So if Iran goes full monty and China invades Taiwan while Russia is grinding down its population on the Ukrainian front, we'd have WW3 on our hands I reckon.
That war is already underway, we just won't be calling it that until after..
We won't be calling it that until the US has a draft.
Drafts have not won recent wars.
Wars are not PVP.
The US has made an effort to maintain a highly trained and extremely specialized fighting force. It can take over a year of training in certain specialities before you even get to the last school house.
There's a focus on making advanced weapon systems easy to use through human factors analysis and that's slowly transitioning into killbots that do everything but pull the trigger and need a human in the loop to authorize the kill.
During WWII there was a massive increase in manufacturing which was beyond the enemies reach. If you got drafted to do anything it'd likely be work in a plant making drones or something logistical such as transporting drones.
Yes the US tries to make soldiers the operators of weaponry, not the weapons themselves as in earlier times. Treasure spent on weaponry stokes the military industrial complex. Benefits to dead veterans families, not so much. Also civilian deaths undermine public support for whatever bullshit they are doing.
Also, spending money on a weapon is money that goes to a shareholder. Spending money on training doesn't.
The war in Ukraine is a drafted/conscripted army versus a drafted/conscripted army. They are (to varying degrees) led and bolstered by volunteer career soldiers, but the vast majority of the boots on the ground have little to no experience.
In times of "peace", drafts and compulsory service are largely pointless. You are mostly just increasing churn and ensuring that accumulated knowledge is lost. And your "peaceful operations" likely have a small enough footprint that you can make do with volunteers.
Against a near-peer or even just a conscript army with sheer numbers? You need to increase the amount of cannon fodder. And just the number of guns that can do the "easy" stuff while you rely on the highly trained soldiers to do the "hard" stuff.
When World War 3 finally kicks off (... and assuming it isn't over in the time it takes an ICBM to fly halfway around the planet): I don't know if "civilized" nations will actually activate a draft because it will lead to mass unrest. But I am also not sure if they'll have a choice.
And just as a counter argument to weapons being increasingly high tech with a focus on skilled use: The US Military's M5 is a good yellow flag. It is specifically designed with multiple ammunition types with the higher power round significantly degrading the life of the weapon and expected to only be issued for near peer conflicts. But that also speaks to the lessons learned from Ukraine and similar conflicts where... when the war really kicks off, you don't have to worry about your weapons or soldiers lasting years. They will be damaged and killed in battles and need to be replaced.
Cannon fodder?
To quote Patton
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
It's a good thing this near-peer BS is thrown around about armies that can barely keep their troops fed in their own countries where we have the logistics to feed our troops around the world.
I'm sure there will always be a roll for infantry.
The problem of the last few wars has been using infantry to hold ground and as a police force.
You don't win a conflict by holding on to a hill of dirt. You win by removing your enemies ability or will to fight.
Ukraine is a bad example as they're playing by other people's rules. Europe and the West won't provide them weapons if they use them in Russia. Russia won't give up ground if Ukraine cannot reach inside of Russia to remove their will or ability to fight.
It's trench warfare stalemate a la WWI all over again.
If there is a WWIII it'll be marked by hybrid war, hacking, air defense reacting to missle and drone attacks and the deployment of decentralized weapons.
It's not a stretch to imagine hundreds of thousands of civilians could be killed by killware in a hacking attack without a single traditional weapon system being involved.
People aren't going to line up in pretty little lines fire salvos at each other. If anyone starts digging a fucking trench let them have that ground. They are no immediate threat to the factories, production, and training centers. Let them dig in. Send a bomb run later to clear them out when they come out to play.
So, because some guy in the 40s had a pithy remark, a war that shows strong indications of playing out similar to WW1 and the Eastern Front of WW2 against similarly armed foes is not at all representative of future wars?
Also, unless we are willing to completely raze cities (both captured friendly and enemy), there will always be some form of "trench warfare". That is what we saw in Fallujah and are seeing in Ukraine. It is just that, rather than run from one trench line to the other, it is pushing from a treeline into a city or from one block to another. And bombardments are only viable while you have munitions and/or air superiority. Both of which are limited resources as wars continue... which we are seeing in Ukraine.
Because of external factors, Ukraine is on a very "weird" time table. But everything that is happening is consistent with a prolonged war. Even the US only has so many stockpiled resources and can only make so many new bombs and vehicles at a time. Especially if supply lines are fucked and the entire world is scrambling to build their own.
If you want to go trench by trench or door by door go ahead.
The future of war is not dirt. But instead information.
If Australian warnings for Perl Harbor had been heeded we wouldn't have had to build so many boats. We built 9000 boats in WWII and we'll build more than that many drones in WWIII.
But what good are drones without information? Without targets? Without information what to they do?
Targets, tactics is only one kind of information. Real time surveillance, biometrics, the ability to strike command and control. To cut the head off the snake is worth more than clearing a city.
If you need to clear a city, you need infantry.
Did we go island hoping all the way to Japan and then go door to door? Or did we break the enemies will to fight and force a surrender?
Is it always worth going door to door and holding worthless land? Trading bodies and bullets for what? Dirt?
What would it be worth however to cripple the enemies Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, and Intelligence? Do we really need to take land in future wars as much as force a surrender out of idiots that want to start shit.
There's a terrific documentary about how the Air Force planned to win a nuclear war before ICBMs. It's called the power of decision. It's not about going door to door or trench by trench however. It's about a different kind of war where you win by removing your enemies ability to fight in a flash. Unfortunately similar can be done today in cyberspace without the assurance of MAD or the early warning of an ICMB launch.
Okay. Why didn't the US "cripple the enemies Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillaince and Recu" in Afghanistan and Iraq and end the war in five minutes? Oh wait, we basically did. And then fought against guerillas for twenty years.
Okay, why didn't russia do that in Ukraine? Oh yeah, they tried. The opening hours of the war involved paratrooper attacks on key airfields coupled with ballistic missile strikes against fortifications. They failed, lost a LOT of their actually competent soldiers, and then had to deal with overextended supply lines.
And yeah, russia are fucking incompetent. But even the US can fail at a mission objective. And, unless you are willing to switch to nukes immediately after, means you are now in a "real" war.
Ukraine "changed everything" except... it didn't, really. A lot of this has been known and is the basis for a lot of the (often times batshit insane) strategies and plans of The Cold War. It is just that West Point and similar analysts love to push along topics that lead to increased spending toward the military industrial complex. And... I shouldn't have to explain why...
And the fancy guns ARE incredibly useful. If a war can be "won" without fighting it, all the better. But that has not been the indication of the past century and the reality is: When you run out of the fancy stuff, you are back to boots on the ground.
But stuff like the M5* and (arguably) the new APC everyone hates are very much showing the realization of this. Part of it is realizing that people just don't want to be in a standing military anymore if it means they might get shot at. But it is also acknowledging the reality of what a "real" war will be.
*: I lack the expertise to properly explain it, but even the switch to the 6.8 round is this. At a high level, the 6.8 round is less about body armor and is more about doctrine. Because even top of the line "Jack Bauer is gonna murder some fools for shooting his girlfriend" body armor is not going to have you shrugging off a 5.56 round to the chest. It might not kill or even wound, but it will take someone out of the fight long enough to capitalize. It is more about making every shot count and changing doctrine from highly skilled techniques like suppressive fire (knowing where to shoot rather than just aiming at the head when it pops out) and bounding advances/leap frogging. Which hearkens back to the days of "Well, most of them can't hit the broad side of a barn. But when they do, things die"
In both those wars there was a plan for war.
But not a plan for peace.
The civilian leadership in Iraq made a choice to send the Iraqi military home with no pay and no plan to do anything but hold up in the green zone as if everything after opening up the war would just turn to roses.
The civilian leadership refused the military leadership's requests to negotiate with the Iraqi religious leaders calling for violence. To create a plan for peace.
These guns your jerking off over did not bring peace. Nor could they win a war. All they did was create a stalemate.
To plan for peace is a tiny bit harder than telling a few young men to leave the FOB every once in awhile. It involves negotiating with religion, creating win/wins, making sure people have the means to support themselves. Or crushing those that oppose the system. It's easier if you get the locals to do it for you in exchange for reconstruction for instance in Germany and Japan.
There small local conflicts you're describing are in places with a long history of tribes fighting other tribes. They are used to that. WWIII will be a flash point conflict among civilians that may not stomach a prolonged conflict and will be more likely to want to negotiate peace.
If coolers heads prevail then peace is possible.
If shareholders just want a war that drags on far away and civilian leaders ignore military leadership you end up with the wast of time and money Iraqi and Afghanistan were. The difference is the endgame of politics. Why did the war continue after Osama was caught and killed? What was the objective after that? Why was holding the dirt so important after the enemy had been reduced to a point that could no longer project power behind their hill of dirt?
If getting Osama was the main goal why did we ignore all the Intel that he was across the border in Pakistan for so long? Why did we keep searching where we knew Osama wasn't? Because Halliburton wanted a prolonged war and the military leadership had no authority to stop the madness, win the war, negotiate peace, and move on after the mission of taking out the terrorist leader Osama was complete. So instead it devolved into holding a hill of dirt for no reason except to line pockets.
Not really a world war until 10 countries are actively involved with 2 of them USA and China.
Right now usa is passive and china is not involved.
We're in the lend and lease phase right now
I could see it being called a proxy world war. There's enough concentration of where support is coming from.
I think that’s just called a Cold War. We didn’t invade Vietnam because we actually give a shit about Vietnamese people, it was a proxy war with the USSR
That and they were the major exporter of opium at the time.
Was that not covered by "if Iran goes full monty?"
I am sorry, I obviously can't read properly
Idk, there is more middle east than just Iran
Yes, like Yemen or Palestine or Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan? They have interests and influence outside their own country, to varying degrees.
Where in the world is Iran located?
I am sorry, I can't read
Great what a time to be alive! /s
nah because no country is allowed to be a part of the russo-ukranian war as ukraine is neutral.
And all of that because the US can't tell Israel to stop bombing civilians in Gaza.
Not because that wtf
Oh yes, exactly because of that! It may seem farfetched to come to that conclusion, but only if you look at things as isolated happenings instead of in a more global geopolitical scope.
Turkey, Iran and Egypt are eager to enter the stage. Their only repellent is the US' firm stance with Israel. But how long can this Mexican standoff be in place?
Israel has already cut Gaza in half and now they are going to increase the killings in the northern half in which still 1.1 million citizens live. The number of casualties will increase dramatically and the videos and images will ignite the region. One of the eager neighbors mentioned above might enter the stage, they might even jointly enter all at the same time.
What happens if Turkey, a NATO member, enters Israel? What are the implications of this?
China is smelling US weakness and can't wait for something like that to happen. They will immediately proceed with their plan of annexing Taiwan.
If that happens, Russia will mobilize with full force and there you have it - WW3.
All because America couldn't say to Israel to lift it's finger from the trigger.
China cannot simply invade Taiwan in a moment whenever opportunity strikes, it would need significant and obvious preparation and buildup, because they would be contemplating a naval invasion on an almost unprecedented scale.
Russia probably will mobilize however far it's government feels it safely can regardless of China; NATO isn't going to directly invade Russia itself because of it's nuclear arsenal, and isn't terribly likely to actually send a serious number of troops to Ukraine for the same reason, so what it primarily has to worry about is western sanctions and military equipment, and of course the efforts of the Ukrainians themselves, which it already has to deal with regardless of what China is doing.
Israel for it's part is also a nuclear armed state, so actual full scale war being declared upon it by it's neighbors is unlikely. Support for terrorist or resistance groups, sure, maybe some sanctions, and definitely a lot strongly worded condemnation, but I'd very much doubt that the leadership of those countries cares enough about the Palestinians to declare a possibility suicidal war over it, the kind of politicians that lead these countries aren't exactly famous for their empathy.
China has the world's largest Navy currently. That buildup has been happening for at least a decade.
But if they're at war, that ties up a lot of their resources. They're currently using their military strength to claim international waters in the South China Sea. If they get into a war with Taiwan, they can't back that claim up. The countries which are being unfairly denied those waters can assert themselves without fear of significant reprisal, and the US would be more than happy to aid that.
There's really no sensible reason for China to go after Taiwan, it's complete bait. They stand to lose far more than they stand to gain.
I don't mean number of ships, I mean getting the ships and troops into position to use them.
The two small islands close to mainland China will be the proving grounds, I'd expect. Unless he decides to retake the Vladivostok Oblast.
more boats /= capable navy. most of their "navy" is small patrol boats
I'm aware of their current capabilities. The troop transports and carriers are the things that raise my eyebrow.
Israel can only ever hope to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrant to its neighboring countries. As soon as they use a single nuclear warhead in the region, it will instantaneously lose all the support it still had in the world and beyond that point it is hard to predict what the world will turn into, but it would be ugly.
That's the nature of nukes for any country. But as a deterrent they have proven highly effective
I don’t think turkey will enter Israel at all. Maybe Egypt if US insisted on moving Gazaians to Sinai.
Also why Russia will mobilize? They have no incentive to face NATO now. Maybe weakening the west in the long run.
Egypt is not going to enter, they hate hamas and their own Muslim brotherhood.
They’ll to defend their land.
This is their prime minister statement.
Amid rising pressure on Egypt to admit Palestinian refugees, the country’s prime minister, Mostafa Madbouly, said it remained committed to protecting its land and sovereignty regardless of the cost. “We are prepared to sacrifice millions of lives to ensure that no one encroaches upon our territory,” Madbouly told a gathering in Sinai of military leaders, local tribal leaders, members of parliament and other politicians.
Russia is facing NATO right now, just not directly, but by proxy. In case of a major disruption within NATO, they could try to use the opportunity to increase their defending position by taking the 3 small baltic countries.
I see.
I thought you mean nuking NATO.
Russia tried to hurt NATO by punching the guy next to him, and in return is getting beaten to a pulp by the guy that got hit while NATO laughs and supplies knuckledusters to their wrongly attacked neighbour. Russia is a clown state that's done nothing but embarrass themselves for 18 months straight
Russia made a mistake by invading Ukraine, but they are far from "being beaten to a pulp".
their tank supply, dead mobiks and economy say otherwise
This is a very large logic train and you can't demonstrate A->B let alone A->Z. Basically confirmation bias.
I can't demonstrate geostrategic happenings? Of course I can't. Can you?
I don't make claims I can't demonstrate and demand people take me on faith for my tinfoil nonsense
So if Iran goes full monty and China invades Taiwan while Russia is grinding down its population on the Ukrainian front, we'd have WW3 on our hands I reckon.
That war is already underway, we just won't be calling it that until after..
We won't be calling it that until the US has a draft.
Drafts have not won recent wars. Wars are not PVP.
The US has made an effort to maintain a highly trained and extremely specialized fighting force. It can take over a year of training in certain specialities before you even get to the last school house.
There's a focus on making advanced weapon systems easy to use through human factors analysis and that's slowly transitioning into killbots that do everything but pull the trigger and need a human in the loop to authorize the kill.
During WWII there was a massive increase in manufacturing which was beyond the enemies reach. If you got drafted to do anything it'd likely be work in a plant making drones or something logistical such as transporting drones.
Yes the US tries to make soldiers the operators of weaponry, not the weapons themselves as in earlier times. Treasure spent on weaponry stokes the military industrial complex. Benefits to dead veterans families, not so much. Also civilian deaths undermine public support for whatever bullshit they are doing.
Also, spending money on a weapon is money that goes to a shareholder. Spending money on training doesn't.
The war in Ukraine is a drafted/conscripted army versus a drafted/conscripted army. They are (to varying degrees) led and bolstered by volunteer career soldiers, but the vast majority of the boots on the ground have little to no experience.
In times of "peace", drafts and compulsory service are largely pointless. You are mostly just increasing churn and ensuring that accumulated knowledge is lost. And your "peaceful operations" likely have a small enough footprint that you can make do with volunteers.
Against a near-peer or even just a conscript army with sheer numbers? You need to increase the amount of cannon fodder. And just the number of guns that can do the "easy" stuff while you rely on the highly trained soldiers to do the "hard" stuff.
When World War 3 finally kicks off (... and assuming it isn't over in the time it takes an ICBM to fly halfway around the planet): I don't know if "civilized" nations will actually activate a draft because it will lead to mass unrest. But I am also not sure if they'll have a choice.
And just as a counter argument to weapons being increasingly high tech with a focus on skilled use: The US Military's M5 is a good yellow flag. It is specifically designed with multiple ammunition types with the higher power round significantly degrading the life of the weapon and expected to only be issued for near peer conflicts. But that also speaks to the lessons learned from Ukraine and similar conflicts where... when the war really kicks off, you don't have to worry about your weapons or soldiers lasting years. They will be damaged and killed in battles and need to be replaced.
Cannon fodder?
To quote Patton
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
It's a good thing this near-peer BS is thrown around about armies that can barely keep their troops fed in their own countries where we have the logistics to feed our troops around the world.
I'm sure there will always be a roll for infantry. The problem of the last few wars has been using infantry to hold ground and as a police force.
You don't win a conflict by holding on to a hill of dirt. You win by removing your enemies ability or will to fight.
Ukraine is a bad example as they're playing by other people's rules. Europe and the West won't provide them weapons if they use them in Russia. Russia won't give up ground if Ukraine cannot reach inside of Russia to remove their will or ability to fight.
It's trench warfare stalemate a la WWI all over again.
If there is a WWIII it'll be marked by hybrid war, hacking, air defense reacting to missle and drone attacks and the deployment of decentralized weapons.
It's not a stretch to imagine hundreds of thousands of civilians could be killed by killware in a hacking attack without a single traditional weapon system being involved.
People aren't going to line up in pretty little lines fire salvos at each other. If anyone starts digging a fucking trench let them have that ground. They are no immediate threat to the factories, production, and training centers. Let them dig in. Send a bomb run later to clear them out when they come out to play.
So, because some guy in the 40s had a pithy remark, a war that shows strong indications of playing out similar to WW1 and the Eastern Front of WW2 against similarly armed foes is not at all representative of future wars?
Also, unless we are willing to completely raze cities (both captured friendly and enemy), there will always be some form of "trench warfare". That is what we saw in Fallujah and are seeing in Ukraine. It is just that, rather than run from one trench line to the other, it is pushing from a treeline into a city or from one block to another. And bombardments are only viable while you have munitions and/or air superiority. Both of which are limited resources as wars continue... which we are seeing in Ukraine.
Because of external factors, Ukraine is on a very "weird" time table. But everything that is happening is consistent with a prolonged war. Even the US only has so many stockpiled resources and can only make so many new bombs and vehicles at a time. Especially if supply lines are fucked and the entire world is scrambling to build their own.
If you want to go trench by trench or door by door go ahead.
The future of war is not dirt. But instead information.
If Australian warnings for Perl Harbor had been heeded we wouldn't have had to build so many boats. We built 9000 boats in WWII and we'll build more than that many drones in WWIII.
But what good are drones without information? Without targets? Without information what to they do?
Targets, tactics is only one kind of information. Real time surveillance, biometrics, the ability to strike command and control. To cut the head off the snake is worth more than clearing a city.
If you need to clear a city, you need infantry.
Did we go island hoping all the way to Japan and then go door to door? Or did we break the enemies will to fight and force a surrender?
Is it always worth going door to door and holding worthless land? Trading bodies and bullets for what? Dirt?
What would it be worth however to cripple the enemies Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, and Intelligence? Do we really need to take land in future wars as much as force a surrender out of idiots that want to start shit.
There's a terrific documentary about how the Air Force planned to win a nuclear war before ICBMs. It's called the power of decision. It's not about going door to door or trench by trench however. It's about a different kind of war where you win by removing your enemies ability to fight in a flash. Unfortunately similar can be done today in cyberspace without the assurance of MAD or the early warning of an ICMB launch.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?426926-1/the-power-decision#
Okay. Why didn't the US "cripple the enemies Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillaince and Recu" in Afghanistan and Iraq and end the war in five minutes? Oh wait, we basically did. And then fought against guerillas for twenty years.
Okay, why didn't russia do that in Ukraine? Oh yeah, they tried. The opening hours of the war involved paratrooper attacks on key airfields coupled with ballistic missile strikes against fortifications. They failed, lost a LOT of their actually competent soldiers, and then had to deal with overextended supply lines.
And yeah, russia are fucking incompetent. But even the US can fail at a mission objective. And, unless you are willing to switch to nukes immediately after, means you are now in a "real" war.
Ukraine "changed everything" except... it didn't, really. A lot of this has been known and is the basis for a lot of the (often times batshit insane) strategies and plans of The Cold War. It is just that West Point and similar analysts love to push along topics that lead to increased spending toward the military industrial complex. And... I shouldn't have to explain why...
And the fancy guns ARE incredibly useful. If a war can be "won" without fighting it, all the better. But that has not been the indication of the past century and the reality is: When you run out of the fancy stuff, you are back to boots on the ground.
But stuff like the M5* and (arguably) the new APC everyone hates are very much showing the realization of this. Part of it is realizing that people just don't want to be in a standing military anymore if it means they might get shot at. But it is also acknowledging the reality of what a "real" war will be.
*: I lack the expertise to properly explain it, but even the switch to the 6.8 round is this. At a high level, the 6.8 round is less about body armor and is more about doctrine. Because even top of the line "Jack Bauer is gonna murder some fools for shooting his girlfriend" body armor is not going to have you shrugging off a 5.56 round to the chest. It might not kill or even wound, but it will take someone out of the fight long enough to capitalize. It is more about making every shot count and changing doctrine from highly skilled techniques like suppressive fire (knowing where to shoot rather than just aiming at the head when it pops out) and bounding advances/leap frogging. Which hearkens back to the days of "Well, most of them can't hit the broad side of a barn. But when they do, things die"
In both those wars there was a plan for war. But not a plan for peace.
The civilian leadership in Iraq made a choice to send the Iraqi military home with no pay and no plan to do anything but hold up in the green zone as if everything after opening up the war would just turn to roses.
The civilian leadership refused the military leadership's requests to negotiate with the Iraqi religious leaders calling for violence. To create a plan for peace.
These guns your jerking off over did not bring peace. Nor could they win a war. All they did was create a stalemate.
To plan for peace is a tiny bit harder than telling a few young men to leave the FOB every once in awhile. It involves negotiating with religion, creating win/wins, making sure people have the means to support themselves. Or crushing those that oppose the system. It's easier if you get the locals to do it for you in exchange for reconstruction for instance in Germany and Japan.
There small local conflicts you're describing are in places with a long history of tribes fighting other tribes. They are used to that. WWIII will be a flash point conflict among civilians that may not stomach a prolonged conflict and will be more likely to want to negotiate peace.
If coolers heads prevail then peace is possible. If shareholders just want a war that drags on far away and civilian leaders ignore military leadership you end up with the wast of time and money Iraqi and Afghanistan were. The difference is the endgame of politics. Why did the war continue after Osama was caught and killed? What was the objective after that? Why was holding the dirt so important after the enemy had been reduced to a point that could no longer project power behind their hill of dirt?
If getting Osama was the main goal why did we ignore all the Intel that he was across the border in Pakistan for so long? Why did we keep searching where we knew Osama wasn't? Because Halliburton wanted a prolonged war and the military leadership had no authority to stop the madness, win the war, negotiate peace, and move on after the mission of taking out the terrorist leader Osama was complete. So instead it devolved into holding a hill of dirt for no reason except to line pockets.
When ww3 starts I hope I'm on the ice cream boat
Not really a world war until 10 countries are actively involved with 2 of them USA and China.
Right now usa is passive and china is not involved.
We're in the lend and lease phase right now
I could see it being called a proxy world war. There's enough concentration of where support is coming from.
I think that’s just called a Cold War. We didn’t invade Vietnam because we actually give a shit about Vietnamese people, it was a proxy war with the USSR
That and they were the major exporter of opium at the time.
Don't forget the middle east
Was that not covered by "if Iran goes full monty?"
I am sorry, I obviously can't read properly
Idk, there is more middle east than just Iran
Yes, like Yemen or Palestine or Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan? They have interests and influence outside their own country, to varying degrees.
Where in the world is Iran located?
I am sorry, I can't read
Great what a time to be alive! /s
nah because no country is allowed to be a part of the russo-ukranian war as ukraine is neutral.
And all of that because the US can't tell Israel to stop bombing civilians in Gaza.
Not because that wtf
Oh yes, exactly because of that! It may seem farfetched to come to that conclusion, but only if you look at things as isolated happenings instead of in a more global geopolitical scope.
Turkey, Iran and Egypt are eager to enter the stage. Their only repellent is the US' firm stance with Israel. But how long can this Mexican standoff be in place?
Israel has already cut Gaza in half and now they are going to increase the killings in the northern half in which still 1.1 million citizens live. The number of casualties will increase dramatically and the videos and images will ignite the region. One of the eager neighbors mentioned above might enter the stage, they might even jointly enter all at the same time.
What happens if Turkey, a NATO member, enters Israel? What are the implications of this?
China is smelling US weakness and can't wait for something like that to happen. They will immediately proceed with their plan of annexing Taiwan.
If that happens, Russia will mobilize with full force and there you have it - WW3.
All because America couldn't say to Israel to lift it's finger from the trigger.
China cannot simply invade Taiwan in a moment whenever opportunity strikes, it would need significant and obvious preparation and buildup, because they would be contemplating a naval invasion on an almost unprecedented scale.
Russia probably will mobilize however far it's government feels it safely can regardless of China; NATO isn't going to directly invade Russia itself because of it's nuclear arsenal, and isn't terribly likely to actually send a serious number of troops to Ukraine for the same reason, so what it primarily has to worry about is western sanctions and military equipment, and of course the efforts of the Ukrainians themselves, which it already has to deal with regardless of what China is doing.
Israel for it's part is also a nuclear armed state, so actual full scale war being declared upon it by it's neighbors is unlikely. Support for terrorist or resistance groups, sure, maybe some sanctions, and definitely a lot strongly worded condemnation, but I'd very much doubt that the leadership of those countries cares enough about the Palestinians to declare a possibility suicidal war over it, the kind of politicians that lead these countries aren't exactly famous for their empathy.
China has the world's largest Navy currently. That buildup has been happening for at least a decade.
But if they're at war, that ties up a lot of their resources. They're currently using their military strength to claim international waters in the South China Sea. If they get into a war with Taiwan, they can't back that claim up. The countries which are being unfairly denied those waters can assert themselves without fear of significant reprisal, and the US would be more than happy to aid that.
There's really no sensible reason for China to go after Taiwan, it's complete bait. They stand to lose far more than they stand to gain.
I don't mean number of ships, I mean getting the ships and troops into position to use them.
The two small islands close to mainland China will be the proving grounds, I'd expect. Unless he decides to retake the Vladivostok Oblast.
more boats /= capable navy. most of their "navy" is small patrol boats
I'm aware of their current capabilities. The troop transports and carriers are the things that raise my eyebrow.
Israel can only ever hope to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrant to its neighboring countries. As soon as they use a single nuclear warhead in the region, it will instantaneously lose all the support it still had in the world and beyond that point it is hard to predict what the world will turn into, but it would be ugly.
That's the nature of nukes for any country. But as a deterrent they have proven highly effective
I don’t think turkey will enter Israel at all. Maybe Egypt if US insisted on moving Gazaians to Sinai.
Also why Russia will mobilize? They have no incentive to face NATO now. Maybe weakening the west in the long run.
Egypt is not going to enter, they hate hamas and their own Muslim brotherhood.
They’ll to defend their land.
This is their prime minister statement.
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-war-gaza-strip-2023-11-01/card/egypt-prime-minister-says-country-ready-to-sacrifice-millions-to-defend-territory-5z11FiVuOtA2mU7WafPv
Russia is facing NATO right now, just not directly, but by proxy. In case of a major disruption within NATO, they could try to use the opportunity to increase their defending position by taking the 3 small baltic countries.
I see.
I thought you mean nuking NATO.
Russia tried to hurt NATO by punching the guy next to him, and in return is getting beaten to a pulp by the guy that got hit while NATO laughs and supplies knuckledusters to their wrongly attacked neighbour. Russia is a clown state that's done nothing but embarrass themselves for 18 months straight
Russia made a mistake by invading Ukraine, but they are far from "being beaten to a pulp".
their tank supply, dead mobiks and economy say otherwise
This is a very large logic train and you can't demonstrate A->B let alone A->Z. Basically confirmation bias.
I can't demonstrate geostrategic happenings? Of course I can't. Can you?
I don't make claims I can't demonstrate and demand people take me on faith for my tinfoil nonsense
Lol okay loser.
Way too broad a brush, mate.
broken fucking record