• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

World War Three Coming Soon?

JihadJane said:
China and Russia have already united, having recognized that the US threat to their interests requires a cooperative response. They have staged joint war games.
Click to expand...


First of all, the fact that two countries have staged joint war games does not mean that they recognized any US threat to their interests." I don't believe that you'll find any statement from Russia or China explaining that their joint exercises had anything whatsoever to do with America, let alone that they were training for a cooperative response against us.

According to this article, the Russian-Chinese maneuvers were "designed to counter a hypothetical threat from Islamist extremists or ethnic separatists that both countries insist look increasingly realistic." That article has plenty of good quotes from primary sources to back it up.

Military exercises in another instance had a similar point. "The plot of the war games featured "al Qaeda" members who had crossed over the border from Afghanistan and captured a chemical factory, taking its workers hostage."

Furthermore, the July games involved 3,000 soldiers and 40 helicopters and planes. I have a hard time imagining a scenario where China and Russia could fight the US (on behalf of Iran) in World War III with only three thousand guys.

Last, I'm not sure that holding joint military exercises is evidence that two countries are "united". The US has, in the recent past, held joint exercises with India, the Philippines, and Thailand. I'm sure these are nice countries but we're hardly "united" with them. In fact, both India and Thailand have also recently held military exercises with China. So, whatever war games mean, they don't seem to have anything to do with people picking sides for WWIII.
 
Loss Leader said:
First of all, the fact that two countries have staged joint war games does not mean that they recognized any US threat to their interests." I don't believe that you'll find any statement from Russia or China explaining that their joint exercises had anything whatsoever to do with America, let alone that they were training for a cooperative response against us.

According to this article, the Russian-Chinese maneuvers were "designed to counter a hypothetical threat from Islamist extremists or ethnic separatists that both countries insist look increasingly realistic." That article has plenty of good quotes from primary sources to back it up.

Military exercises in another instance had a similar point. "The plot of the war games featured "al Qaeda" members who had crossed over the border from Afghanistan and captured a chemical factory, taking its workers hostage."

Furthermore, the July games involved 3,000 soldiers and 40 helicopters and planes. I have a hard time imagining a scenario where China and Russia could fight the US (on behalf of Iran) in World War III with only three thousand guys.

Last, I'm not sure that holding joint military exercises is evidence that two countries are "united". The US has, in the recent past, held joint exercises with India, the Philippines, and Thailand. I'm sure these are nice countries but we're hardly "united" with them. In fact, both India and Thailand have also recently held military exercises with China. So, whatever war games mean, they don't seem to have anything to do with people picking sides for WWIII.
Click to expand...

They aren't going to come out and say that they are improving military cooperation in response to a perceived US threat, but they have definitely increased strategic ties and both definitely perceive the US as a potential threat.

p.s. China has also cooperated with the US navy in joint search and rescue exercises.
 
Last edited:
Cynic said:
I hope that if anyone ends up bombing Iran, it isn't us for a change.
Click to expand...

That would be nice, but not especially practical. Most countries don't really have the force projection capacity we have -- and in many cases, it's because we've jointly agreed with them (e.g. through NATO) that they don't need to develop force projection capability because we have it already and there's no point in duplicating effort.

Besides, I'm convinced the time to react to Iran having nukes is after they use one.
Click to expand...

That is stupid.

Not horrible, but stupid.

I think it's a damned sight less horrible going around acting as if the US and it's official allies are the only nations qualified to have them and assuming anyone else intends to destroy their neighbors.
Click to expand...

The only problem with that is the damned Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, and in which Iran explicitly renounced any intention of developing nuclear weapons, in exchange for an explicit renunciation by the United States (and the other nuclear powers) of any intention to use nuclear weapons against Iran.

Iran has the right (under the NPT) to withdraw from the treaty. But as long as the treaty remains in force, they are in violation of international law if they continue to try to develop nuclear weapons. And given the severity of this particular violation, it can easily subject them to non-nuclear but still military retaliation.

Because, frankly, I'm not sure why an non-nuclear weapon state would want to develop nuclear weapons if it doesn't intend to destroy all its neighbors....
 
drkitten said:
The only problem with that is the damned Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, and in which Iran explicitly renounced any intention of developing nuclear weapons, in exchange for an explicit renunciation by the United States (and the other nuclear powers) of any intention to use nuclear weapons against Iran.
Click to expand...

Yeah but Bush I (possibly Bush II) also threatened first use of nukes against Iraq, which I believe is also essentially a violation of the treaty.

Because, frankly, I'm not sure why an non-nuclear weapon state would want to develop nuclear weapons if it doesn't intend to destroy all its neighbors....
Click to expand...
Balancing.
 
drkitten said:
That would be nice, but not especially practical. Most countries don't really have the force projection capacity we have -- and in many cases, it's because we've jointly agreed with them (e.g. through NATO) that they don't need to develop force projection capability because we have it already and there's no point in duplicating effort.



That is stupid.

Not horrible, but stupid.



The only problem with that is the damned Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, and in which Iran explicitly renounced any intention of developing nuclear weapons, in exchange for an explicit renunciation by the United States (and the other nuclear powers) of any intention to use nuclear weapons against Iran.

Iran has the right (under the NPT) to withdraw from the treaty. But as long as the treaty remains in force, they are in violation of international law if they continue to try to develop nuclear weapons. And given the severity of this particular violation, it can easily subject them to non-nuclear but still military retaliation.

Because, frankly, I'm not sure why an non-nuclear weapon state would want to develop nuclear weapons if it doesn't intend to destroy all its neighbors....
Click to expand...


Or maybe use the Nukes as a guarantee that they could indulge in supporting various guerilla and terrorist groups against their neighbors and not be subject to retaliation, which I think is what Iran has in mind.
 
I just looked out my window and I don't see any troops mobilizing yet.

Anyone else see anything suspicious?
 
JihadJane said:
Wouldn't less direct forms assistance be more likely?
Click to expand...

At first, certainly, much in the same way the US prefers to use indirect methods.

China and Russia have already united, having recognized that the US threat to their interests requires a cooperative response. They have staged joint war games.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out, lots of countries conduct war games together. Does not mean they will help each other in a real war.

Besides, China likes having us as its big market. We're financially tied to each other. One falls, they take the other down.


The US/UK/Israel alliance.
Click to expand...

Of course. Damn Jews er Israelis..er Zionists. That is it. Zionists.


The propaganda effort.

The administration's talking heads (including Obama) keep telling us that Iran is building a bomb, despite there being no evidence of it.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't building a bomb, but they are preparing to do so.




It is the US which has been buying crap, from China.
Click to expand...

Ya, that same China you claim wants to nuke us. Just keep using that internet.
 
JihadJane said:
The US/UK/Israel alliance.

The administration's talking heads (including Obama) keep telling us that Iran is building a bomb, despite there being no evidence of it.
Click to expand...

um...the IAEA now believes Iran is trying to build a bomb.

but I guess the Jewnited Nations don't matter...huh?
 
WildCat said:
I just looked out my window and I don't see any troops mobilizing yet.

Anyone else see anything suspicious?
Click to expand...

dude...what is wrong with you???

you know you have to put on your Rowdy-Rowdy Piper sunglasses to see them!!!

;)
 
WildCat said:
I just looked out my window and I don't see any troops mobilizing yet.

Anyone else see anything suspicious?
Click to expand...

Well there was a pitched battle a couple of weeks back in one of our southern ports. Or that might just have been the portsmouth southampton match.
 
Peephole said:
How is it more concerned?
Click to expand...

According to this Iran can't hit America even with its very best missiles. Most of Europe falls within their medium range missiles. Naturally, that webstie doesn't apply to a nuke sailed into New York harbor so take it for what it's worth.
 
Last edited:
drkitten said:
That is stupid.

Not horrible, but stupid.
Click to expand...


By calling the idea that we should react to Iran after they've used the weapons stupid, you seem to be making the assumption that we would have necessarily had something to respond to before that point. But the only thing we can identify with any certainty to react to is their very attempt to acquire the technology, you're effectively advocating pre-emptive action against something that might never happen. I've heard such policies called stupid before.


drkitten said:
Iran has the right (under the NPT) to withdraw from the treaty. But as long as the treaty remains in force, they are in violation of international law if they continue to try to develop nuclear weapons. And given the severity of this particular violation, it can easily subject them to non-nuclear but still military retaliation.
Click to expand...


What choices has Iran ever had in all this? It's pretty much agree or else, right? Contracts entered in by coercion are useless. If I personally were forced into something I didn't want and then handed money for it, I'd take the money and then do what I wanted anyway too. That's perfectly reasonable, under those circumstances.


drkitten said:
Because, frankly, I'm not sure why an non-nuclear weapon state would want to develop nuclear weapons if it doesn't intend to destroy all its neighbors....
Click to expand...


Using the logic above, how does one get to be a non-aggressive nuclear weapon state in the first place? The last time I checked, there are nuclear countries all over the globe and not one of them has destroyed all their neighbors.

But I'll give you one: if you want nuclear technologies for power generation, or experimentation, or just because you want it and you'll be damned if you're going to let other nations tell you want to do, then what you do is you go ahead and develop some nuclear weapons. Then no one will touch you.
 
Still no sign of WWIII here in the Upper Midwest.

But I'm stocking up on guns, ammo, and dry goods because if Jane says WWIII is near it must be true!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom