PDA

View Full Version : What wars will we be in?



Cthulhu
08-12-2014, 10:09 PM
So if a person were to join the service today, what wars could they count on being involved in? What countries would be involved? What would the mission be? Where will the US war machine turn its malevolent eye to next in say...the next 10 years? What would be the motivation for the key players?

Ethereal
08-12-2014, 10:21 PM
One thing is for sure, the wars will become increasingly murky and convoluted.

Dr. Who
08-12-2014, 10:23 PM
So if a person were to join the service today, what wars could they count on being involved in? What countries would be involved? What would the mission be? Where will the US war machine turn its malevolent eye to next in say...the next 10 years? What would be the motivation for the key players?
I think that the ME will remain the focus until oil is no longer a factor in terms of energy resources. After that, who knows?

Ethereal
08-12-2014, 10:26 PM
I think that the ME will remain the focus until oil is no longer a factor in terms of energy resources. After that, who knows?

Africa is also becoming a focal point for the corporate-driven military interventions, mostly due to mineral resources which will be needed for advanced electronic and industrial systems.

Cthulhu
08-12-2014, 10:27 PM
I think that the ME will remain the focus until oil is no longer a factor in terms of energy resources. After that, who knows?

What sorts of things can the USA milk out of Ukraine or the south american countries? Central America has gobs of oil down there, yet we're not giving them 'freedom'. Oil from Venezuela comes to mind.

Ethereal
08-12-2014, 10:31 PM
What sorts of things can the USA milk out of Ukraine...

Oil and natural gas throughput from Russia to Europe.


...or the south american countries? Central America has gobs of oil down there, yet we're not giving them 'freedom'. Oil from Venezuela comes to mind.

We've been expropriating resources from South America for a LONG time.

Guerilla
08-12-2014, 10:35 PM
I think Africa is next, they have lots of resources. China has been sending their companies into Africa already. Maybe we will want to compete.

Dr. Who
08-12-2014, 10:36 PM
What sorts of things can the USA milk out of Ukraine or the south american countries? Central America has gobs of oil down there, yet we're not giving them 'freedom'. Oil from Venezuela comes to mind.
I think that the run on oil is generally reaching it's useful end. There is so much technology out there that will ultimately displace oil in the next ten years and sufficient North American oil and gas supply in the meantime, that I can't imagine any need to spend trillions of dollars to continue meddling in the ME to ensure supply, let alone starting things in countries that are literally on one's doorstep.

Ethereal
08-12-2014, 10:51 PM
I think Africa is next, they have lots of resources. China has been sending their companies into Africa already. Maybe we will want to compete.

The US already has a military presence there which continues to increase in its size and scope. The military intervention in Libya was aimed at keeping Africa economically and politically subjugated by the west.

Green Arrow
08-12-2014, 11:26 PM
This is an interesting set of questions. This is my prediction:


So if a person were to join the service today, what wars could they count on being involved in?

Within the next ten years? My guess would be Iran, Syria, Libya, Russia, Venezuela, and Korea. Libya would be our gateway into Africa, Venezuela would be our gateway into South America, taking out Iran and Syria would pretty much hand the Middle East to us on a silver platter, and Russia is practically a foregone conclusion at this point.

With few exceptions, however, none of these will be fought with conventional military force.


What countries would be involved?

I see it being divided in almost World War-esque terms, even if it isn't fought as a world war (because let's face it, it would be fairly one-sided). I think it would be nearly worldwide and I think each front (South America, Africa, Asia, Middle East) would be directly fought by the countries in those regions, with the U.S., Russia, and China essentially guiding it all.

The Coalition:
United States
Europe
Israel
Japan
South Korea
Canada
Mexico
Egypt
Iraq (assuming our blundering incompetence and theirs doesn't completely collapse them in the fight against ISIL)
Equatorial Guinea
Bahrain
Myanmar
Azerbaijan
Ethiopia
Vietnam
Tajikistan
Rwanda
Cambodia
Honduras
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
Kazakhstan
South Sudan
Georgia
Ukraine
Jordan

The Alliance:
Russia
China
North Korea
Iran
Syria
Turkey
Qatar
Yemen
Gaza
Saudi Arabia
Libya
Somalia
Sudan
Kyrgyzstan
Kenya
Pakistan
Afghanistan
South Africa
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Cuba
Venezuela
Colombia
Brazil
Argentina


What would the mission be?

Dominance, in all aspects.


Where will the US war machine turn its malevolent eye to next in say...the next 10 years?

We are already trying to pivot out of the Middle East toward Asia, with Republican leaders like Mitt Romney calling Russia our greatest enemy and strongly opposing China's rise to power. I don't think we can ever truly leave the Middle East, however, so I would say the next ten years will see Iran and North Korea.


What would be the motivation for the key players?

For the United States and our allies, taking down North Korea strengthens one of our few allies in the region, South Korea, and also removes a foothold for China. Taking out Iran takes out Syria, which would essentially leave the Russians and Chinese without a foothold in the Middle East.

For Iran, it means halting and destroying their growing Middle East hegemony.

For North Korea, it means ceasing to exist.

For Russia and China, it it means losing key footholds in Asia and the Middle East.

Guerilla
08-12-2014, 11:37 PM
The US already has a military presence there which continues to increase in its size and scope. The military intervention in Libya was aimed at keeping Africa economically and politically subjugated by the west.

Yes, this^

They bombed Libya because Gaddafi was trying to upstart a new currency, The Dinar, with other African and Arabian countries, to replace the US dollar. Since Libya was so much more prosperous than other countries in the region, and all of Africa in general, it had the influence to sway the whole region away from the dollar, which would have really messed up our economy. Destroying Libya was a very strategic move for the elite.

Adelaide
08-12-2014, 11:49 PM
From my point of view, there will be a throw down over the Arctic however I do not know that it will happen within the next 10 years. Regardless, it's ours, Denmark's and Russia's and we should resolve it diplomatically by splitting it like Antarctica. Canada and Denmark wouldn't face Russia in a conflict but it could force our allies into a confrontation with us. I don't see it getting that far, however Canada is already beefing up our military presence there and I expect that to continue.

Really, a world war situation isn't very likely with the military advances having been made. A country might pledge allegiance to an alliance of sorts, but unless they have air superiority they're going to be mostly useless. I mean hell, there were countries who sent like 16 troops to Afghanistan just to say they did. There won't be any trenches. It would be the main powers going at it. What would provoke it? Lord knows. It's like waiting for our generation's Franz Ferdinand because we're stupid people who never seem to learn lessons.

Cthulhu
08-12-2014, 11:58 PM
Really, a world war situation isn't very likely with the military advances having been made.

Both recorded world wars were fought with technology that was inferior to their respective times - but they were was they could afford for their debt load. And a human population is a logistic function. We continue to grow at an exponential rate in a fixed resource system - the earth.


A country might pledge allegiance to an alliance of sorts, but unless they have air superiority they're going to be mostly useless. I mean hell, there were countries who sent like 16 troops to Afghanistan just to say they did. There won't be any trenches. It would be the main powers going at it.

World War III is inevitable given the current trends. Unless a super plague trims the earth's population significantly, I'm seeing a massive war that touches just about every country. Sure it would be super powers duking it out, but when giants fight, ants still get stepped on.


What would provoke it? Lord knows. It's like waiting for our generation's Franz Ferdinand because we're stupid people who never seem to learn lessons.

Sad but true. So what would the peanut gallery recommend to a person joining the service do to maximize his/her chances of survival in the next ten years?

Cthulhu
08-13-2014, 12:05 AM
The US already has a military presence there which continues to increase in its size and scope. The military intervention in Libya was aimed at keeping Africa economically and politically subjugated by the west.

US military personnel, or contractors?

I know the difference is largely semantics given the outcomes, but for the rank and file troop who has zero say in where he/she goes, it does matter.

Cthulhu
08-13-2014, 12:07 AM
Yes, this^

They bombed Libya because Gaddafi was trying to upstart a new currency, The Dinar, with other African and Arabian countries, to replace the US dollar. Since Libya was so much more prosperous than other countries in the region, and all of Africa in general, it had the influence to sway the whole region away from the dollar, which would have really messed up our economy. Destroying Libya was a very strategic move for the elite.
Guerilla

Not to impune your honor in any way, but is there source material to back this up? Because I would like to peruse it.

Gaddafi was no saint by any stretch, most rulers aren't, but the banking powers that be how no moral pauses about enforcing their will either.

Curious I am.

Green Arrow
08-13-2014, 12:31 AM
To further expound on my point, I really don't think it will be fought by conventional military means, by which I mean I think it will resemble the Cold War in a lot of ways. Russia, China, Iran, Israel, and the United States will certainly invade and occupy territory, but not each other, at least not at first. It will more be fought by proxy wars, such as South Korea and Japan taking care of North Korea, Russia fully invading Ukraine (only if we are at de facto war with them, though, no other realistic scenario would have them taking over Ukraine). I also don't see any of the five major players seriously occupying territory for longer than a few months. I see it as a smash and bang, brief occupation, then the establishment of puppet governments.

Also, any country I didn't list would be effectively neutral, and that includes several countries in Europe. Participating countries in Europe, I don't see as major player except in the Russian theater. Europe is a declining power already, and I see the total collapse of the European Union/Eurozone by 2024.

Ethereal
08-13-2014, 12:49 AM
US military personnel, or contractors?

I know the difference is largely semantics given the outcomes, but for the rank and file troop who has zero say in where he/she goes, it does matter.

Both, but mostly contractors (mercenaries) right now. But the elites are looking for excuses to send conventional forces there. That's what all the pirate and Boko Haram hysteria was about.

Guerilla
08-13-2014, 02:20 AM
@Guerilla (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=606)

Not to impune your honor in any way, but is there source material to back this up? Because I would like to peruse it.

Gaddafi was no saint by any stretch, most rulers aren't, but the banking powers that be how no moral pauses about enforcing their will either.

Curious I am.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafi-s-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar

http://rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/

Obama was being friendly with Gaddafi, then things went bad because Gaddafi wanted a currency that was actually backed by gold, because they also had large gold reserves.

I think Gaddafi was pretty cool, his reign saw Libya get the best infant mortality rate in Africa, standard of living, etc. having a home was a human right there. He was planning other things too like "turning the desert green" with huge farms from water under the Sahara, which he had begun doing before he was killed. I looked into Gaddafi a lot and saw interviews with him and I think he was really a man of the people, who was speaking out against the elite.

Something else to keep in mind, is that Libya was one of 7 countries in 2000 who existed with an independent national bank, that was non-Rothschild affiliated. The countries in 2000 were Afghanistan, Irag, Libya, Sudan, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Today I think only the latter 2 remain with their own national bank.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=THlaMUq6MKU&feature=endscreen This video touches on a lot of stuff, if your really curious.

Peter1469
08-13-2014, 05:18 AM
I agree with Green Arrow's assessment. I don't see any major conventional deployments in the next 10 years. Russia's current misadventure is likely to be the last gasp for a while. They proved that more could be done in the current world climate with unconventional operations in support of locals who have legitimate grievances.

CreepyOldDude
08-13-2014, 11:36 AM
http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafi-s-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar

http://rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/

Obama was being friendly with Gaddafi, then things went bad because Gaddafi wanted a currency that was actually backed by gold, because they also had large gold reserves.

I think Gaddafi was pretty cool, his reign saw Libya get the best infant mortality rate in Africa, standard of living, etc. having a home was a human right there. He was planning other things too like "turning the desert green" with huge farms from water under the Sahara, which he had begun doing before he was killed. I looked into Gaddafi a lot and saw interviews with him and I think he was really a man of the people, who was speaking out against the elite.

Something else to keep in mind, is that Libya was one of 7 countries in 2000 who existed with an independent national bank, that was non-Rothschild affiliated. The countries in 2000 were Afghanistan, Irag, Libya, Sudan, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Today I think only the latter 2 remain with their own national bank.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=THlaMUq6MKU&feature=endscreen This video touches on a lot of stuff, if your really curious.

Exactly how was this new currency supposed to be a problem for the US? I mean, there's nothing preventing any country exporting oil saying they want to be paid in gold, already. And, unless the countries with the new currency were going to somehow prevent anyone else from exporting oil, they weren't going to be able to force anyone to buy from them.

I have to admit, the John Birch Society is not a source I particularly trust. And the RT article ends with this line.
Some say the US and its NATO allies literally could not afford to let that happen.

Who are "Some?" After all, some say bumblebees can't fly, some say the earth is flat, some say the moon landings were faked. "Some say" don't mean squat to this old man.

Rebel Son
08-13-2014, 03:19 PM
From my point of view, there will be a throw down over the Arctic however That war is already being fought,,,,,,,,,,with legal means if you want to call it that. I don't see any massive military involvement in our life time anyway.

Rebel Son
08-13-2014, 03:22 PM
I agree with Green Arrow's assessment. I don't see any major conventional deployments in the next 10 years. Russia's current misadventure is likely to be the last gasp for a while. They proved that more could be done in the current world climate with unconventional operations in support of locals who have legitimate grievances.

Didn't work out well last time did it, our weapons in others hands because of cowards who left and ran. They couldn't even disable the stuff they ran off so fast.

Peter1469
08-13-2014, 05:05 PM
Military conflict in the Arctic will wait until hydrocarbons become harder to reach elsewhere. I anticipate we will be moving off hydrocarbons by then.

Guerilla
08-13-2014, 05:25 PM
Exactly how was this new currency supposed to be a problem for the US? I mean, there's nothing preventing any country exporting oil saying they want to be paid in gold, already. And, unless the countries with the new currency were going to somehow prevent anyone else from exporting oil, they weren't going to be able to force anyone to buy from them.

Libya, a prosperous country with a lot of oil, decides they want to be paid in Dinars, which would have been backed by gold, and America doesn't have any gold, so it would have been bad for our economy, and the establishment.

They were also trying to bring other African and/or Arabian countries with him. This means many resource rich countries would have been essentially shut off from our economy. They wanted something of value, gold-backed currency, which Libya was about to make happen, because they were one of the only countries in the world with a lot of gold and with their own independent national bank, with no major internal or external problems. Libya was in a position to lead others away from the establishment.


I have to admit, the John Birch Society is not a source I particularly trust. And the RT article ends with this line.

Who are "Some?" After all, some say bumblebees can't fly, some say the earth is flat, some say the moon landings were faked. "Some say" don't mean squat to this old man You can take the evidence presented and decide for yourself, don't be a tool.

Adelaide
08-13-2014, 09:57 PM
Both recorded world wars were fought with technology that was inferior to their respective times - but they were was they could afford for their debt load. And a human population is a logistic function. We continue to grow at an exponential rate in a fixed resource system - the earth.

World War III is inevitable given the current trends. Unless a super plague trims the earth's population significantly, I'm seeing a massive war that touches just about every country. Sure it would be super powers duking it out, but when giants fight, ants still get stepped on.

Sad but true. So what would the peanut gallery recommend to a person joining the service do to maximize his/her chances of survival in the next ten years?

Am I the peanut gallery?

I'd say, don't join up if you have other options. But my military is vastly different compared to yours. First, we focus on peacekeeping and aid. The Canadian Armed Forces also don't really actively ask for people to sign up or recruit, and a lot of people get turned away because the CAF wants people with higher education and people with higher education don't tend to join the military. Sure, they still need high school graduates for the positions that don't require any additional education that can't be taught through the military training, but I frequently check their website because my job pays 3x as much in the military and offers me the chance for a graduate degree. I'm currently on a fitness regime because I'm contemplating joining with the reserves. My job specifically would be field support for combat units as medical personnel. But it's just a thought and other options are open for me, but my background is exactly what the military wants. Always in high demand, and the pay reflects it. The economy and unions are such that I have few options in the private sector open to me without going back to school.

But I do think Canadians should be encouraging our government to strengthen our military. I'm not a neocon by any stretch, but I know that we should probably at least try to acquire subs that don't sink, to use one example. We used to be a real force. Our soldiers are amazing, such as some of the best snipers in the world and JTF2 is no joke, but our equipment and funding is what makes us weak. We need to be able to defend ourselves adequately without relying all the time on allies. We should also continue our diplomatic relations with specific regions that gives us powerful allies and reduces our risk of pissing people off. Keep our membership status with groups like the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, true Commonwealth nations, NATO, so forth, and continue talks with countries like China where we can work on exports and build positive relations through trade.

Canada can never be Switzerland. The US is our sibling, and we're still strongly linked to the Crown and fellow former British dominions. Otherwise, I'd suggest as much neutrality as possible, but it's not possible. We should be prepared for what comes, which for us starts with asking/accepting that our politicians put more money into our military.

Peter1469
08-13-2014, 10:28 PM
A Canadian sniper team held the world record kill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Furlong)for an EKIA for a bit. [This may not be the exact one, but a record anyway] Several men have beat it since anyway. Also Canadian infantry were fighting hand to hand well before US forces in Afghanistan got into the real dirty. That isn't just press release crap- real hand to hand.


Am I the peanut gallery?

I'd say, don't join up if you have other options. But my military is vastly different compared to yours. First, we focus on peacekeeping and aid. The Canadian Armed Forces also don't really actively ask for people to sign up or recruit, and a lot of people get turned away because the CAF wants people with higher education and people with higher education don't tend to join the military. Sure, they still need high school graduates for the positions that don't require any additional education that can't be taught through the military training, but I frequently check their website because my job pays 3x as much in the military and offers me the chance for a graduate degree. I'm currently on a fitness regime because I'm contemplating joining with the reserves. My job specifically would be field support for combat units as medical personnel. But it's just a thought and other options are open for me, but my background is exactly what the military wants. Always in high demand, and the pay reflects it. The economy and unions are such that I have few options in the private sector open to me without going back to school.

But I do think Canadians should be encouraging our government to strengthen our military. I'm not a neocon by any stretch, but I know that we should probably at least try to acquire subs that don't sink, to use one example. We used to be a real force. Our soldiers are amazing, such as some of the best snipers in the world and JTF2 is no joke, but our equipment and funding is what makes us weak. We need to be able to defend ourselves adequately without relying all the time on allies. We should also continue our diplomatic relations with specific regions that gives us powerful allies and reduces our risk of pissing people off. Keep our membership status with groups like the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, true Commonwealth nations, NATO, so forth, and continue talks with countries like China where we can work on exports and build positive relations through trade.

Canada can never be Switzerland. The US is our sibling, and we're still strongly linked to the Crown and fellow former British dominions. Otherwise, I'd suggest as much neutrality as possible, but it's not possible. We should be prepared for what comes, which for us starts with asking/accepting that our politicians put more money into our military.

Rebel Son
08-14-2014, 08:32 PM
Am I the peanut gallery?

I'd say, don't join up if you have other options.
I joined because I'm an American, is there another reason. I got in before I had to even register for the draft...............You can go hide if you want to........But I don't want hear any bitching from anybody who hasn't even been to basic about shit. Most running their head here did nothing to protect anybody? Nothing.

Dark Mistress
08-14-2014, 08:52 PM
I say just forget about it and let's enjoy your freedom without the ball and chain tied to it.

Eh? Cthulhu

Dark Mistress
08-14-2014, 09:15 PM
The good news is we have 2 jobs and the military outlook is looking dim...

That is what happens when you give your husband a high and tight.

Captain Obvious
08-15-2014, 02:04 AM
The good news is we have 2 jobs and the military outlook is looking dim...

That is what happens when you give your husband a high and tight.

If daddy ain't happy, ain't nobody happy

Rebel Son
08-21-2014, 04:21 PM
Well, I kinda thought it might be, but looks like Iraq..........again. This shit has got out of hand, killing another American with a video. Just blow the entire place off the map and be done with it.

Carlsen
08-21-2014, 04:27 PM
I think that the ME will remain the focus until oil is no longer a factor in terms of energy resources. After that, who knows?

Yes the wars will be in ME for the oil and to protect Israel


.