How to avoid World War Three

[rararoadrunner]

It seems quite likely that we are headed for WWIII, thanks to the power-drunk governments of the US, France, and the UK.

As the British and French governments learned in 1938, sometimes, appeasement is a bad idea: the Russian and Chinese governments abstained from blocking a Western no-fly zone, and watched helplessly as the West "broke their word," in Neville Chamberlain's immortal (para)phrase. Plus they observe how, like the East German government in 1953, the Bahraini regime invites a friendly government to rescue it from its own people. It seems that the West can have it both ways...

...But for how long? Will these fruits of appeasement bring about changes in Russia and China, just as the invasion of Czechoslovakia beyond the "Sudeten line" caused political upheaval in Britain and France? If so, what sort of changes are in the offing? Will the Russian government fall, and the Russian people be faced with the status quo, fascism...or socialism? Will Hu Jintao be prematurely retired? Will the SCO, CIS, or both, be strengthened, merged, coordinated with Hugo Chavez' ALBA? How will OPEC respond, if it responds at all?

The bad news is that, if the Russian and Chinese governments continue on their present trajectory of appeasing the West, its next target will be...Iran, just as surely as Hitler's invasion of Poland followed Czechoslovakia.

Further, there is a distinct risk that Bruce Sterling's "Union of Islamic Republics" may emerge from the chaos now gripping the Middle East...and the East and West may well blame one-another for that, further fuelling conflict.

The good news is that, to paraphrase Andrew Kliman, the Russians and Chinese need not threaten physical destruction of the West: they already have the means to destroy the value of at least the US economy by dumping the dollar.

The stampede for the exits may happen anyway, as Japan struggles to finance its reconstruction: Russian and especially Chinese governments which seek to end the policy of appeasing the West may (if they aren't already doing so) prepare themselves to deal with the consequences of the fall of the US dollar as a reserve currency. The fall of the dollar would put the US in an economic situation not totally unlike that of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia just before they disappeared...and, inter alia, render further US aggression economically impossible.

According to the aforementioned economist, Andrew Kliman, capitalists may actually be encouraging the destruction of capital, (please see http://akliman.squarespace.com/crisis-intervention/ for a sample of his writing on the subject) or at least of its value (fall of the US dollar) in order to create the conditions for renewed profitability: this underlies, among other things, the attempted destruction of US unions.

But for every action there is a reaction, however delayed: workers are finally beginning to wake up, in the Middle East, Midwest, and elsewhere.

Will they see their way through to victory? Or will they instead be ensnared by various fascists, as has happened many times before? Stay tuned...

[Simba420]

we cant avoid it anymore!! the capitalist have been stompig on us for long enough we gotta fight back.they use tax money to bomb babies in iraq an libya while we got people hungry over here. bring it on and watch us build the workers paradise from the ashes!

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Will they see their way through to victory? Or will they instead be ensnared by various fascists, as has happened many times before? Stay tuned...

I hate waiting...I would prefer revolution now.:D Beat the fascists before they become a serious threat.

[hatzel]

It seems quite likely that we are headed for WWIII

Really? Does it really? Or are you just scaremongering? What evidence do you have to back this up, particularly considering it's your opening line, and stated as if we all just accepted that were the case without question? Well...sorry, but I don't think that's anything like on the cards, so you'd better convince me otherwise if you want me to take this thread seriously :)

[Princess Luna]

While normal war maybe very profitable for the bourgeois, a full scale war between dozens of countries would severally disturb world trade and lead to massive loss of profits, why do you think the U.S. and Soviet Union never went into open war against each other but instead used proxy states? remember WW1 and WW2 were largely products of Nationalism not Capitalism.

[Rooster]

What is it with you prophets of doom?

[Dimentio]

Hyperbole...

Though I agree that in the long run, this could encourage Russia and China to become more inclined to defend their own spheres of interest and could lead to possible regional wars.

[Magón]

As much as it would be crazy to see (but I wouldn't want it), I doubt WW3 would/will be as extravagant as WW1 and WW2, with large masses of armies traversing deserts, grasslands, bombers bombing cities, etc.

I agree with Dimentio that WW3 would/will be more of a regional war, than a global conflict like the past.

[El Chuncho]

I hate waiting...I would prefer revolution now.:D Beat the fascists before they become a serious threat.

I drink to those sentiments. I am worrying about a BNP victory in England. I had been a pacifist almost all my life, but if they manage to win, and succeed with some of their plans, it is armed resistance time!

Personally, the fact the government will not take them down proves that the system is not working. They are quite clearly a threat, same with the EDL.

[OhYesIdid]

As much as it would be crazy to see (but I wouldn't want it), I doubt WW3 would/will be as extravagant as WW1 and WW2, with large masses of armies traversing deserts, grasslands, bombers bombing cities, etc.

I agree with Dimentio that WW3 would/will be more of a regional war, than a global conflict like the past.

Aww...but this century needs its Illyad too!

Seriously, though, he's totally exaggerating. I don't know that the US is heading for a fall, and Europe simply cannot take on both Russia and China. Remember that having been part of the KGB is fundamental to the Putin mythos. Sometimes I get the impression that the people of Russia tolerate the new order precisely because of its communistoid imagery, and not despite it.
Yes, the US is headed for an economic disaster, but this will probably not happen until 2016 at the earlier, when the effects of 4 more years of hateful fascistoid teaparty presidentialism make themselves known. As for how to avoid it...may I suggest the unification of the Socialist International and all other left or leftist groups...worldwide? Totally implausible, and theatrical, but seems like a good idea...

[bailey_187]

The Cold War showed that with the M.A.D of nukes, wars between superpowers are fought by proxy. The presidents of the world may be delusional about some things and have some indifference to human life, but im sure all understand the consequences of actually starting a nuclear war.

[OhYesIdid]

The Cold War showed that with the M.A.D of nukes, wars between superpowers are fought by proxy. The presidents of the world may be delusional about some things and have some indifference to human life, but im sure all understand the consequences of actually starting a nuclear war.

We should all know by now that even a modern nuclear war will not blow up the world, man:cool:

But I'm not so sure now about this skepticism...with all the social upheaval and all...maybe the world's superpowers (USA, EU, Russia, China) will form an alliance and invade the third world to fight...The Proletariat? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Kyi0WNg40)
Could this be the Great Worldwide Revolution of myth and legend? Could this be the fabled Final Battle?



probably not. But I'm sure as all hell going to daydream about it.
Could it be that

[Invader Zim]

It strikes me that the author of the opening post is labouring under a number of crucial misconceptions, several of which have already been outlined and do not require repeating.

However, as I see it the author of the opening post wishes to castigate the appeasement policy of the 1930s so as to criticise what s/he sees as the similar policy of appeasement on the part of China and Russia today. The author argues that the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939, the move which triggered the outbreak of the European war, was inevitable and seemingly obvious:

"if the Russian and Chinese governments continue on their present trajectory of appeasing the West, its next target will be...Iran, just as surely as Hitler's invasion of Poland followed Czechoslovakia"

Firstly, this stikes me as a naive acceptance of the orthadox conservative interpretation of events which was common in the late 1940s and 1950s. However, since this period, when historians had more time to digest events and gain perspective, significant revisionist accounts emerged which have re-written how the appeasement policy was seen. These accounts have shown that while appeasement may have failed in its primary goal of preventing war, it certainly succeeded in buying Britain in particular time to rearm. These accounts have also questioned whether the British had another better policy available given the information they had available. It is all very well suggesting with the benefit of hindsight that Nazi Germany would have been incapable of fighting a war in 1936/7 or even potentially 1938, but a full grasp of the Nazi economic position in this period was not available to policy makers in the 1930s. In fact the British intelligence estimates of German war potential overestimated how ready the Nazis were.

Secondly, also on the subject of hindsight, clearly the outbreak of war was not a certainty in 1938. Certainly is was a possibility, perhaps even a strong one (hense the major rearmament program from 1937 onwards), but it seems to me clear that Chamberlain and other in his government held out hope that war could be averted and that the Munich agreement had reduced the probability of war breaking out. So it was not a sure thing at all, at least from the perspective of the day.

So for these reasons, and for a collection of further reasons others have pointed out already, I think your attempt at comparison falls down and that future events remain as obscured as ever.

[OhYesIdid]

Zim has a point. Though the actor was going for theatrics and not so much a serious comparison, here, methinks.
for my money, Worst case scenario: Korean-like proxy war.

[Psy]

As much as it would be crazy to see (but I wouldn't want it), I doubt WW3 would/will be as extravagant as WW1 and WW2, with large masses of armies traversing deserts, grasslands, bombers bombing cities, etc.

I agree with Dimentio that WW3 would/will be more of a regional war, than a global conflict like the past.

They thought the same about the lead up to WWI. Such conflicts tend to start small yet escalate out of control as new players enter into the conflict.

Remember the Russians were ready to kick off World War III over Georgia while the Americans pushed NATO towards war. The European members of NATO saw Russia was not messing around as their intelligence showed Russia was mobilizing its tactical nuclear capabilities into the theater of operations that was later confirmed by Russia when they restated their nuclear doctrine saying yes if NATO forces interfered with their operations in Georgia they would have used tactical nuclear weapons against NATO forces in Georgia.

[Magón]

They thought the same about the lead up to WWI. Such conflicts tend to start small yet escalate out of control as new players enter into the conflict.

That's true about WW1, but look at the amount of resources available back in the 1910s, compared to today. Back then, nobody thought there would be a world energy crisis, and look where that thinking got us? Gas prices are rising everywhere, and just think of all the resources it takes to get a large army like the Russians, US, etc. around the world? It takes a lot, and if there was to be a WW3 like WW1 or WW2.

The fleet that attacked Okinawa in WW2, used up more resources than any other fleet attack in the entire war, or war after. (Including D-Day, Iwo Jima, etc.) You wouldn't ever see such a large US or Russian, or Chinese fleet crossing large spans of water like that nowadays; especially since most naval ships besides subs and aircraft carriers, still run on dirty resources, and not nuclear. Getting the army's we saw back in WW1/2 moving like they did would cause a LOT more economic and resources troubles than it's worth to the world powers and other nations.

Nuclear weapons use on a massive or tactical way, is more likely, but that's been likely ever since the start of the Cold War.

[black magick hustla]

we are in a global civil war

[Psy]

That's true about WW1, but look at the amount of resources available back in the 1910s, compared to today. Back then, nobody thought there would be a world energy crisis, and look where that thinking got us? Gas prices are rising everywhere, and just think of all the resources it takes to get a large army like the Russians, US, etc. around the world? It takes a lot, and if there was to be a WW3 like WW1 or WW2.

The fleet that attacked Okinawa in WW2, used up more resources than any other fleet attack in the entire war, or war after. (Including D-Day, Iwo Jima, etc.) You wouldn't ever see such a large US or Russian, or Chinese fleet crossing large spans of water like that nowadays; especially since most naval ships besides subs and aircraft carriers, still run on dirty resources, and not nuclear. Getting the army's we saw back in WW1/2 moving like they did would cause a LOT more economic and resources troubles than it's worth to the world powers and other nations.

There are civilian freighters that can be converted like they did during WWII, freighters were even converted into light aircraft carriers during WWII. That would require a WWII to last years but if it did the current industrial base can support forces even greater then that during WWII if like during WWII bourgeoisie states threw most of the nations productive forces towards the war effort.

It is not worth the trouble but then these things tend to escalate to the point that by the time the ruling class reflects they feel they are in to deep and can only escalate.

For example the US military during the Cuban missile crisis thought a nuclear war with the USSR was preferable then losing Cuba.

[Rooster]

I drink to those sentiments. I am worrying about a BNP victory in England. I had been a pacifist almost all my life, but if they manage to win, and succeed with some of their plans, it is armed resistance time!

Personally, the fact the government will not take them down proves that the system is not working. They are quite clearly a threat, same with the EDL.

Ja, let's go burn down the Reichstag!

[Magón]

There are civilian freighters that can be converted like they did during WWII, freighters were even converted into light aircraft carriers during WWII. That would require a WWII to last years but if it did the current industrial base can support forces even greater then that during WWII if like during WWII bourgeoisie states threw most of the nations productive forces towards the war effort.

It is not worth the trouble but then these things tend to escalate to the point that by the time the ruling class reflects they feel they are in to deep and can only escalate.

For example the US military during the Cuban missile crisis thought a nuclear war with the USSR was preferable then losing Cuba.

I doubt you'll see the US, UK, etc. setting some F-16s or whatever, on converted freighters, or things of that nature happening now, compared to 1942 or whatever. If WW3 were to happen, I do think it would involve just the US sticking to the Americas, and maybe sending small forces out into the world, but most of the wars will be through ally proxy wars, instead of like how the US was in Korea and Vietnam, and sending their own troops to support a nation against another nation who has hardly any soldiers or military in the area.

The days of WW1 and WW2 are done, and it will be region/proxy. It's been like that for years after Vietnam.

[El Chuncho]

Ja, let's go burn down the Reichstag!

Nah, we know what happened last time. :D

[Le Socialiste]

While the poster seems to be indulging in a bit of "sensationalist rhetoric", I do believe we are seeing a convergence of multiple global crises that span from the political to the economic (and everything in-between). Do I think we'll witness WWIII? No. However, the effects of the 2008 crisis are, I think, becoming more and more apparent as the powers-that-be turn their sights on gutting what's left of the working-classes. Another thing worth noting is the belief that the economic interests of the global bourgeoisie lie in a "rank-and-file" approach towards the establishment of a world-wide system of seamless exploitation. The people and governments prior to the outbreak of WWI once believed that Europe was far too connected economically and politically to ever again experience the atrocities of war, too...right. :rolleyes:

It can be argued that we're witnessing the beginning of the division and competition of the Great Powers over resources and geopolitical/imperialist spheres of influence. Europe is coming out of its post-war phase of passivity (in comparison to Europe pre-1945); countries like France and G. Britain are eager to turn the Arab uprisings to their benefit (Libya, anyone?). Italy's government is becoming increasingly put off by the fact that the two have essentially undermined a steady flow of commerce/capital between it and its former colony, and any potential regime change (or break-up) could very well result in a turn of fortunes for Rome. Germany's abstentation from the entire process has angered France and Britain - especially France. Germany is no longer the Germany post-WWII; it's an economic powerhouse that isn't afraid to forge a foreign/domestic policy independent of Europe's control. Russia's manipulating the disruption of natural gas/oil flow from Libya to cement its place as Europe's primary energy supplier, and the intervention has upset China's financial/economic goals for fostering deals in energy, infrastructure, and general trade (China has increasingly turned towards Africa for these markets).

There will be no World War III - not any time soon, at least. But cracks are forming amongst the global elite and bourgeoisie. The regions and nations that have historically pursued their own imperialist interests (and are in a position to do so) are once again expressing divergent policies along the economic and foreign policy fronts. I wouldn't presume to say we'll see a full-scale rupture between the likes of Germany, France, G. Britain and the U.S.; however, it's not out of the question. If history has been any indicator, it doesn't matter if the world is financially/economically linked - if a certain nation (or group of nations) deemed it more profitable to engage in warfare, it/they would do so. Nations go to war in the hopes that they may profit from it (and in today's world, war has become a very profitable business). :(

[Psy]

I doubt you'll see the US, UK, etc. setting some F-16s or whatever, on converted freighters, or things of that nature happening now, compared to 1942 or whatever.

Why not? If their bourgeoisie state is at risk I doubt they will be picky.



If WW3 were to happen, I do think it would involve just the US sticking to the Americas, and maybe sending small forces out into the world, but most of the wars will be through ally proxy wars, instead of like how the US was in Korea and Vietnam, and sending their own troops to support a nation against another nation who has hardly any soldiers or military in the area.

The days of WW1 and WW2 are done, and it will be region/proxy. It's been like that for years after Vietnam.

Like how the USA pushed NATO towards war with Russia over Georgia, while Russia has the means to counter attack NATO.

Russia had setup tactical nuclear launchers in the theaters that could hit NATO troops in Georgia and in that situation the US decided to saber rattle Russia. It has resulted in many war fiction writers now thinking WWIII will simply start by the USA doing something incredibly stupid near Russian forces and Russia responding with tactical nukes.

[~Spectre]

We were much closer to WWIII during Bush jr term one. Which isn't to say that we were all that close, but certainly much closer than the present day.

You had a radical administration, insanely reactionary even by American standards. Traditional policy planners were replaced by a set of lunatics that literally had world domination fantasies. All this without a major check on the world stage like some of them had in the 70s and 80s.

These are people that would openly publish how any "pearl habor moment" should be exploited to attack Iraq, Iran and eventually create a sort of Shia Petrostan that would probably include Saudi's oilfields too. Among many other delusional fantasies, all to form a permanent chokehold around the world's energy supplies. Unquestioned, permanent power over the rest of the world once and for all. The boot on the human face, forever.

They actually went about carrying this out pretty much to the script. Iran was surrounded on two sides, a coup was launched in Venezuela, new tactical nukes were designed to combat Russia, 5th generation fighter aircraft were developed, the regional Israeli enforcer continued to be armed with the latest weaponry, and various domestic population control measures were put in to place.

And they would've gotten away with it too, if not for those pesky Iranians and their puppy. Iran exploited the incompetence of the Neocon loonies, and held them at bay in Iraq. Likewise, they also held Israel at bay in Lebanon. The Venezuela coup failed.

Still, only a few lucky breaks the other way, and we'd be living in a vastly different world right now.

[ckaihatsu]

It is not worth the trouble but then these things tend to escalate to the point that by the time the ruling class reflects they feel they are in to deep and can only escalate.





The days of WW1 and WW2 are done, and it will be region/proxy. It's been like that for years after Vietnam.





remember WW1 and WW2 were largely products of Nationalism not Capitalism.


I wonder if this post-neocon period means that people are sick and tired of the forced bunker mentality of the 2000s decade and are now somewhat conditioned *against* nationalist hysteria. The requisite popular political support may simply not be available for an all-out re-carving of the world's geopolitical order, no matter how demanding this may be from existing economic conditions.

[Primavera]

Direct conventional warfare between two nuclear armed states is a very, very unlikely proposition. The economic costs alone are a strong enough deterrent, nukes aside. And outside proxy conflicts in the third world, or disciplining client states, who's going to go to war with each other? Almost every state in the world that has a means to initiate wide-scale conflict is highly integrated economically and ideologically. Economics trumps nationalism... maybe not in the mid-20th century, but today, definitely.

When we're talking about the Russian state, especially with regards to the Georgian conflict, you must take everything they do and say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Whether or not they actually positioned or prepared tactical nukes is irrelevant- their words and gestures were simply designed to rattle NATO's cage. The entire conflict was one big show of force and not much more. Stupidity and irrationality aside, the cost of actually using a tactical nuke far outweighs any potential benefits.

Secondly, this notion that the US is heading towards economic ruin is misleading. Who is heading for ruin? Certainly not the ruling classes. They've spent the last 40 years accumulating massive wealth and resources that can change hands and cross borders in the blink of an eye. They're safe. Its the rest of us that are heading down the drain.

Third, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Chinese or Japan will dump their dollar holdings in order to set of an economic war. This is suicide. You don't just dump trillions of dollars in assets to stick it to your "rivals". Instead, the major dollar holding blocs are going to establish regional currency swap agreements (this is already happening) to buffer themselves from losses as they slowly withdraw from the dollar reserve currency. Why do you think China is so interested in Latin America and Africa? It isn't just the obvious neocolonial resource grab- they need non-dollar trading partners.

Only when the Chinese have developed an internally driven consumer market (so that they can avoid having to recycle dollars into treasuries to prop its value), only when they have secured an alternative reserve currency, and only when they have secured (politically and economically) client states in the third world will they be a threat to the West. Only then will they be able to hang the debt burden over the head of the US.... that is, if the US doesn't simply default which is definitely a possibility (rational or not, many Republicans do not want to continue raising the debt ceiling).

[Magón]

Why not? If their bourgeoisie state is at risk I doubt they will be picky.

Because if you've ever seen a F-16 take off, they've got a whole lot of thrust kicking behind them, and if you're looking at the freighters, the tower of the ship's going to get ruined by the thrust the F-16 kicks off. Besides, like I already said. Aircraft carriers are run on nuclear power, not oil like they used to. Getting a nation's naval jets around wouldn't be difficult, seeing how their mode of transportation almost has indefinite power until it needs new fuel rods, but you're not going to see them mounting a F-16 or something on a freighter.

There's so much difference between jets and prop planes of today and the past, that what they did in WW2 is very unlikely to happen in a WW3.


Like how the USA pushed NATO towards war with Russia over Georgia, while Russia has the means to counter attack NATO.

Russia had setup tactical nuclear launchers in the theaters that could hit NATO troops in Georgia and in that situation the US decided to saber rattle Russia. It has resulted in many war fiction writers now thinking WWIII will simply start by the USA doing something incredibly stupid near Russian forces and Russia responding with tactical nukes.

I doubt NATO forces like the US, will be sending troops to Georgia, but instead will just supply Georgian soldiers, etc. with guns and get them to promise they'll support the US's will in the region. There could be some other NATO forces landing troops on foreign shores, but if a WW3 were to last in that fashion, it wouldn't last very long at all because of the serious strain of resources it would put on the military forces traveling around.

Like I said before, wars won't be massive armies marching on foreign shores like WW1 and WW2, it'll be through proxy, with two sides of a nation or just two really close nations, being supplied by say the US against Russia, or whoever it may be. But you probably won't see Russian/US engagements anywhere but near Alaska or somewhere the two are nearest and don't have to work so hard to reach.

[Psy]

Because if you've ever seen a F-16 take off, they've got a whole lot of thrust kicking behind them, and if you're looking at the freighters, the tower of the ship's going to get ruined by the thrust the F-16 kicks off.

Use blast shields, or move the bridge below deck (both were done during WWII). Of course the use of aircraft with vertical take off would make it easier to repurpose freighters as aircraft carriers.




Besides, like I already said. Aircraft carriers are run on nuclear power, not oil like they used to. Getting a nation's naval jets around wouldn't be difficult, seeing how their mode of transportation almost has indefinite power until it needs new fuel rods, but you're not going to see them mounting a F-16 or something on a freighter.

If those nuclear aircraft carriers are at the bottom of the ocean they wouldn't really have a choice.



There's so much difference between jets and prop planes of today and the past, that what they did in WW2 is very unlikely to happen in a WW3.

During WW2 they launched bombers with rocket boosters from aircraft carriers so no things are not that different.



I doubt NATO forces like the US, will be sending troops to Georgia, but instead will just supply Georgian soldiers, etc. with guns and get them to promise they'll support the US's will in the region. There could be some other NATO forces landing troops on foreign shores, but if a WW3 were to last in that fashion, it wouldn't last very long at all because of the serious strain of resources it would put on the military forces traveling around.

The problem was NATO already had forces in the theater well within range of Russian tactical nuclear missiles when the US was pushing NATO to intervene in the conflict and when the Russian army was getting closer and closer to NATO positions with no one NATO knowing if the Russian army will stop of steam roll right over their positions as Russia was showing exposing the CIA's act of war against Russia and Europe didn't know how far Russia was willing to escalate the war.



Like I said before, wars won't be massive armies marching on foreign shores like WW1 and WW2, it'll be through proxy, with two sides of a nation or just two really close nations, being supplied by say the US against Russia, or whoever it may be. But you probably won't see Russian/US engagements anywhere but near Alaska or somewhere the two are nearest and don't have to work so hard to reach.
What about the Georgia conflict, if Russian forces overran US bases in Georgia that would have been a Russian/US engagement, same if US troops decided to halt the advance of Russia forces.

[Magón]

Use blast shields, or move the bridge below deck (both were done during WWII). Of course the use of aircraft with vertical take off would make it easier to repurpose freighters as aircraft carriers.

For any of this to happen, you'd have to take into consideration, that the US was lacking in anything that was already a aircraft carrier. And like you fail to realize, the weight of an F-16, fully loaded with fuel and weaponry, is a LOT heavier than say a Hawker Hurricane being shot off a north atlantic cargo ship, with no way of returning to the cargo ship in the first place.


If those nuclear aircraft carriers are at the bottom of the ocean they wouldn't really have a choice.

The US Navy does have precautions to keep it's aircraft carriers protected. One way is anti-sub subs, and anti-sub ships to make sure that an enemy submarine or surface ship can't reach the carriers in the first place without getting detected first off, or whatever. If it was easy to down a carrier, don't you think japanese submarines would have had a successful chance at doing so in WW2?


During WW2 they launched bombers with rocket boosters from aircraft carriers so no things are not that different.

Once again, you're forgetting the weight and armament that jets nowadays have, compared to a Hawker Hurricane in WW2. Just because a plane made of metal, wood, cloth, and armed with only a few machine-guns, can be shot off a freighter easy enough, doesn't make shooting off an F-16 or other fighter, any easier. Like I said, weight is a big thing when it comes to jets nowadays, and thinking that you're going to be able to shoot them off a reinvented freighter, is pure fantasy.


The problem was NATO already had forces in the theater well within range of Russian tactical nuclear missiles when the US was pushing NATO to intervene in the conflict and when the Russian army was getting closer and closer to NATO positions with no one NATO knowing if the Russian army will stop of steam roll right over their positions as Russia was showing exposing the CIA's act of war against Russia and Europe didn't know how far Russia was willing to escalate the war.

But any escalation to what you're saying would have just ended in a nuclear exchange of some size. How big, I don't know, but I do know that with US forces tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US/NATO wouldn't have been all that willing to go ship some more troops to another theatre.


What about the Georgia conflict, if Russian forces overran US bases in Georgia that would have been a Russian/US engagement, same if US troops decided to halt the advance of Russia forces.

It would have escalated at the most, to nuclear exchange if such a thing had happened. Either that, or Russia would have backed down because of NATO. It's fantasy and fiction to think that WW3 could/would have opened up with the US, EU, Russia, China, etc. all rallying their army's together to battle it out.

You also have to remember, that without Iraqi or Saudi oil, the US supply would be cut dramatically. Which is why I say a WW3 happening like the past two world wars, is unlikely. In the past, when US Troop numbers were at their highest in Iraq, still wouldn't be enough to defend from say China, a country that can basically just walk it's military across land to Iraq. Same with Russia. If the US tried to in anyway, send troops to Iraq or Saudi Arabia to defend the oil fields, they'd have to do it by ship and plane, which would take a lot more time than walking your army across some mountains, etc. to some desert.


Honestly Psy, I see no way except in fantasy and fiction, that WW3 could end up like the past World Wars. Military's like the US, China, and Russia have, are becoming more and more obsolete as the years go by. I mean, just look at Russia against the Chechen Rebels, or the US with the Taliban and other groups. Or Britain with the IRA. Proxy wars are where the new mindset of military's is going, whether through straight on military force, or espionage. The days of WW1 and WW2, as I said, are over with large military's crossing great spans of land, sea, and air, to fight each other.

[Magón]

I wonder if this post-neocon period means that people are sick and tired of the forced bunker mentality of the 2000s decade and are now somewhat conditioned *against* nationalist hysteria. The requisite popular political support may simply not be available for an all-out re-carving of the world's geopolitical order, no matter how demanding this may be from existing economic conditions.

I definitely don't think that nationalist hysteria has completely gone, or people have been conditioned against it, enough to say that there wouldn't be support of an all out re-carving of the geopolitical sphere. I think that it has to do more with people actually realizing and seeing the resources that they depend so much on, going higher and higher, and realizing the reasons why. But I do think you're right in some ways, just look at the American Right.

[Psy]

For any of this to happen, you'd have to take into consideration, that the US was lacking in anything that was already a aircraft carrier. And like you fail to realize, the weight of an F-16, fully loaded with fuel and weaponry, is a LOT heavier than say a Hawker Hurricane being shot off a north atlantic cargo ship, with no way of returning to the cargo ship in the first place.

You under estimate the size of modern freighters, the power of modern rocket boosters and the ability to strip F-16 to make them lighter.



The US Navy does have precautions to keep it's aircraft carriers protected. One way is anti-sub subs, and anti-sub ships to make sure that an enemy submarine or surface ship can't reach the carriers in the first place without getting detected first off, or whatever. If it was easy to down a carrier, don't you think japanese submarines would have had a successful chance at doing so in WW2?

Like when in 2008 two Russian Tu-95s flew over the Nimitz with the closest support being 800 KM away



Once again, you're forgetting the weight and armament that jets nowadays have, compared to a Hawker Hurricane in WW2. Just because a plane made of metal, wood, cloth, and armed with only a few machine-guns, can be shot off a freighter easy enough, doesn't make shooting off an F-16 or other fighter, any easier. Like I said, weight is a big thing when it comes to jets nowadays, and thinking that you're going to be able to shoot them off a reinvented freighter, is pure fantasy.

Again you underestimate how much bigger modern freighters are, they are now bigger then purpose build light aircraft carriers.




But any escalation to what you're saying would have just ended in a nuclear exchange of some size. How big, I don't know, but I do know that with US forces tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US/NATO wouldn't have been all that willing to go ship some more troops to another theatre.

Why, what would going nuclear over Georgia achieve for NATO? Georgia was part of the USSR before so the NATO members can live with Russia annexing it over assured nuclear destruction.



It would have escalated at the most, to nuclear exchange if such a thing had happened. Either that, or Russia would have backed down because of NATO. It's fantasy and fiction to think that WW3 could/would have opened up with the US, EU, Russia, China, etc. all rallying their army's together to battle it out.

Why would Russia back down in a theater where it dominated NATO forces? European members of NATO rushed to appease Russia because they knew their forces in Georgia had no hope of repealing Russian forces.



You also have to remember, that without Iraqi or Saudi oil, the US supply would be cut dramatically. Which is why I say a WW3 happening like the past two world wars, is unlikely.

During WWII the US rationed fuel to get past the high fuel costs of having such a large mobilized force. If the US rationed fuel it would again have the fuel it needed to mobilize a large force as it would mean as the gas that would go into private cars.



In the past, when US Troop numbers were at their highest in Iraq, still wouldn't be enough to defend from say China, a country that can basically just walk it's military across land to Iraq. Same with Russia. If the US tried to in anyway, send troops to Iraq or Saudi Arabia to defend the oil fields, they'd have to do it by ship and plane, which would take a lot more time than walking your army across some mountains, etc. to some desert.

And they'd have the fuel for ships and planes if they geared most of the US economy for war like they did during the WWII.



Honestly Psy, I see no way except in fantasy and fiction, that WW3 could end up like the past World Wars. Military's like the US, China, and Russia have, are becoming more and more obsolete as the years go by. I mean, just look at Russia against the Chechen Rebels, or the US with the Taliban and other groups. Or Britain with the IRA. Proxy wars are where the new mindset of military's is going, whether through straight on military force, or espionage. The days of WW1 and WW2, as I said, are over with large military's crossing great spans of land, sea, and air, to fight each other.
And what was the Georgian conflict? Russia used the same tactics it used in the USSR days and it worked.

[Magón]

You under estimate the size of modern freighters, the power of modern rocket boosters and the ability to strip F-16 to make them lighter.

You realize that the weight of an F-16 empty, is still much heavier than a Hawker Hurricane loaded. (That's just fuel.) A F-16, is 18,000+ empty, while a Hawker Hurricane is only 7,000+ loaded. Even if you tried stripping a F-16 down, the size of a freighter to carry it would hardly matter.



Like when in 2008 two Russian Tu-95s flew over them with the closest support being 800 KM away

Just imagine if that war war though. That Tu-95 wouldn't have been able to get nearly as close as that to a aircraft carrier, or other ship, if it was an enemy.


Again you underestimate how much bigger modern freighters are, they are now bigger then purpose build light aircraft carriers.

Who the hell has light aircraft carriers anymore? Compare the size of a aircraft carrier today, to a normal sized american aircraft carrier in WW2, and you'll see they're much different.

And while we're on this topic of freighters, who's to say that an enemy submarine or whatever, wouldn't start sinking them if a nation was stupid enough to seriously put overweighing jets on them? It takes a VERY long time to make a ship, of any kind, big or small, and there's not nearly enough ships to start protecting these makeshift aircraft carriers you're so keen on trying to explain would fit the bill.


Why, what would going nuclear over Georgia achieve for NATO? Georgia was part of the USSR before so the NATO members can live with Russia annexing it over assured nuclear destruction.

Well you kept on trying to make the conflict between Georgia and Russia, a scenario, with talk of the NATO forces in Georgia and the region. If NATO forces were steamrolled over by the Russian army, then the most extreme case wouldn't be to declare all out war like in WW1 and WW2, but nuclear intervention would probably have been the next step in the most extreme of cases.


During WWII the US rationed fuel to get past the high fuel costs of having such a large mobilized force. If the US rationed fuel it would again have the fuel it needed to mobilize a large force as it would mean as the gas that would go into private cars.

Well during WW2, you also didn't have as many people to keep fed and happy, or driving, like you do nowadays. If the US tried to turn it's economy into a war economy like it did back in WW2, the public would be up in protest against such actions. If there's one thing most americans like to do, it's drive their cars without much hassle, and right now, you see it on the news, US drivers are feeling the pinch at the gas stations. Just imagine if they tried what they did in the 40s, again here. It wouldn't go down well at all, and the war would turn even more hated than the wars going on now.


And they'd have the fuel for ships and planes if they geared most of the US economy for war like they did during the WWII.

Doesn't matter, the amount of US intervention in Iraq is the size of a pea compared to what the Chinese or Russians would do if they sent their military to take the oilfields and control middle east oil. Already China is vying against the US as it's number one competitor for middle east oil.


And what was the Georgian conflict? Russia used the same tactics it used in the USSR days and it worked.

Sure, there's no doubt about it, but if they tried to mobilize like they did in WW2, Russia would have had a lot more trouble if the conflict had lasted years instead of months. Imagine if the US had mobilized it's army like it had in WW2, just for Afghanistan or Iraq. The amount of resources wasted in those conflicts would have been MUCH more draining and we probably would be in an even bigger resource crisis than now.


EDIT: I also just want to add, to end this ongoing, pointless, Russia v. NATO/Georgia discussion. The Russia v. NATO/Georgia conflict was regional, like I was saying wars will soon become. So we can just end the whole discussion on that right here.

[Psy]

You realize that the weight of an F-16 empty, is still much heavier than a Hawker Hurricane loaded. (That's just fuel.) A F-16, is 18,000+ empty, while a Hawker Hurricane is only 7,000+ loaded. Even if you tried stripping a F-16 down, the size of a freighter to carry it would hardly matter.

Yet during the Doolittle raid with the help of rocket boosters they were launching 15,200 kg B-25s and rocket technology is much better then back in WWII.




Just imagine if that war war though. That Tu-95 wouldn't have been able to get nearly as close as that to a aircraft carrier, or other ship, if it was an enemy.

Since when has a nation every announced it a sneak attack? If the bombers were a opening strike of a war with the USA the Nimitz would have defendant have been sunk with a good change the bomber able to get back to safety before backup 800 KM away could catch up with them.



Who the hell has light aircraft carriers anymore? Compare the size of a aircraft carrier today, to a normal sized american aircraft carrier in WW2, and you'll see they're much different.

A number of navies thanks to vertical lift aircraft for example the British Invincible-class. In fact there are some navy strategists that theorize vertical lift aircraft have made full sized aircraft obsolete as light carriers are more tactically sound in a battle since light carriers don't give the enemy as big of a target and is less of a loss if one is disabled.



And while we're on this topic of freighters, who's to say that an enemy submarine or whatever, wouldn't start sinking them if a nation was stupid enough to seriously put overweighing jets on them? It takes a VERY long time to make a ship, of any kind, big or small, and there's not nearly enough ships to start protecting these makeshift aircraft carriers you're so keen on trying to explain would fit the bill.

Of course the enemy will attack them just like how the enemy would attack the existing fleet before the war. The idea of makeshift warships is to increase coverage.



Well you kept on trying to make the conflict between Georgia and Russia, a scenario, with talk of the NATO forces in Georgia and the region. If NATO forces were steamrolled over by the Russian army, then the most extreme case wouldn't be to declare all out war like in WW1 and WW2, but nuclear intervention would probably have been the next step in the most extreme of cases.

That the route the US was taking even after the Russian army had totally disseminated the Georgian forces and the rest of NATO wanted to de-escalate the conflict.




Well during WW2, you also didn't have as many people to keep fed and happy, or driving, like you do nowadays.

Gas rations has nothing to do with keeping people fed, during WWII people were kept fed with food ration and centrally planning food production in the USA.



If the US tried to turn it's economy into a war economy like it did back in WW2, the public would be up in protest against such actions. If there's one thing most americans like to do, it's drive their cars without much hassle, and right now, you see it on the news, US drivers are feeling the pinch at the gas stations. Just imagine if they tried what they did in the 40s, again here. It wouldn't go down well at all, and the war would turn even more hated than the wars going on now.

True but then there is no propaganda like during WWII telling Americans to accept wartime scarcity.



Doesn't matter, the amount of US intervention in Iraq is the size of a pea compared to what the Chinese or Russians would do if they sent their military to take the oilfields and control middle east oil. Already China is vying against the US as it's number one competitor for middle east oil.

But that is the point if the US wants to continue imperial dominance.



Sure, there's no doubt about it, but if they tried to mobilize like they did in WW2, Russia would have had a lot more trouble if the conflict had lasted years instead of months. Imagine if the US had mobilized it's army like it had in WW2, just for Afghanistan or Iraq. The amount of resources wasted in those conflicts would have been MUCH more draining and we probably would be in an even bigger resource crisis than now.
At those levels of deployment it would be pretty impossible for insurgency to do anything in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[Magón]

Yet during the Doolittle raid with the help of rocket boosters they were launching 15,200 kg B-25s and rocket technology is much better then back in WWII.

Yeah, but those B-25s were stripped of anything they didn't need. Try that with a more complex and computer run F-16 or one of those Typhoons, and you'll see how far it gets you. Sure you could strip some of the armor plating away, but you'd still have hard points for bombs/external fuel tanks, missiles, etc. Shooting an F-16 or other jet off these makeshift carriers is fantasy, and fine in a movie for entertainment, but in reality it's far from being done or even seriously thought of because the military's of the world know it wouldn't work.

The thinking of military's now is obsolete, and has been shown to so, since the enemies of these military's have gone from up front like WW2 and Korea, to things like the Viet-Cong in Vietnam, Chechen rebels in Chechnya, Taliban in Afghanistan, etc.

And the resources needed for these national army's to properly operate is no longer around. You could never see the US military mobilizing like it did in WW2 for things like D-day and just general mobilization for WW2. There's so much energy and resources put into getting army's of those sizes properly ready, that by the time they got ready, there would be hardly any resources and energy to take them across to wherever it is they need to go.


Since when has a nation every announced it a sneak attack? If the bombers were a opening strike of a war with the USA the Nimitz would have defendant have been sunk with a good change the bomber able to get back to safety before backup 800 KM away could catch up with them.

Backup wasn't 800km away, backup/interceptors were right there on the Nimitz's deck. They even scrambled some of the F/A-18s to intercept and escort the bomber away from the carrier. If it had been a sneak attack, it would have failed if the bomber had continued on it's course, and not deviated with the escort.



A number of navies thanks to vertical lift aircraft for example the British Invincible-class. In fact there are some navy strategists that theorize vertical lift aircraft have made full sized aircraft obsolete as light carriers are more tactically sound in a battle since light carriers don't give the enemy as big of a target and is less of a loss if one is disabled.

The majority of jets in militaries, air force or navy, is not VTOL capable. The UK has retired it's old Harrier, and the US's new F-35 isn't so VTOL capable last I checked. Russia or China don't have VTOL's either.


Of course the enemy will attack them just like how the enemy would attack the existing fleet before the war. The idea of makeshift warships is to increase coverage.



That the route the US was taking even after the Russian army had totally disseminated the Georgian forces and the rest of NATO wanted to de-escalate the conflict.




Gas rations has nothing to do with keeping people fed, during WWII people were kept fed with food ration and centrally planning food production in the USA.

I'm not sure how food products get around the UK and the rest of the EU, but in America, gas rationing is a major thing when it comes to food being brought from across the country. The UK is small enough, it probably wouldn't matter if rationing of gas was done, but here in the US, with the size of the population, and the amount of food it needs to take in every day and every week, is supported by the rise and fall of gas prices/availability.



True but then there is no propaganda like during WWII telling Americans to accept wartime scarcity.

In todays America, there is. And people are well aware, who actually pay attention and realize that food/gas scarcity affects their daily lives, realize it even more.


But that is the point if the US wants to continue imperial dominance.

Just because they want to, doesn't mean they can. We already see the US's ability to keep control of the world faltering. If a war like you're suggesting would happen, then the US would lose total control outside it's EU allies.


At those levels of deployment it would be pretty impossible for insurgency to do anything in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Not really, because if you take a look at Russia in Chechnya, insurgents there did fine. I would say as good as any, maybe better, than the resistance fighters in France and the rest of Europe during WW2. What you don't realize, it such a deployment in todays world, would put such a strain on that type of mobilization, the war you're considering wouldn't last for very long at all.

As I said, wars in the future, and WW3, if it ever comes to be that, will be strictly regional, and not global on the scale that WW1 and WW2 were.

If you want to go back to the 40s, and see planes being shot off freighters, or large military's crossing great vast terrains, that's fine, just don't be expecting it to happen in todays world outside the big screen or a video game.

[Psy]

Yeah, but those B-25s were stripped of anything they didn't need. Try that with a more complex and computer run F-16 or one of those Typhoons, and you'll see how far it gets you. Sure you could strip some of the armor plating away, but you'd still have hard points for bombs/external fuel tanks, missiles, etc. Shooting an F-16 or other jet off these makeshift carriers is fantasy, and fine in a movie for entertainment, but in reality it's far from being done or even seriously thought of because the military's of the world know it wouldn't work.

15,200 kg is pretty heavy. Loaded your talking 12,000 kg for a F-16 and freighters today are longer and rocket technology better.

As for it not working rocket boosters do exactly what catapults do, if the F-16 can withstand being launched by a aircraft carrier catapult then it can withstand the stresses of being launched by a rocket booster.



The thinking of military's now is obsolete, and has been shown to so, since the enemies of these military's have gone from up front like WW2 and Korea, to things like the Viet-Cong in Vietnam, Chechen rebels in Chechnya, Taliban in Afghanistan, etc.

That may be the thinking in the USA but in the rest of the word conventional wisdom is the opposite. That the US primary problem with Vietnam is a flawed land doctrine that focused on infantry rather then on combat engineers. Same with Iraq and Afghanistan the US has all this useless armor that is not practice in a real war as they lack the ability to engage in combat engineering rolls and can't stay in the field long enough to crush the insurgency, many point that the USSR military was far more successful in Afghanistan.




And the resources needed for these national army's to properly operate is no longer around. You could never see the US military mobilizing like it did in WW2 for things like D-day and just general mobilization for WW2. There's so much energy and resources put into getting army's of those sizes properly ready, that by the time they got ready, there would be hardly any resources and energy to take them across to wherever it is they need to go.

You are assuming there would be no rationing and central planning like during WWII.




Backup wasn't 800km away, backup/interceptors were right there on the Nimitz's deck.

The deck that would have been bombed.




They even scrambled some of the F/A-18s to intercept and escort the bomber away from the carrier. If it had been a sneak attack, it would have failed if the bomber had continued on it's course, and not deviated with the escort.

Their course was corrected after they passed overhead.




The majority of jets in militaries, air force or navy, is not VTOL capable. The UK has retired it's old Harrier, and the US's new F-35 isn't so VTOL capable last I checked. Russia or China don't have VTOL's either.

Still there are naval strategists that see VOTL and light aircraft carriers replacing the old large aircraft carriers.



I'm not sure how food products get around the UK and the rest of the EU, but in America, gas rationing is a major thing when it comes to food being brought from across the country. The UK is small enough, it probably wouldn't matter if rationing of gas was done, but here in the US, with the size of the population, and the amount of food it needs to take in every day and every week, is supported by the rise and fall of gas prices/availability.

You do know the US has railways through the mid west like it did during WWII so it could use trains to efficiently transport food across the US.




In todays America, there is. And people are well aware, who actually pay attention and realize that food/gas scarcity affects their daily lives, realize it even more.

There has been no current gas rationing issued by the government to help the war effort.



Just because they want to, doesn't mean they can. We already see the US's ability to keep control of the world faltering. If a war like you're suggesting would happen, then the US would lose total control outside it's EU allies.

Since when has that stopped imperialist powers from trying?



Not really, because if you take a look at Russia in Chechnya, insurgents there did fine. I would say as good as any, maybe better, than the resistance fighters in France and the rest of Europe during WW2. What you don't realize, it such a deployment in todays world, would put such a strain on that type of mobilization, the war you're considering wouldn't last for very long at all.

Resistance fighters in France could only go after soft targets, every time they attacked military targets the Nazis easily crushed them.

Also look at Hungary 1957 or Czechoslovak 1968, there the USSR proved that large heavy deployments of disciplined military forces quickly crush uprisings. That insurgents can't do much against tanks that can flatten buildings with HESH rounds that doesn't have to leave infantry as long as there is a forward supply base established in the city.



As I said, wars in the future, and WW3, if it ever comes to be that, will be strictly regional, and not global on the scale that WW1 and WW2 were.

If you want to go back to the 40s, and see planes being shot off freighters, or large military's crossing great vast terrains, that's fine, just don't be expecting it to happen in todays world outside the big screen or a video game.
The problem is like we seen in the Georgian conflict Russia still acts on what it learned from WWII, Hungary and Czechoslovakia that the only way any war with with military might and through heavy use of armor working closely with infantry.

[Magón]

15,200 kg is pretty heavy. Loaded your talking 12,000 kg for a F-16 and freighters today are longer and rocket technology better.

Alright, well first off, you're seriously thinking into fantasy about shooting a jet off a modified freighter, which is much more vital to supplying resources and goods to the nations, instead of operating as a "aircraft carrier". So to give you a bit of a hint into reality, you're going to need the harder and better facts of the jets used by the US Navy. I used the F-16 as an example, only because it's the smallest jet in the US air force, and the most numerous, and even then if they tried to make it like you say, still wouldn't work to your fantasy. But here's the weighing stats of the US Navy's main fighter/bomber jet. And how about the US's new F-22 and F35's that are supposed to replace the F-16 and F/A-18.


F/A-18 Super Hornet (Navy Jet)

Empty Weight: 32,081 lb
Max Takeoff Weight: 66,000 lb

F-22 Raptor (Air Force Jet)

Empty Weight: 43,430 lb
Max Takeoff Weight: 83,000 lb

F-35 Lightning II (Navy & Air Force Jet)

Empty Weight: 29,300 lb
Max Takeoff Weight: 70,000 lb

Do you see where you'd have a hard time trying to get these jets off of some modified freighter? Even with some stripping down like you say would happen, they'd have a hell of a hard time getting off of some modified aircraft carrier. And why would these countries put so much energy into these modified carrier/freighters if what they need most, is freighters to transport the resources they need to supply these big army's, so this war can go on for years?


You are assuming there would be no rationing and central planning like during WWII.

No, I'm not assuming anything, what I'm saying is that even if the US, EU, and other countries tried to ration out resources, they couldn't do it without coming into major roadblocks of resource strain.


You do know the US has railways through the mid west like it did during WWII so it could use trains to efficiently transport food across the US.

Yeah, but if the US saw railways as a better means to transport food and the like across the US, it wouldn't have put so much money and energy into freight trucks. Plus, trains in the US aren't all that great either, seeing how most of them are still diesels, and just shifting your food transport from a road truck ran on diesel, to a train running on diesel hardly makes a difference.


There has been no current gas rationing issued by the government to help the war effort.

I never said there was. I was saying that there doesn't need to be, because people who are already aware of the current gas problems, don't need to be told. And, there's plenty of reporting and information out there already readily available to people on their need for oil and gas.



Since when has that stopped imperialist powers from trying?

You're going in circles now. Look at what I put at the start. Just because they wan't to doesn't mean they can. I want a brand new $10,000 motorcycle, doesn't mean I can get one with the funds I'm bringing in with work and having to put them towards other things like school and such.

They can try, but they won't get far. You put too much in the expectations of the world's power nations. They're not all that strong when it comes to natural resource grabs and these economies they're busy trying to keep afloat are all held on by these resources. Without them, and a major war that just wastes them, these economies would collapse in weeks, and people would be a lot worse off then they are now.


Resistance fighters in France could only go after soft targets, every time they attacked military targets the Nazis easily crushed them.

Also look at Hungary 1957 or Czechoslovak 1968, there the USSR proved that large heavy deployments of disciplined military forces quickly crush uprisings. That insurgents can't do much against tanks that can flatten buildings with HESH rounds that doesn't have to leave infantry as long as there is a forward supply base established in the city.

Yeah, but look at Al Qaeda or the Taliban. They've got IEDs that can tear through the armor of a M1 Abrams tank, and have even had video of such. The best US tank in the US's pocket can be destroyed by some guys who probably got the plans to make a bomb, off the internet.

Chechen rebels have IEDs that can tear through Russia's highest end tank too. Times have changed Psy, dramatically from the 40s and 50s, and unlike the 40s and 50s, insurgent groups have gotten way better at what they do, and what they work with against Imperialist nations coming in to take the resources or whatever it may end up being.


The problem is like we seen in the Georgian conflict Russia still acts on what it learned from WWII, Hungary and Czechoslovakia that the only way any war with with military might and through heavy use of armor working closely with infantry.

And once again, as I said, the ways of WW2 are done and over with. They can operate in small amounts, like the US sending it's forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, or Russia into Georgia, but they can't do it indefinitely like back in WW2. For a more modern, and the last military action where there was as many US troops on the ground in a theatre, as there was in a WW2 theatre, just look at Vietnam. The highest number of troops in Vietnam was half a million, but it quickly went down because it wasn't sustainable to the US economy.

If Russia had tried that in Georgia, they would have met the same fate as the US did in Vietnam. The amount of troop concentration in Georgia would have gone down to something like US numbers are in Iraq, or were. These vast army's are becoming less and less sustainable, no matter what flag the country lives under, they're not sustainable anymore.

[Amphictyonis]

Capitalist markets in advanced capitalist nations are too entwined for war between advanced capitalist nations. Too much profit to be lost over political nonsense (in their eyes). Only way I see WW3 happening is if the economy gets to a breaking point so far so as to the point where war is the only way for various capitalists to profit. When the US 'goes to war' with certian smaller nations the reason is to establish current and future opportunities for profit. The capitalist system is no longer fragmented, as in, no longer a system of separate markets- the only nations I see having 'conflict' will be the advanced capitalist nations war efforts to capitalize on foreign resources. I don't see this happening between advanced capitalist nations but more so war being waged by advanced capitalist nations against smaller weaker less developed nations. At the most I see proxy wars being fought between advanced capitalist nations as has been the case the last 60 or so years. Proxy wars fought over resources in less advanced nations.

[Psy]

Alright, well first off, you're seriously thinking into fantasy about shooting a jet off a modified freighter, which is much more vital to supplying resources and goods to the nations, instead of operating as a "aircraft carrier". So to give you a bit of a hint into reality, you're going to need the harder and better facts of the jets used by the US Navy. I used the F-16 as an example, only because it's the smallest jet in the US air force, and the most numerous, and even then if they tried to make it like you say, still wouldn't work to your fantasy. But here's the weighing stats of the US Navy's main fighter/bomber jet. And how about the US's new F-22 and F35's that are supposed to replace the F-16 and F/A-18.


F/A-18 Super Hornet (Navy Jet)

Empty Weight: 32,081 lb
Max Takeoff Weight: 66,000 lb

F-22 Raptor (Air Force Jet)

Empty Weight: 43,430 lb
Max Takeoff Weight: 83,000 lb

F-35 Lightning II (Navy & Air Force Jet)

Empty Weight: 29,300 lb
Max Takeoff Weight: 70,000 lb

Do you see where you'd have a hard time trying to get these jets off of some modified freighter? Even with some stripping down like you say would happen, they'd have a hell of a hard time getting off of some modified aircraft carrier. And why would these countries put so much energy into these modified carrier/freighters if what they need most, is freighters to transport the resources they need to supply these big army's, so this war can go on for years?

That assumes that the Navy would still use heavier jets if faced with a shortage of aircraft carriers and require to resort to light aircraft carriers.

And the point is to provide protection to the freights you don't convert. Even if the US does lose most of its aircraft carriers it does not have enough to fully protect convoys crossing oceans.



No, I'm not assuming anything, what I'm saying is that even if the US, EU, and other countries tried to ration out resources, they couldn't do it without coming into major roadblocks of resource strain.

That they overcame before.



Yeah, but if the US saw railways as a better means to transport food and the like across the US, it wouldn't have put so much money and energy into freight trucks. Plus, trains in the US aren't all that great either, seeing how most of them are still diesels, and just shifting your food transport from a road truck ran on diesel, to a train running on diesel hardly makes a difference.

A diesel train consumes a fraction of what it takes to move the same tonnage by truck. This is due to economy of scale, plus trains have far less friction thus doesn't loose anywhere near as much energy to friction.




I never said there was. I was saying that there doesn't need to be, because people who are already aware of the current gas problems, don't need to be told. And, there's plenty of reporting and information out there already readily available to people on their need for oil and gas.

You're going in circles now. Look at what I put at the start. Just because they wan't to doesn't mean they can. I want a brand new $10,000 motorcycle, doesn't mean I can get one with the funds I'm bringing in with work and having to put them towards other things like school and such.

They can try, but they won't get far. You put too much in the expectations of the world's power nations. They're not all that strong when it comes to natural resource grabs and these economies they're busy trying to keep afloat are all held on by these resources. Without them, and a major war that just wastes them, these economies would collapse in weeks, and people would be a lot worse off then they are now.

Japan went through the same resource scare leading up to WWII and it was able to ration and fuel its war machine to solve its resource scarcity through imperialist expansion.




Yeah, but look at Al Qaeda or the Taliban. They've got IEDs that can tear through the armor of a M1 Abrams tank, and have even had video of such. The best US tank in the US's pocket can be destroyed by some guys who probably got the plans to make a bomb, off the internet.

Yhea that is why combat engineer tanks roll heavy chains ahead of them and have extra under and low forward armor, if they are really concerned modern combat engineering tank can fire lines of C4 line and blow up the area infront of the tank (that would blow up any mine).

Remote devices where dealt with back in WWII with heavy jamming from the combat engineering tanks, combat crews didn't care if that they themselves couldn't communicate wirelessly through the strong jamming as that is what field phones are for that combat engineer lay down so forces are not reliant on wireless communication, then there is turning off jamming at scheduled times so units can quickly radio in then jamming resumes once update radio traffic is completed.

Also with modern electronic warfare you don't even need to do that, you can engineer it so only your military radios can cut through your jamming (with limited bandwidth).



Chechen rebels have IEDs that can tear through Russia's highest end tank too. Times have changed Psy, dramatically from the 40s and 50s, and unlike the 40s and 50s, insurgent groups have gotten way better at what they do, and what they work with against Imperialist nations coming in to take the resources or whatever it may end up being.

Not really, if you look at the Chechen wars it basically is basically modernized WWII tactics on both sides yet on a limited scale. Yhea mines can take out tanks but with proper tactics that date back to WWII you can make it very hard for the enemy to successfully use them and when they do minimize their effect.



And once again, as I said, the ways of WW2 are done and over with. They can operate in small amounts, like the US sending it's forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, or Russia into Georgia, but they can't do it indefinitely like back in WW2.

They didn't do it indefinitely they did it for about half a decade.




For a more modern, and the last military action where there was as many US troops on the ground in a theatre, as there was in a WW2 theatre, just look at Vietnam. The highest number of troops in Vietnam was half a million, but it quickly went down because it wasn't sustainable to the US economy.

Yet the US military is not really geared for large scale deployment, the US focuses on expensive weapons that it can't realistically deploy on even the scale of the USSR interventions in Eastern Europe. We can see this in Iraq with the fact the US simply can't field enough Abrams to smother uprisings like the USSR did and the Abrams is pathetic compared to even the T-55 when it comes to crushing insurgences as its rounds simply can't flattening buildings as well with its cannon as the USSR learned heavily from Stalingrad of what a tank is primarily for while the US thinks tanks only exist to fight other tanks.



If Russia had tried that in Georgia, they would have met the same fate as the US did in Vietnam. The amount of troop concentration in Georgia would have gone down to something like US numbers are in Iraq, or were. These vast army's are becoming less and less sustainable, no matter what flag the country lives under, they're not sustainable anymore.
Not really, if Russia tried that in Georgia it would have played out more like Hungary of Czechoslovakia where the doctrine would be to smother residence with overwhelming force to bring operations to a quick end so they could start to pull back deployment numbers within a month or so.

[Magón]

That assumes that the Navy would still use heavier jets if faced with a shortage of aircraft carriers and require to resort to light aircraft carriers.

Where's this shortage of aircraft carriers, where are these light aircraft carriers of WW2? I showed you some of the main jets used by the US, and what it plans to use in the future. What else are they going to use? Old Vietnam era Phantom jets that could be much easier to knock out of the sky than the jets of today.


And the point is to provide protection to the freights you don't convert. Even if the US does lose most of its aircraft carriers it does not have enough to fully protect convoys crossing oceans.

Where are these aircraft carriers being lost? Nobody's saying they're loosing anything but you, but you're just doing it because of some fantasy you have for these makeshift aircraft carriers.


That they overcame before.

Not nearly the same as what the world today would have to overcome.



Japan went through the same resource scare leading up to WWII and it was able to ration and fuel its war machine to solve its resource scarcity through imperialist expansion.

No, it didn't go through the same resource scare leading up to WW2, like the WHOLE world faces today. Not even close to the same scale. The resources they used in that war, oil, gas, etc. are all MUCH lower in availability thanks to them, than when the Japanese invaded Manchuria, etc. for fuels.


Yhea that is why combat engineer tanks roll heavy chains ahead of them and have extra under and low forward armor, if they are really concerned modern combat engineering tank can fire lines of C4 line and blow up the area infront of the tank (that would blow up any mine).

You can't be setting off C4 or whatever, every time you're rolling the tanks. That takes up time, valuable time that could be used for them fighting some enemy or whatever it is they're doing. Setting off explosives and the like doesn't help all the time.


Remote devices where dealt with back in WWII with heavy jamming from the combat engineering tanks, combat crews didn't care if that they themselves couldn't communicate wirelessly through the strong jamming as that is what field phones are for that combat engineer lay down so forces are not reliant on wireless communication, then there is turning off jamming at scheduled times so units can quickly radio in then jamming resumes once update radio traffic is completed.

Then why don't they just jam everything, so no IEDs can go off in the future, or went off in the past? They can't do it all the time!



Not really, if you look at the Chechen wars it basically is basically modernized WWII tactics on both sides yet on a limited scale. Yhea mines can take out tanks but with proper tactics that date back to WWII you can make it very hard for the enemy to successfully use them and when they do minimize their effect.

It doesn't matter, because in the world we live in, if a WW3 like you keep talking about were to happen, then the time and energy it takes to make a new tank, would be very stressful and eat up even more resources; along with the other tanks already being made as well. The Chechen Rebels have used more modern tactics, than the Russians have. Just look at their latest attack, how can a military like the US's or Russia's, protect from people like that? They can't, because they're not properly set up to do so, and if they continue on the path they're on now, never will be able to properly defend from Chechen Rebels, or Taliban fighters.


They didn't do it indefinitely they did it for about half a decade.

I meant just through the war. The amount of troops and energy put into WW2 by all sides, could never be sustained like it was then. I don't know how many times I have to say this, it's like going around in circles with you.


Yet the US military is not really geared for large scale deployment, the US focuses on expensive weapons that it can't realistically deploy on even the scale of the USSR interventions in Eastern Europe. We can see this in Iraq with the fact the US simply can't field enough Abrams to smother uprisings like the USSR did and the Abrams is pathetic compared to even the T-55 when it comes to crushing insurgences as its rounds simply can't flattening buildings as well with its cannon as the USSR learned heavily from Stalingrad of what a tank is primarily for while the US thinks tanks only exist to fight other tanks.

WW2 is over Psy, Vietnam is over, World Wars like them are done with forever now, and it's Proxy/Regional, not Global like I've said before in every other post. If Russia or any other country of major power, continued on like it did in WW2, the resources for cars, making cars, making a lot of things that are everyday and things people take for granted, are going to become very hard to get, or not able to be had at all.

I do have one last question for you though Psy, to end this now pointless and ever encircling debate. Where do you think the resources needed to keep these large army's going like WW2, Vietnam, etc. had, is going to come from?

[Ocean Seal]

The good news is that, to paraphrase Andrew Kliman, the Russians and Chinese need not threaten physical destruction of the West: they already have the means to destroy the value of at least the US economy by dumping the dollar.

You've just explained why WWIII will never happen. China and the European Union have too much invested in the US to destroy it. How will America pay them back when it is destroyed. China can't just come over here like a mobster and break our kneecaps when we don't pay them back.
WWIII won't happen, I am however rooting for a Class War II.

[Psy]

Where's this shortage of aircraft carriers, where are these light aircraft carriers of WW2? I showed you some of the main jets used by the US, and what it plans to use in the future. What else are they going to use? Old Vietnam era Phantom jets that could be much easier to knock out of the sky than the jets of today.

Where are these aircraft carriers being lost? Nobody's saying they're loosing anything but you, but you're just doing it because of some fantasy you have for these makeshift aircraft carriers.

How are you going to get enough coverage if you have to both protect supply lines and deal with losses in battles? You think just because the US Navy says their aircraft carriers can't be sunk they won't be sunk in a inter-imperialist war?

WWII showed aircraft carriers are easily sunk, they are very valuable to a fleet but they are first ships sunk in a naval battle as they lack armor. Hell the US almost lost a aircraft carrier in Vietnam simply due to accidental fire.





Not nearly the same as what the world today would have to overcome.


No, it didn't go through the same resource scare leading up to WW2, like the WHOLE world faces today. Not even close to the same scale. The resources they used in that war, oil, gas, etc. are all MUCH lower in availability thanks to them, than when the Japanese invaded Manchuria, etc. for fuels.

Not when you factor in waste.




You can't be setting off C4 or whatever, every time you're rolling the tanks. That takes up time, valuable time that could be used for them fighting some enemy or whatever it is they're doing. Setting off explosives and the like doesn't help all the time.

They fire off C4 when they know they are in a mine field, other they just drag heavy chains head of the sacrificial mine clearing tank. There is also the tactic of putting a plow on a tank and plowing any mine up while the tank is protected by plow and dirt it pushing up.




Then why don't they just jam everything, so no IEDs can go off in the future, or went off in the past? They can't do it all the time!

Due to US military doctrine that focuses on information warfare in that units are given high situational awareness through information technology. Electronic warfare limits the ability to communicate data between even friendly units in the field, thus you require more organization to manage forces while under heavy jamming, it also requires more engineering as your now rely on wire and ground microwave communication systems (that while can cut through jamming require line of sight, you could in theory bounce it from space that would be expensive running everything through space based satellites and you'd still run into dead zones).




It doesn't matter, because in the world we live in, if a WW3 like you keep talking about were to happen, then the time and energy it takes to make a new tank, would be very stressful and eat up even more resources; along with the other tanks already being made as well. The Chechen Rebels have used more modern tactics, than the Russians have. Just look at their latest attack, how can a military like the US's or Russia's, protect from people like that? They can't, because they're not properly set up to do so, and if they continue on the path they're on now, never will be able to properly defend from Chechen Rebels, or Taliban fighters.

You mean Moscow airport, simply build barricades around the air port and have military check points approaching the airport that are far enough away a bomb from the check point can't reach the airport. Basically making going to Moscow airport like it was trying to cross the East/West German border.

They can't do that because it would limit traffic and be costly but as we see in Isreal walls and troops still works for bourgeoisie states.




I meant just through the war. The amount of troops and energy put into WW2 by all sides, could never be sustained like it was then. I don't know how many times I have to say this, it's like going around in circles with you.

And how many times do I have to say in such a conflict resources would be redirected towards a war effort.



WW2 is over Psy, Vietnam is over, World Wars like them are done with forever now, and it's Proxy/Regional, not Global like I've said before in every other post. If Russia or any other country of major power, continued on like it did in WW2, the resources for cars, making cars, making a lot of things that are everyday and things people take for granted, are going to become very hard to get, or not able to be had at all.

I wouldn't say they are done forever, no sacrifice is too great for the proletariat in the eyes of the bourgeoisie.




I do have one last question for you though Psy, to end this now pointless and ever encircling debate. Where do you think the resources needed to keep these large army's going like WW2, Vietnam, etc. had, is going to come from?
Exactly were it will come from a communist revolution, through redirecting resources. Also if a great depression cripples world production then there would be a flood of resources on the market as industry sits idle. For example why would the US care about burning tonnes of oil for a war if the a crash of the world economy makes oil pennies a tonne due to a sudden crash of demand of oil?

[Magón]

How are you going to get enough coverage if you have to both protect supply lines and deal with losses in battles? You think just because the US Navy says their aircraft carriers can't be sunk they won't be sunk in a inter-imperialist war?

WWII showed aircraft carriers are easily sunk, they are very valuable to a fleet but they are first ships sunk in a naval battle as they lack armor. Hell the US almost lost a aircraft carrier in Vietnam simply due to accidental fire.

WW2 also showed you need aircraft to do it, while nowadays they have radar guided missiles and the like to shoot down any incoming aircraft or threat, to knock out any enemy jet coming to bomb a carrier. And like I've said countless times already, WW2 is over, you can't keep comparing the battlefields of today, and the strategies of today, with 60+ old strategies that don't incorporate IEDs and people like Al Qaeda, etc.


Not when you factor in waste.

It doesn't matter in this world anymore.


They fire off C4 when they know they are in a mine field, other they just drag heavy chains head of the sacrificial mine clearing tank. There is also the tactic of putting a plow on a tank and plowing any mine up while the tank is protected by plow and dirt it pushing up.

How many stories have you hear, where tanks or US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, have been caught up in a mine field that was as extravagant and whatever, as in WW2? And like I've been trying to get to you, you can't always protect from things you even might suspect will happen.



Due to US military doctrine that focuses on information warfare in that units are given high situational awareness through information technology. Electronic warfare limits the ability to communicate data between even friendly units in the field, thus you require more organization to manage forces while under heavy jamming, it also requires more engineering as your now rely on wire and ground microwave communication systems (that while can cut through jamming require line of sight, you could in theory bounce it from space that would be expensive running everything through space based satellites and you'd still run into dead zones).

Their doctrine is fucked, because obviously they can't be prepared for every roadside IED that's aimed at knocking out a tank or Humvee. Your going off fantasy again, Psy, and I'm talking reality of things.


You mean Moscow airport, simply build barricades around the air port and have military check points approaching the airport that are far enough away a bomb from the check point can't reach the airport. Basically making going to Moscow airport like it was trying to cross the East/West German border.

They can't do that because it would limit traffic and be costly but as we see in Isreal walls and troops still works for bourgeoisie states.

Exactly, it'd be costly, just like it's costly for these stupid army's to still be around trying to fight an they can't see without a uniform. You couldn't screen every single person, and not expect the attackers to change their methods of getting a bomb in, no matter how hard you try. Fantasy Psy, isn't reality, and the reality of things is these big army's are obsolete.



And how many times do I have to say in such a conflict resources would be redirected towards a war effort.

I've already explained to you about this as well, Psy, that even if these resources were redirected to a war effort, they wouldn't last any longer than now. You can't just wish for there to be a oil field plentiful in the black shit, and start drilling to continue your war effort. The world doesn't work like that, and neither does reality. Resources would be strained even more than they are now, if they were put towards a pointless war effort that wouldn't even be able to get off the ground right.


I wouldn't say they are done forever, no sacrifice is too great for the proletariat in the eyes of the bourgeoisie.

And you really thing the majority of people would stand for such a thing? Look at the reality of the world Psy, there are protests in London, Greece, Egypt, Tunisia, the US, everywhere over all sorts of things, including over things like food shortages and other things. Even if the capitalists and assholes up top thought to try shit like you're suggesting, people wouldn't allow it. They'd be in the streets even more than they are now.

But none of what I've said above really needs to be talked about again, since basically I'm taking whatever you're saying as just straight trolling, because you're not looking at the reality of the world's resource shortages, and reality in general.


Exactly were it will come from a communist revolution, through redirecting resources. Also if a great depression cripples world production then there would be a flood of resources on the market as industry sits idle. For example why would the US care about burning tonnes of oil for a war if the a crash of the world economy makes oil pennies a tonne due to a sudden crash of demand of oil?

Once again, you're not looking at reality, so my question is now void, and so is this pointless encircling discussion. If you saw the reality of the world, and the powers that run it, you'd see that it was just as Amphictyonis said at the start of her post. These advanced capitalist economies are so entwined with each other, there's no reality to an actual WW3 being on the scale you're talking about, with the resources you're getting from some fantasy land.

[Psy]

WW2 also showed you need aircraft to do it, while nowadays they have radar guided missiles and the like to shoot down any incoming aircraft or threat, to knock out any enemy jet coming to bomb a carrier. And like I've said countless times already, WW2 is over, you can't keep comparing the battlefields of today, and the strategies of today, with 60+ old strategies that don't incorporate IEDs and people like Al Qaeda, etc.

Actually most aircraft carriers were only disable by air, most were sunk by battleships. Also you can't shoot down missiles with any great realizability plus the idea that a US aircraft carrier can knock down any air strike is pure propaganda from the US arms industry.



It doesn't matter in this world anymore.

Efficiency always matters when it comes to resources.




How many stories have you hear, where tanks or US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, have been caught up in a mine field that was as extravagant and whatever, as in WW2? And like I've been trying to get to you, you can't always protect from things you even might suspect will happen.

IEDs are mines, just crude mines thus Vietnam era anti-mine tactics still work against them.



Their doctrine is fucked, because obviously they can't be prepared for every roadside IED that's aimed at knocking out a tank or Humvee. Your going off fantasy again, Psy, and I'm talking reality of things.

When your jamming for anti-mines it doesn't matter if you know where they are, the dead zone the column would be producing follows them. Same with mine clearing tanks, they simply take point and drag/fail chains all the way to their destination.




Exactly, it'd be costly, just like it's costly for these stupid army's to still be around trying to fight an they can't see without a uniform. You couldn't screen every single person, and not expect the attackers to change their methods of getting a bomb in, no matter how hard you try. Fantasy Psy, isn't reality, and the reality of things is these big army's are obsolete.

You can screen every single person, the USSR did it along the border with the west it just is very costly and slow down traffic.

Also if it was possible for terrorists to actually defeat bourgeoisie states it would have happened before, yet to date no bourgeoisie state had ever lost out to terrorists. Guerrilla forces have but not with terrorist tactics as attacking soft targets simply reinforces support for the bourgeoisie state.



I've already explained to you about this as well, Psy, that even if these resources were redirected to a war effort, they wouldn't last any longer than now. You can't just wish for there to be a oil field plentiful in the black shit, and start drilling to continue your war effort. The world doesn't work like that, and neither does reality. Resources would be strained even more than they are now, if they were put towards a pointless war effort that wouldn't even be able to get off the ground right.

You are ignoring the vast amount of resources used today which is not required for a war effort.



And you really thing the majority of people would stand for such a thing? Look at the reality of the world Psy, there are protests in London, Greece, Egypt, Tunisia, the US, everywhere over all sorts of things, including over things like food shortages and other things. Even if the capitalists and assholes up top thought to try shit like you're suggesting, people wouldn't allow it. They'd be in the streets even more than they are now.

And what are their odds without a revolutionary movement behind them? Again if it were that simple Hungary 1957 and Czechoslovakia 1968 would have resulted in the USSR occupation being defeated by the uprisings.



But none of what I've said above really needs to be talked about again, since basically I'm taking whatever you're saying as just straight trolling, because you're not looking at the reality of the world's resource shortages, and reality in general.

There isn't shortages, there are less plentiful then during the long boom but in no way are they rarer then they were during WWII.



Once again, you're not looking at reality, so my question is now void, and so is this pointless encircling discussion. If you saw the reality of the world, and the powers that run it, you'd see that it was just as Amphictyonis said at the start of her post. These advanced capitalist economies are so entwined with each other, there's no reality to an actual WW3 being on the scale you're talking about, with the resources you're getting from some fantasy land.
That is what they said about WWI.

You seem to think that we live in a static capitalist system and that it is impossible for it degreate into another world war.

[W1N5T0N]

The thing that most worries me is that in many forms of capitalist rule, the preparation for war and the war itself serves as an enormous boost for the economy. For example, the USA were only able to get out of depression due to war. Of course, the war was justified as it was against fascists. However, they have also been able to turn on their armamament industries in order to support fascists, e.g. in central/south america, or totalitarian states in Arabic nations (e.g. Libya). The USA are the number 1 profiteurs from many past wars.
But i agree with NIN, maybe it will be like 1984: the world will be divided into three main parts, always having war with each other, none gaining the upper hand, and used to fuel politics and economy. An ongoing war provides war for an ongoing propaganda/control machine and justifies actions against its one people...America's alleged war on terror is an example for this. What they are really doing is a war on anybody in their country who thinks different, and is marked a terrorist. There is an example of a girl being kicked from her school for wearing anarchy t-shirt, as it was deemed anti-state = terrorist.