranians, but given how they've treated their own Kurdish population, I don't think Turkey will be squeamish either. I think Turkey wants to be seen as being involved with Syria but not Israel, hence the holdup.

Syria should, geostrategically speaking, be resolved before anyone acts on Iran. The reason is because then containment is complete.

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by squandered

 

Okay, so help me attack this from a different angle: let's play the Israel/Iran wargame. If Israel strikes Iranian targets severely, say, takes out all of their nuclear program installations (or most) but civilian casualties are minimal, let's say a few hundred at the most. Let's also say the US decides to take a position of not helping directly with the attacking, but helping with keeping Israel safe. How do the countries around Israel react? Do Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc, do anything? Do they even take their chance to attack Israel while it's heavily invested in another front, but before it takes significant damage at home? Does *anyone* come to the direct military aid of Iran? Iran has a large population of ethnically Turkic people----does Turkey play their hand in this, and what does that mean with them being a NATO state?

That's too much. Let it be. If Israel is wrong, they'll pay later.

Iran will still have oil and control over oil supply
Add Russia

Israel can't stand without America, but..

If red is serious this time
Disclaimer - WWIII to me
It's a fight over the next resource grab - in case the powers are equal and prepared to fight.
So,

According to the current models, I think..

America exchanges tactical nukes with Russia
Muslims bomb capitals and take down the markets
Propaganda causing confusion other than the topic but overall
China, India, Africa & middle East working overtime also confused

Australasia saves the day with a pact that basically screws you all and # you

:-)

reply to post by cassandranova


Hopefully they are talking, but we've got reports now that Israel hasn't discussed its plans on Iran with the US since last year, for months now. What does that mean to our equations? I agree it appears Israel can't stand on its own without the US, but now they're keeping us in the dark and probing our leaders for their opinions on how the US would react should Israel go it alone against Iran. Does that mean they're planning on attacking and are taking our automatic defense of them for granted, or are they planning something much bigger and more decisive that will not require anyone's assistance because no retaliation will happen after Iran is decimated?

What is Israel's boundary for first-strikes that they won't cross? Will their first strike almost definitely be conventional, or are they crazy enough to use even small-scale nuclear battlefield missiles (not Hiroshima style, much smaller energy output) to take out the more fortified targets? Would the tactical nukes work on places like the mega-buried nuclear facility?

reply to post by squandered


Can you break that down for me a little more, what the "models" are saying would be the series of likely events that would lead to the US and Russia trading nukes?

ETA: and I don't get what you mean by "that's too much"? I'm asking too much? I'm confused.

reply to post by 00nunya00


Given that is an election year, I would guess Israel would assume American defense would be for granted. In the event that Israel struck Iran, and Iran only retaliated against Israeli targets, I'm not sure it would be, but I doubt the Iranians would be so restrained. If, however, they were, it's an open question whether the US could jump in.

I think Obama would have enough political cover to not move if the Israelis struck unilaterally, and the Iranian response was missile strikes of a non-chemical, non-biological, non-nuclear nature from Syria and Palestine. That said, I seriously wonder about what Israel could do with an overt war with Iran, given their logistical limitations, that they couldn't do more effectively covertly.

If Israel does act alone, you can be they'll be staging from Saudi Arabia, very very quietly.

I don't think Israel would dare risking nuclear strikes except as a last option if their existence was threatened. The gains aren't worth the risks.

But as for what to expect, I think it's important to remember just because the media says some players aren't playing nice with each other, it doesn't necessarily mean a damned thing. Misdirection is a big part of this. I find it better to consider long term strategic interests, and that's why I think in the end, you'll have the U.S., Israel, and Turkey working for the same outcome, if not exactly together, which is against Iran.

reply to post by cassandranova


That's exactly the question we should really be asking, then----given Israel's extremely precarious and limited position geographically, why all the sabre-rattling? IMO you're correct, they would be far better served in both the short and long term by continuing and expanding their covert operations, and let Iran do all the threatening. That gives them the "picked-on" position; why are they abandoning this suddenly for such public war mongering and quiet whispering to our leaders that they're going to go it alone if we don't act?

There's really only two answers: they're trying to ratchet up the panic and fear about Iran in the US and Europe so they will act and Israel doesn't have to; or, they're setting the stage for a huge and decisive attack on Iran. They are not in the position to sustain any long-term war or effectively prevent all the missiles and chem weapons and bio weapons that a lengthy war with Iran would eventually bring. It's simply too easy to wear down their defenses and then hit them with the bad stuff, and they know this. There is no way they're rattling their sabre for simply a conventional-weapon Iraq-style war with Iran. They need us to do it, and do it in a much more decisive way than we did with either of our last two wars, or their population would face a serious threat. Do they really think we can do that? I don't think we can manage a much better campaign than we already have without using nukes. There's just too much land, too many resources, too much steely resolve against the West, too much technology, too much everything to try and take out in Iran for them to no longer be a threat in any timely fashion. Where does that leave us?

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by squandered

 

Can you break that down for me a little more, what the "models" are saying would be the series of likely events that would lead to the US and Russia trading nukes?

ETA: and I don't get what you mean by "that's too much"? I'm asking too much? I'm confused.

edit on 17-2-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)

The simplicity I your quote was too much. I meant to say that Israel striking and killing only 100 to be satisfied the threat is gone, is too much..

The models.. sorry, I'm only going by the bits and pieces of opinions here. Didn't mean to sound like I was backing anything up.

I don't really see a war this way, but I like reading peoples opinions.

You asked two tough questions.

1) Why is Israel taking such a hawkish public position?

I think they are doing it specifically because their position is weak in certain fundamental ways, with respect to their capacity to have the impact upon Iran that would lead to them ceasing their nuclear ambitions. I see it as part of a larger western strategy to shift public opinion toward a war with Iran that I believe will be forthcoming.

Israel doesn't see itself as having a choice. It's a bit of a nasty nation in that it has defined its own national security interest as ensuring its neighbors don't have certain types of weapons. So, they will actively act to keep them from reaching them, wherever and whenever it happens, but given the disparity in resources and manpower, it seems like it is doomed to eventual failure. Demography usually wins, all other things being equal.

That being the case, Israel sees being crazy as sanity, if that makes sense. I don't think they lack the knowledge of their own hypocrisy to the world; I think they don't have the luxury of caring.

2) Can the West (read: America) fight a winning war in Iran/

Victory defends on the objectives. As we've discussed, there are basically three different potential outcomes that America could seek.

1. Destruction of Current Nuclear Facilities - a very limited war with the intention of degrading the existing capacity of Iran for all nuclear research and development
   
2. Regime Change - a more involved conflict whose goal is the removal of the current regime which may or may not include stabilization of the new regime
   
3. Complete Destruction of Iran - total war including civilian casualties in great numbers
   

For political reasons, the last option isn't going to be on the table unless Iran launches some seriously nasty attacks against the American civilian population. If they do, I suspect there would be a majority far quicker than people think who would agree with a scorched earth policy that would lead into a World War scenario. But let's assume Iran's regime doesn't do that for the moment, as they act more reasonably for their own self-preservation.

If American assets launched a series of aerial, missile, and special forces attacks with the limited goal of destroying Iranian nuclear facilities, I believe they could do in such a fashion that it would serve for several years setback. If they used allies who would conduct assassinations on related figures, perhaps even longer.

Would the Iranian regime risk expanding such a war by attacking against American naval assets, mining the Straits of Hormuz, or otherwise, when the end game could leave them in power minus a weapon they didn't have? It's a question worth considering, and given the changing landscape, I think time is the ally of the Iranians, with respect to their future partners in China and Russia, and with respect to Israel's deteriorating security situation with regard to its own neighbors.

America knows this, and I think that's why if they get involved, their goal will be to destabilize and remove this regime. I don't know that they care what replaces it, how radical it may be, so long as it is friendly on the resource front, inactive on the nuclear front, and less prone to using terror as a weapon. Even a broken and destabilized Iran is actually fine, from the American perspective, because the one thing America must avoid is putting substantial boots on the ground in an effort to rebuild.

A smart strategy could see a Green Revolution type coup backed by limited American security assets. A less smart strategy could just take out the command and control mechanisms of Iran, and hope for the best. It gets tricky because their political leadership is religious as well, but since the Shi'a are not so well liked in the rest of the Muslim world, I think they are not off limits for consideration. That said, you'd want them pushed aside, not taken out.

What I Predict

I think American planners have wanted a war with Iran for a long time, as they are the last organized base of power in the region openly hostile to the US, and they will act to remove the regime. I think the differences between the Israelis and American are about time and method, and are more a function of public relations theory designed to motivate indifferent western populations, who rightly care more about their own collapsing economies at home, but both security and economic resource considerations will see Iran at war.

They'd like Iran to strike first, but assuming that doesn't happen, I'd be stunned if America doesn't attack Iran before November. I'd guess we'll hear a few more months about how terrible the Iranians are, enough time to move American assets into place, for the Israelis to hole up, to try to cut deals which will mollify Russia and China, during which Syria will be erased from being a threat to Israel to the greatest extent possible.

reply to post by cassandranova


So there's another good question: what would be enough to mollify Russia and China? They obviously want something out of this fight, as who the hell really cares about Syria, Iran, etc? If all they cared about was the oil, they'd join up with us and invade to drill. No need for war posturing.

Is Russia looking for a retraction of NATO missile defenses, etc? What doesn't China already have us over a barrel in regards to? Surely this isn't a true conflict of geopolitical philosophies? This isn't Hitler trying to take over the world; neither side has an awesome moral case that clearly is in the "right." So what's the real beef here; what is worth the *actual* existential threat to Israel, the economic collapse threat to the US, the loss-of-economic-slaves threat to China, and the more-conflicts-we-don't-need-in-addition-to-trying-to-oppress-our-own-people threat to Russia? This Iran/Syria issue is just not worth it to any of these countries, so why the hubbub?

I've been asking myself that for a while.

I think Russia wants to make sure it has hegemony in central Asia, try to avoid Ukraine/Georgia from joining NATO, and be seen as important. While they have an impressive nuclear arsenal that serves for defense, their force projection capacity is limited and they have domestic issues to resolve. Plus, the biggest challenge Russia really faces is internal development of its Siberian resources.

With the Russians, I don't know that you have to buy them off, because the way their economics are structures, they're not going to cut anyone off.

As for China, that's harder. The obvious start is reunification with Taiwan, which will happen, but China needs and wants access to energy resources. They're working hard in Africa and increasingly in South America as well. The problem for them is as the Dragon roars, every country gets closer to the U.S. that surrounds it.

China can't push too hard on the US because it's manufacturing is already taking hits as businesses move south to even cheaper labor markets, so it needs that export market. I think the Chinese will simply sell weapons to everyone, but I suspect their long term plan has to include the creation of a blue water fleet and their movement into space.

They can and probably will help the Iranians informally, if only to keep the Americans from being too successful, but China's best successes have come through soft power.

That said, I think China has the people and the ambition to try to unseat the US eventually, but I really don't know when that will come.