War

What I'm more scared of than World War 3 is another American Civil War, which is where we're heading closer to if the polarization continues to get worse. We're already a nation divided, and I don't want it to continue going this far.

Dixx said:

Doubtful WW3 would actually come out of this since Trump is cozy with Russia. But considering the factors and nations involved, It would be Russia, China, Hezbollah, and Iran vs. Most of the Western World and Saudi Arabia+Turkey. In order for a war to break out there would need to be a conflict with the US and Russia, and even that isn't guaranteed to drag other countires int othe mess. Except that if the Western front backed the rebels they would also empowering terrorist groups and like other interventions in the past would probably lead to another ****storm. So it's doubtful WW3 is gonna happen.

Basically we should keep our asses out of it, if we could learn anything from the past its that you don't **** with the Middle East because nothing good comes out of it.

Click to expand...

Didn't this attack on Syria "almost ruin" the relationship between Russia and the USA? Since Russia is so close with Assad?

I'm surprised Trump actually did something. IMO Assad was testing his response and Trump didn't want to appear weak. I doubt he'll try using chemical weapons again. Just didn't expect him to do a 180 on his stance so quickly.

Corrie said:

Oh god, so now we have Putin sending out a ship in retaliation.

Click to expand...

It's likely they were already planning to send a ship.

Corrie said:

Apparently Kim is also threatening a war between North Korea and the US too now.

Click to expand...

This is nothing new, North Korea always shouts at its neighbors and the US. They've been doing this for literally decades.

Corrie said:

Didn't this attack on Syria "almost ruin" the relationship between Russia and the USA? Since Russia is so close with Assad?

Click to expand...

There isn't any sort of relationship to ruin.

the alt right are crying now because trump ran on the promise of being non-interventionalist. it's as if they finally woke up and realised trump has no principles and all of his words are hollow

the nazis can cry me an entire ocean for all I care

smh im just sitting here reading thru and y'all seem to care more about getting trump out of office than the fact that china and the us are probably closer to each other now.

an hour after the president of china met with trump in florida and then left, the strikes happened. Coincidence?? i think not. especially since china doesn't care anymore about the fact that trump sent the missiles. THIS is what scares me. Foreign relations with america almost always go south, but the fact that the us is getting along with china and the timing is whats scaring me more than "Trump's WW3"

There will be two wars. One is the one everyone is talking about, and the other is the one that will take place in this very thread within a few more posts.

Every US ally approves of the strike to the surprise of no one

Russia's statement: "Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for the Russian President Vladimir Putin, described the US air strikes on the Shayrat airbase as "an act of aggression against a sovereign state delivered in violation of international law under a far-fetched pretext".

Apple2012 said:

As much as you guys don't like Trump, I can explain what's really to blame for what's going on. It is the United Nations that started it all. Yes, I know the US created the UN over 70 years ago, but they did not live up to their intentions. Instead, they done more harm than help.

1. Thanks to the UN involvement, it has created a new enemy to the United States that can be a threat to the world.
2. We wasted a war on a country that wants independence, but only to help a country that colonized that area that wanted their colony back.
3. It got America poking their noses into others' countries businesses when they could do it themselves. I don't care if it's for world peace.
4. Thanks to the veto power, we couldn't get along with the UN, thus failing to take care of major issues.
5. We allowed other nations to have influence over us, caring about what we do.

For that third reason, I understand we don't want a world war 3, but we shouldn't get involved in others' businesses. Let them do their stuff, even if the issue gets worse than the Spanish Inquisition of the 15th century. When they start attacking us, that's when we should really care.

Click to expand...

Could you clarify which enemy you mean in point 1 please? And which war are you referring to in point 2?

Lucanosa said:

smh im just sitting here reading thru and y'all seem to care more about getting trump out of office than the fact that china and the us are probably closer to each other now.

an hour after the president of china met with trump in florida and then left, the strikes happened. Coincidence?? i think not. especially since china doesn't care anymore about the fact that trump sent the missiles. THIS is what scares me. Foreign relations with america almost always go south, but the fact that the us is getting along with china and the timing is whats scaring me more than "Trump's WW3"

Click to expand...

Putting together a military action of that scale is simply impossible in hour or less. I would be stunned to hear that it was put together in less than a day. I am willing to accept that Trump would push through a military response, he's shown no lack of interest in ignoring due process. But this particular action was a) clearly planned in advance (as per the article I linked on the first page of the thread), b) coordinated enough within the US government for multiple messages warning Russia in advance to take place (see the article), and c) fairly mundane as far as modern military responses go, which indicates that Trump was presented woth this course of action to accept or reject, not that *he* dictated to the military.

Was there political consideration given to the timing and implications with China? Of course. I haven't seen anything to suggest that this was a prime motivating factor, however, and it seems like a bit of an odd concern under the circumstances.

amanda1983 said:

Could you clarify which enemy you mean in point 1 please? And which war are you referring to in point 2?

Click to expand...

Why not? I can clarify on both of them, and give examples of 3 to 5.

The enemy I mentioned in #1 was North Korea. During the Korean War, the UN ended the war with a harsh armistice rather than a peace treaty. If we left Korea alone, this wouldn't happen. Don't conquer the world, defend yourselves when you're under attack.

The war I mentioned in #2 was the Vietnam War. What I learned is that Vietnam wanted to be independent. But France, after losing it to Japan before World War II, wanted their country back when the war ended. Instead of staying out of the war or helping out Vietnam, America decided to side with France. Not only we started a war against a country seeking independence, but we had no victory over it. Plus, they deserved independence.

For the other three, an example of what I said under #3 was our involvement in the Middle East. We seem to care too much about what they do. Let them fight their own fight. How would you feel if I went into everyones' business on this site when an altercation is going on when I had nothing to do with it? If you don't like me doing it, this is exactly what the United States is doing. In fact, we were being pulled into World War I because of this.

An example of #4 would have to be the Darfur incident. China refuses to deal with the genocide in Darfur because they get most of their oil from Sudan. China is one of the five countries with veto power, and if one refuses, nobody should get involved. This is why the US started to take care of foreign issues through a unilateral stance rather than working as a team.

An example of #5 was the Russian involvement in the 2016 election. So while we care too much about what other nations do when it's not our business, we seem to allow other countries care about our internal conflict.

Violence is never the answer.

visibleghost said:

i dont get why the response to violence always has to be more violence. more fights and bombs and stuff makes the situation for civilians even worse. i dont know a lot about war strategies but i just feel like it makes it all worse. i get that when someone attacks you or your allies you need to defend yourself or your allies but is it rly necessary to do more stuff

Click to expand...

It actually can't get much worse for civilians in Syria than what is already happening with Assad dropping chemical weapons on them. Armed conflict usually isn't good, but in this case I'd bet there are a lot of people in Syria who are in serious danger who really want some outside help, because the people there can't fight back against Assad dropping nerve gas on them. So it's a serious moral question whether we just sit back and let Assad keep killing innocents including children, or whether we step in and try to disable Assad. I don't think it would have been right to stand by and let the Holocaust happen because it was "none of our business" and what is happening in Syria is approaching a similar level of a moral crisis.

If ww3 happens, where would the fights take place?

Corrie said:

If ww3 happens, where would the fights take place?

Click to expand...

Mostly the Middle East. It would not just be in Syria, but everywhere. It could also take place in the Korean peninsula.

Apple2012 said:

Mostly the Middle East. It would not just be in Syria, but everywhere. It could also take place in the Korean peninsula.

Click to expand...

So it most likely wouldn't take place in the west?

Corrie said:

If ww3 happens, where would the fights take place?

Click to expand...

If WW3 happens then it won't be a war as either WW1 or WW2 were - the world has changed so much since then. The initial fighting would be confined to the relevant geographical location for as long as outside forces can manage, but the nature of war - particularly in this modern age with conflict in so much of the world - means the fighting would spread out from there sooner or later.

Best case scenario for either a Russian or Chinese conflict with the US (no, very recent history does not rule these out as being serious possibilities) :

While many leaders on both sides think any clash might be geographically contained to the straights of Taiwan or the edge of the Baltic, these technological and tactical shifts mean such a conflict is more likely to reach into each side’s homelands in new ways. Just as the Internet reshaped our notions of borders, so too would a war waged partly online.

Click to expand...

- http://time.com/3934583/world-war-3/

But really, it's not (just) the actual fighting to worry about :

“The system is set up so that only the president has the authority to order a nuclear war. Nobody has the right to countermand that decision,” William J. Perry, the 19th Secretary of State who served under former President Bill Clinton, from 1994 to 1997, told Radiolab.

“He might choose to call the Secretary of Defence or the Secretary of State, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to get his advisors’ counsel,” Perry added. “But even if he does that, he may or may not accept that counsel.”

Click to expand...

Yet given President Donald Trump’s recent and alarming nuclear rhetoric, a $US1 trillion program to modernise US nukes, and Trump’s April 6 retaliatory strike against Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria — a close ally with Russia, which is a nuclear superpower — it’s a concept that remains as timely as ever to re-explore.

At stake is a global nuclear exchange that could annihilate hundreds of millions of lives and sour Earth’s atmosphere, water, and ground for generations.

Click to expand...

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/president-nuke-option-requires-no-permission-2017-4?r=US&IR=T

- - - Post Merge - - -

Corrie said:

So it most likely wouldn't take place in the west?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is not the case. Even if the main conflict occurs elsewhere, there would be continued attempts to bring the conflict to the west, particularly to the US. It would not be an actual war otherwise.

Furthermore, the rate and scale of terror attacks (from all sources) would almost certainly increase. Terror thrives in chaos, and nothing is so chaotic as the threat of war.

I want to end on a more positive note but.. I'm at a bit of a loss for an upside at the moment.

Apple2012 said:

Mostly the Middle East. It would not just be in Syria, but everywhere. It could also take place in the Korean peninsula.

Click to expand...

War in Korea lmao what

honestly is North Korea even a threat

- - - Post Merge - - -

they have no nukes, a limited food supply, and its doubtful they would get any direct military support whatever backing they would get would just be monetary and theres only three countries that would possibly do that (Cuba, China, and Russia)

are you aware of sasakure.UK's doomsday series?

that's about the level I expect, if it ever happens

Dixx said:

War in Korea lmao what

honestly is North Korea even a threat

- - - Post Merge - - -

they have no nukes, a limited food supply, and its doubtful they would get any direct military support whatever backing they would get would just be monetary and theres only three countries that would possibly do that (Cuba, China, and Russia)

Click to expand...

yes north korea is a threat to south korea. they ARE actually nuclear capable, what they're struggling with now is putting their nuclear warheads onto a missile and successfully sending that missile further and further. it's true that the norks have have no food, that's because they spend about a quarter of their GDP on military. while they would never win a war on the korean peninsula, they would do devastating damage to south korea with their dying breaths.