Battle lines are gradually being drawn for the future thirld world war because of various unresolved political issues coupled with recent bypassing and weakening of international institutions like UN. I believe that this destructive war might take place during the middle of 22nd century. I mean somewhere in between 2140 and 2180. It will be without doubt a nuclear, space and missile war with large scale distruction.
The high profile political issues which can fuel the future thirld world war are the ones below:
China - Taiwan tension
Israel - Palestine problem
Kashmir issue between India & Pakistan
Tension between Islamic world & Western nations
Newly brewing cold war between China & U.S. because of competition for depleting natural resources
Gradual strengthening of Chinese economy & weakening of western economy
These issues will eventually breed the ground for a world war between two groups. The first group might consist of China, Russia and its allies consisting of all Islamic nations. The other group will be composed of U.S., Israel, India and its west European allies.
Who will be the winner is a big question?
If the first group wins the war then India will get divided into many pieces while Pakistan will achieve its long cherished dream of having whole of kashmir under its belt. Israel will disappear from the world map. U.S. and West European nations will greatly weaken both militarily and economically.
Suppose the second group wins the war then Islam as a religion may not exist. Many Islamic nations will simply disappear from the scene. China and Russia will disintegrate.
In case of a stale mate the whole human species might disappear from the planet.
I believe that the last possibility is most likely to happen. I mean that there will be no winner. Everybody will loose and human species will go forever.
seriously i believe, due to climate researchind background, that our ressources will limit us far .................before!!
i sincerely believe china will have to go on war against america before the end of this century....due to oil, cereal and water shortages
ps: maybe india will be opportunist enough to ally china, instead of facing it....cause knowing chinese...i bet thy'll win even if they have to sacrifice half their population and kill most of this planet inhabitants;)
nah india will join with pak in case of war to from the 3rd group.after all we two also nuclear power and we will support the 1st 2 group depending upon the flactuations in the war(which ever group seems to be winning we'll support it otherwise we'll fight them)
I think this war is going to be the ARMAGGEDON as pre-destined in the Quran and Hadith. The UIslamic countries against the rest of the world,..........the winners,.............Muslims insha allah,.......as is also predestined,...:D
The high profile political issues which can fuel the future thirld world war are the ones below:
China - Taiwan tension
Israel - Palestine problem
Kashmir issue between India & Pakistan
Tension between Islamic world & Western nations
Newly brewing cold war between China & U.S. because of competition for depleting natural resources
Gradual strengthening of Chinese economy & weakening of western economy
These issues will eventually breed the ground for a world war between two groups. The first group might consist of China, Russia and its allies consisting of all Islamic nations. The other group will be composed of U.S., Israel, India and its west European allies.
Who will be the winner is a big question?
If the first group wins the war then India will get divided into many pieces while Pakistan will achieve its long cherished dream of having whole of kashmir under its belt. Israel will disappear from the world map. U.S. and West European nations will greatly weaken both militarily and economically.
Suppose the second group wins the war then Islam as a religion may not exist. Many Islamic nations will simply disappear from the scene. China and Russia will disintegrate.
In case of a stale mate the whole human species might disappear from the planet.
I believe that the last possibility is most likely to happen. I mean that there will be no winner. Everybody will loose and human species will go forever.
What are your predictions?
Your fantasies aside, what makes you think that China and Russia would side with Pakistan, or the Islamic world, in any war? History contra-indicates you.
Let's also not forget that China and Russia also fought a war, and are not really best of friends.
Both China and Russia are dealing with Islamic terrorism in Chechnya and Xianjiang. Both also accuse Pakistan of training them and funding them.
Your faulty analysis aside, for most of the world, economics and self interest drive relations not religious ideology. This is the reason China no longer tows Pakistan's line on Kashmir. This is the same reason why China did not come to Pakistan's aid in Kargil.
Instead of disecting a possible "Future Third World War", it would be best to speculate how countries and economies can be merged so everyone has a convergent interest.
I highly appreciate your point of view despite having major diversions. At least, I agree with you that economics and self interest prevail over religious ideology in the modern politics. But the recent invitation by Russian administration to Hamas leadership is a loud indication that Russians are not averse to the idea of accomodating religious extrimists if they are in direct conflict with Americans.
Kargil was a very low grade war fare and was too insignificant for China to put its nose into it. China has never accepted Mcmohan lines and has inherent border dispute with India. During recent major port trust contract, Indian govt conveniently filtered out chinese companies. India is strongly averse to chinese manufactured goods in the Indian market. I don't think China and India would ever become allies unless India give up those areas acquired because of humiliating treaties between British India and China.
Chinese and Russian relationship is gradually warming up. In central asean politics both have similar political goals of driving out Americans. This will gradually build up further. As you say of war between China and Russia, it was a very low grade conflict in the past. While Japan had a bitter war with Americans and faced a humiliating nuclear attack. Despite this, Japan is now one of the staunchest ally of U.S. after Britain. Even Germany and other western nations cannot claim to be as close to U.S. as Japan.
I am not claiming that my predictions are correct and absolute. But the serious cyber brainstorming will certainly produce a logical conclusion of how things would go in the future. It's certain that the future thirld world war is not very far. The seed of this war was sown in 2002 when the U.N. resolution was thrown to the garbage on the pretext of Weapon Of Mass Destruction theory for personal gain. This completely changed the mind of staunchest opponent like me of nuclear arm. I was one of the strongest critic of India having nuclear weapon. But after the invasion of Iraq, I realized how unsafe it was to be without nuclear weapons. Saddam complied with most of the U.N. resolution, but Iraq was attacked on false pretext. If Iraq had nuclear weapons, then U.S. wouldn't have dared (North Korea is an example). On that day, I felt that India must develop nuclear weapon if it wants to be safe from Chinese threat. The same is true for Pakistanis and will be true for many other countries in the future. The ultimate outcome will be a future thirld world war. Future generation will blame Bush and American voters for sowing the seed of the thirld world war by establishing an extremely harmful precedent of ignoring the wishes of international community. Many countries in the future will cite this precedent for their personal gain. This will weaken U.N. and other such bodies further and further until third world war breaks out.
It's like a situation in a civilised society where a powerful person breaks the law for self gain and then more and more people are tempted to do the same. Eventually this leads to anarchy where nobody cares for the law and the civilized society transforms into a jungle law of MIGHT IS ONLY RIGHT.
Iran nuclear issue is a fine example of this. Iranians know that if they comply with U.N. then they would be committing the same error done by Saddam and so the best option for them is to be totally defiant and face whatever comes. They haven't moved an inch from their position and are rather giving equal counter threat. This kind of incident will now magnify in numbers thanks to Bush.
Kargil was a very low grade war fare and was too insignificant for China to put its nose into it. China has never accepted Mcmohan lines and has inherent border dispute with India. During recent major port trust contract, Indian govt conveniently filtered out chinese companies. India is strongly averse to chinese manufactured goods in the Indian market. I don't think China and India would ever become allies unless India give up those areas acquired because of humiliating treaties between British India and China.
Chinese and Russian relationship is gradually warming up. In central asean politics both have similar political goals of driving out Americans. This will gradually build up further. As you say of war between China and Russia, it was a very low grade conflict in the past. While Japan had a bitter war with Americans and faced a humiliating nuclear attack. Despite this, Japan is now one of the staunchest ally of U.S. after Britain. Even Germany and other western nations cannot claim to be as close to U.S. as Japan.
I am not claiming that my predictions are correct and absolute. But the serious cyber brainstorming will certainly produce a logical conclusion of how things would go in the future. It's certain that the future thirld world war is not very far. The seed of this war was sown in 2002 when the U.N. resolution was thrown to the garbage on the pretext of Weapon Of Mass Destruction theory for personal gain. This completely changed the mind of staunchest opponent like me of nuclear arm. I was one of the strongest critic of India having nuclear weapon. But after the invasion of Iraq, I realized how unsafe it was to be without nuclear weapons. Saddam complied with most of the U.N. resolution, but Iraq was attacked on false pretext. If Iraq had nuclear weapons, then U.S. wouldn't have dared (North Korea is an example). On that day, I felt that India must develop nuclear weapon if it wants to be safe from Chinese threat. The same is true for Pakistanis and will be true for many other countries in the future. The ultimate outcome will be a future thirld world war. Future generation will blame Bush and American voters for sowing the seed of the thirld world war by establishing an extremely harmful precedent of ignoring the wishes of international community. Many countries in the future will cite this precedent for their personal gain. This will weaken U.N. and other such bodies further and further until third world war breaks out.
It's like a situation in a civilised society where a powerful person breaks the law for self gain and then more and more people are tempted to do the same. Eventually this leads to anarchy where nobody cares for the law and the civilized society transforms into a jungle law of MIGHT IS ONLY RIGHT.
Iran nuclear issue is a fine example of this. Iranians know that if they comply with U.N. then they would be committing the same error done by Saddam and so the best option for them is to be totally defiant and face whatever comes. They haven't moved an inch from their position and are rather giving equal counter threat. This kind of incident will now magnify in numbers thanks to Bush.
For Russia, Hamas is a power play. they get to show the Islamic world how they accept Palestinian democracy and how they sympathize with their plight. In return, Russia gets a free hand in Chechnya. That is all this was. If there was more to it, Russians would be willing to financially support the Hamas government.
In terms of Kargil, Pakistanis claim it was a low grade conflict and that it was largely insignificant. By and large, this is done to placate the Pakistani leadership. The architect of Kargil just happens to be Pakistan's dictator who took control just when the world learned how close this low level conflict came to a very large conflict and how many Pakistani regulars were killed. Moreover, even in this insignificant conflict, China did nothing to give Pakistan a face saving way out. Simply, there is nothing in history, wether low level or large scale, to demonstrate that China would do anything to tilt the favor of battle towards Pakistan.
The central Asian states don't have the same anomosity towards the Americans that the Russians or the Chinese do. Most of them see their large neighbors as much more hegemonic than the US. Needles to say, they have no want to be a part of any republic anymore, nor do they particularly want to be China's backyard power resource. Most of them see relations with the US as a much more stablizing factor. Just take a look at Belaruss to see how Russian relations can be destablizing.
China and Russia are more competitive than India and China are for energy. They may, at times, have interests that converge but that is not too often. Russia sees itself as a part of Europe and China is firmly pacific rim. They converge when they try to oppose the US, but that is all. Hardly a reason for battlefield allies. If anything, Russia is allied with the Europeans.
Conjecture is all good and dandy, by predicting a world war with the forces of good against the evil American imperialists is nonsense. I think it is about time the Islamic mindset stops looking at allies in war and acting in a manner that is more conducive with progress.
If there is a world war, it does not matter who the hell wins, because there won't be Islam or anything else that matters.
Conjecture is all good and dandy, by predicting a world war with the forces of good against the evil American imperialists is nonsense.
I am not declaring anti-American groups as good. I am only telling that American action of ignoring the institutions like U.N. has sown the seed of future third world war. It's the Americans who set up the U.N. and funded it abundantly to create a peaceful world after second world war. But it's again the Bush administration which started the weakening process of the very institution set up by his predecessors. The gap between first world war and second world war was just 21 years. The thirld world war has been avoided so far thanks to institutions like U.N. But now things have been put in reverse gear by the Bush administration when it balatantly defied U.N. verdict and started the illegal war.
I will quote from the Indian history book to make you understand what I want to say. As per Indian history books, Akbar built a powerful Mughal empire by accomodating every section of Indian society. The same books say that Aurangjeb did sow the seeds of weakening of great Mughal empire when he started discriminating non-muslims.
I hope you might have understood what I am trying to say. Future historians will talk about Bush in a similar way like Indian historians say about Aurangjeb.
Kargil was a very low level conflict. It was only confined to Kashmir. It didn't spread to Punjab, Rajasthan or Kutch. No cities were bombed, no civilian targets were attacked, no modern weapons were used. I don't know about Pakistani figures but Indian army lost 400 soldiers over a period of several weeks. My common sense says it was just a low grade conflict and nothing more.
Sustained oil shock, wearing down of giant corporations like Ford and General Motors, declining manufacturing sector and expensive Iraq war and huge spending on security and gradul lessening of American influence on international politics is a subtle indication that Uncle Sam is now getting older and weaker with every passing day. The most pressing issue now which is giving sleepless nights to our uncle is how to protect its beloved and naughty son ISRAEL from villains and terrorists like IRAN, HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH.
There will be no world-scale wars in future because all the key-players know such a war would be the end of the world. There would be localised wars and proxy wars and strategic militray deployments by major powers to protect their spheres of influence, territorial integrity, and energy routes/resources.
Lower Caucuses, Central Asia, and Middle East, including part of North Africa, are the arena that will witness great power struggle. Any power that will like to maintain or establish its hold over energy-rich Middle East and lower Caucuses/Central Asia would have to do something about Afghanistan and Baluchistan...After all they are part or strategically vital peripheries of the broader Middle East and Central Asia.
Presently, a great game is being played in Afghanistan all way down to Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean.
I will quote from the Indian history book to make you understand what I want to say. As per Indian history books, Akbar built a powerful Mughal empire by accomodating every section of Indian society. The same books say that Aurangjeb did sow the seeds of weakening of great Mughal empire when he started discriminating non-muslims.
I hope you might have understood what I am trying to say. Future historians will talk about Bush in a similar way like Indian historians say about Aurangjeb.
Kargil was a very low level conflict. It was only confined to Kashmir. It didn't spread to Punjab, Rajasthan or Kutch. No cities were bombed, no civilian targets were attacked, no modern weapons were used. I don't know about Pakistani figures but Indian army lost 400 soldiers over a period of several weeks. My common sense says it was just a low grade conflict and nothing more.
You know Sal, I'll stipulate that the US lost credibility and moral ground with the Iraq invasion. There is simply no denying that. However, I don't think ignoring the UN is, by any measure, is the worst of it. The UN had very little credibility to begin with, so there is little to loose. The UN, in terms of diplomacy, is an institution that was setup to prevent a war between the US and the USSR, and to that extent it succeeded. It is also a descent agency to do things like eradicating smallpox and fighting other diseases, and I submit that it is the only thing it is good for now. Someone suggested that the UN is good for nation building, but all the corruption in the organization makes that hard to believe. For the problems and issues the world faces now, the UN has become largely obsolete.
In the prevailing anti-American rhetoric, people forget that the UN gets most of its funding from the US. People forget that most of the aid sent around the world is from US-AID. Every country is lining up around the globe to get hand outs from the US. Pakistan, for example, wants more textile quotas, which is code for beneficial import preferences, more American aid, more American backed loans, more American investment, all the while plotting against the imperialists-zionist-hindu nexus.
Pray tell Sal, where was this grand alliance when the Muslims in Kosovo were getting butchered? All the king's men argued like true gentlemen, all the while people were getting killed. Where was this bastion of protection of mankind when Bosnia was being bombed and siege being laid across Sarajevo? Where was the UN in Rwanda? How many more will die in Sudan before the UN wakes up and takes notice? Africa is being wasted by civil war and Aids, but at the UN gentlemen sit in air conditioned office issuing invitations to despots and criminals. Why isn't Russia, one of the good members of the anti-imperialist alliance, taking any heed of what is happening in Chechnya?
The fact remains, you can build any alliance you want but it will be as emasculated as the UN is now. Without American leadership, the Serbs would have wiped out the Bosnians and the Kosovars. We would still be running scared of smallpox. Even with the Iraq baggage, the US is the only country that brings up issues of irritants to the Grand Alliance like Chechnya and Xianjiang.
America got a bloody nose in Somalia, in return hundreds of thousands of people died of starvation. Where was your grand alliance with all of its moral authority?
No American leadership, and the genocide in Rwanda gets repeated....this time in Sudan. All the while the great protectors, the Chinese, threaten veto against any sanctions.
Here is a little tid-bit Sal: The UN estimates 2.3 million people displaced in Sudan and 300,000 killed. Where is the international institution setup to create a peaceful world?
I fully understand what you are trying to say. It is call "Sole superpower" bashing. But the problem is, no one can replace the US in the international arena. And being the sole super power, means being the butt of anger.
By the way, did anyone read the release of the German document that said the Germans were helping the US in Iraq? The German foreign minister said, even though they don't believe the war in Iraq is just...they are still close allies of the US. This help, by the way, started with Schroeder not Merkel.
Kargil is a good analogy. Pakistanis continue to think that is was a low level conflict, no modern weapons were used, and only Indians died. Pickup a news paper, perhaps pick up a copy of Janes. Indians used laser guided munitions and smart bombs to vacate the Kargil heights. Why do you think India was so keen to buy more Raytheon "fire finder" radars? It proved itself in Kargil. Your analysis of the grand alliance is as faulty as the analysis that Musharaf made when he thought the Indians would come through the international border. You can't start a war and hope someone else comes to your rescue.
There is no alliance to help straighten the situation in the Muslim world. It has to be done the hard way, through education. Unlike Pakistanis, even the Arab world does not see a collusion between India and the Zionists. There is no alliance, and there will be no alliance to come and wipe out the American-Zionist-Hindu nexus. The Russians and India are still very close allies. Instead of waiting someone to come and clean things up, maybe it would be better to look for answers to what ails the Muslim world yourself.
In the prevailing anti-American rhetoric, people forget that the UN gets most of its funding from the US. People forget that most of the aid sent around the world is from US-AID. Every country is lining up around the globe to get hand outs from the US. Pakistan, for example, wants more textile quotas, which is code for beneficial import preferences, more American aid, more American backed loans, more American investment, all the while plotting against the imperialists-zionist-hindu nexus.
Pray tell Sal, where was this grand alliance when the Muslims in Kosovo were getting butchered? All the king's men argued like true gentlemen, all the while people were getting killed. Where was this bastion of protection of mankind when Bosnia was being bombed and siege being laid across Sarajevo? Where was the UN in Rwanda? How many more will die in Sudan before the UN wakes up and takes notice? Africa is being wasted by civil war and Aids, but at the UN gentlemen sit in air conditioned office issuing invitations to despots and criminals. Why isn't Russia, one of the good members of the anti-imperialist alliance, taking any heed of what is happening in Chechnya?
The fact remains, you can build any alliance you want but it will be as emasculated as the UN is now. Without American leadership, the Serbs would have wiped out the Bosnians and the Kosovars. We would still be running scared of smallpox. Even with the Iraq baggage, the US is the only country that brings up issues of irritants to the Grand Alliance like Chechnya and Xianjiang.
America got a bloody nose in Somalia, in return hundreds of thousands of people died of starvation. Where was your grand alliance with all of its moral authority?
No American leadership, and the genocide in Rwanda gets repeated....this time in Sudan. All the while the great protectors, the Chinese, threaten veto against any sanctions.
Here is a little tid-bit Sal: The UN estimates 2.3 million people displaced in Sudan and 300,000 killed. Where is the international institution setup to create a peaceful world?
I fully understand what you are trying to say. It is call "Sole superpower" bashing. But the problem is, no one can replace the US in the international arena. And being the sole super power, means being the butt of anger.
By the way, did anyone read the release of the German document that said the Germans were helping the US in Iraq? The German foreign minister said, even though they don't believe the war in Iraq is just...they are still close allies of the US. This help, by the way, started with Schroeder not Merkel.
Kargil is a good analogy. Pakistanis continue to think that is was a low level conflict, no modern weapons were used, and only Indians died. Pickup a news paper, perhaps pick up a copy of Janes. Indians used laser guided munitions and smart bombs to vacate the Kargil heights. Why do you think India was so keen to buy more Raytheon "fire finder" radars? It proved itself in Kargil. Your analysis of the grand alliance is as faulty as the analysis that Musharaf made when he thought the Indians would come through the international border. You can't start a war and hope someone else comes to your rescue.
There is no alliance to help straighten the situation in the Muslim world. It has to be done the hard way, through education. Unlike Pakistanis, even the Arab world does not see a collusion between India and the Zionists. There is no alliance, and there will be no alliance to come and wipe out the American-Zionist-Hindu nexus. The Russians and India are still very close allies. Instead of waiting someone to come and clean things up, maybe it would be better to look for answers to what ails the Muslim world yourself.
I am astonished by your pro-American stand. I too once was strongly pro-American and was greatly delighted to see the disintegration of USSR. I used to draw strong criticism from majority of my Indian colleagues for being pro-American.
I had thought that the world would be safer and Americans would behave responsibly and in an unbiased manner to make the world safer. When Yasser Arafat announced the recognition of Israel and Kuwait was liberated then this gave me further cheers. But soon things turned out to the contrary when Jewish fundamentalist and religious fanatics captured power and started distroying the peace deal and Americans started displaying their open bias.
The attack on Iraq and the treatment to our defense minister (Jeorge Fernandese) finally made me utterly anti-American.
Have you ever visited U.S. with Indian passport? Do you know how our own defense minister was treated by U.S. immigration officials? Majority of Indians (Over 95%) are deeply anti-American. No Indian with self pride and strong self respect could afford to become pro-American.
If I have the authority then I would treat the visiting U.S. citizen to India (excluding NRI) the same way, the way they treat us. It is these imperialist who made our country so much poor and created a deep divide between Hindus and Muslims of Indian subcontinent. I am really shocked and amazed how an Indian could become pro-American given the above shocking facts.
As a proud Indian the happiest moment of my life would be when India places economic sanctions against U.S. We should learn from Brazilians when it comes to self pride.
If the first group wins the war then India will get divided into many pieces
How did you arrive at that ?
[quote]
while Pakistan will achieve its long cherished dream of having whole of kashmir under its belt.
[/quote]
No. Prepare for a new insurgency from Kashmiris. They want independence.
[quote]
China and Russia will disintegrate.
[/quote]
Tibet and Taiwan may break up from China, but Russia wont disintegrate. Its militarily very strong, next only to the USA (so what if they are half their cold-war size?).
Lastly I want to add that Russia WILL NOT take any sides. They are neutral. Nowadays they are only interested in making money from selling their Soviet-era weapons.
Recently they tested the Topol ICBM with MIRV capability. The Russian defence minister said that Russians can sleep peacefully for the next 40 years, because no country can defend itself against it.