Participants in World War III
Posted 1/9/12 , edited 1/9/12
Pretty self-explanatory thread.

I'm guessing major nations of the Middle East, North and South Korea, China, some Southeast Asian nations, The United Kingdom, France, Russia, India, the entire African continent, The United States, and maybe Brazil will rock the planet to its core.

Japan won't be in on this much. They can't do anything more than defense and some assistance, I think.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/10/12
Depends on what event that lead up to - and triggers the war, and which countries that are affected.
I do think your estimation is a bit over the top, though. Why that many countries?
Posted 1/10/12 , edited 1/10/12
The problem of your hypothesized WW3 scenario is the lack of consideration regarding forth generation warfare.

I developed the framework of the first three generations ("generation" is shorthand for dialectically qualitative shift) in the 1980s, when I was laboring to introduce maneuver warfare to the Marine Corps. Marines kept asking, "What will the Fourth Generation be like?", and I began to think about that. The result was the article I co-authored for the Marine Corps Gazette in 1989, "The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation." Our troops found copies of it in the caves at Tora Bora, the al-Qaeda hideout in Afghanistan.

The Four Generations began with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the treaty that ended the Thirty Years' War. With the Treaty of Westphalia, the state established a monopoly on war. Previously, many different entities had fought wars – families, tribes, religions, cities, business enterprises – using many different means, not just armies and navies (two of those means, bribery and assassination, are again in vogue). Now, state militaries find it difficult to imagine war in any way other than fighting state armed forces similar to themselves.

The First Generation of Modern War runs roughly from 1648 to 1860. This was war of line and column tactics, where battles were formal and the battlefield was orderly. The relevance of the First Generation springs from the fact that the battlefield of order created a military culture of order. Most of the things that distinguish "military" from "civilian" - uniforms, saluting, careful gradations or rank – were products of the First Generation and are intended to reinforce the culture of order.

The problem is that, around the middle of the 19th century, the battlefield of order began to break down. Mass armies, soldiers who actually wanted to fight (an 18th century's soldier's main objective was to desert), rifled muskets, then breech loaders and machine guns, made the old line and column tactics first obsolete, then suicidal.

The problem ever since has been a growing contradiction between the military culture and the increasing disorderliness of the battlefield. The culture of order that was once consistent with the environment in which it operated has become more and more at odds with it.

Second Generation warfare was one answer to this contradiction. Developed by the French Army during and after World War I, it sought a solution in mass firepower, most of which was indirect artillery fire. The goal was attrition, and the doctrine was summed up by the French as, "The artillery conquers, the infantry occupies." Centrally-controlled firepower was carefully synchronized, using detailed, specific plans and orders, for the infantry, tanks, and artillery, in a "conducted battle" where the commander was in effect the conductor of an orchestra.

Second Generation warfare came as a great relief to soldiers (or at least their officers) because it preserved the culture of order. The focus was inward on rules, processes and procedures. Obedience was more important than initiative (in fact, initiative was not wanted, because it endangered synchronization), and discipline was top-down and imposed.

Second Generation warfare is relevant to us today because the United States Army and Marine Corps learned Second Generation warfare from the French during and after World War I. It remains the American way of war, as we are seeing in Afghanistan and Iraq: to Americans, war means "putting steel on target." Aviation has replaced artillery as the source of most firepower, but otherwise, (and despite the Marine's formal doctrine, which is Third Generation maneuver warfare) the American military today is as French as white wine and brie. At the Marine Corps' desert warfare training center at 29 Palms, California, the only thing missing is the tricolor and a picture of General Gamelin in the headquarters. The same is true at the Army's Armor School at Fort Knox, where one instructor recently began his class by saying, "I don't know why I have to teach you all this old French crap, but I do."

Third Generation warfare, like Second, was a product of World War I. It was developed by the German Army, and is commonly known as Blitzkrieg or maneuver warfare.

Third Generation warfare is based not on firepower and attrition but speed, surprise, and mental as well as physical dislocation. Tactically, in the attack a Third Generation military seeks to get into the enemy's rear and collapse him from the rear forward: instead of "close with and destroy," the motto is "bypass and collapse." In the defense, it attempts to draw the enemy in, then cut him off. War ceases to be a shoving contest, where forces attempt to hold or advance a "line;" Third Generation warfare is non-linear.

Not only do tactics change in the Third Generation, so does the military culture. A Third Generation military focuses outward, on the situation, the enemy, and the result the situation requires, not inward on process and method (in war games in the 19th Century, German junior officers were routinely given problems that could only be solved by disobeying orders). Orders themselves specify the result to be achieved, but never the method ("Auftragstaktik"). Initiative is more important than obedience (mistakes are tolerated, so long as they come from too much initiative rather than too little), and it all depends on self-discipline, not imposed discipline. The Kaiserheer and the Wehrmacht could put on great parades, but in reality they had broken with the culture of order.

Characteristics such as decentralization and initiative carry over from the Third to the Fourth Generation, but in other respects the Fourth Generation marks the most radical change since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. In Fourth Generation war, the state loses its monopoly on war. All over the world, state militaries find themselves fighting non-state opponents such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the FARC. Almost everywhere, the state is losing.

Fourth Generation war is also marked by a return to a world of cultures, not merely states, in conflict. We now find ourselves facing the Christian West's oldest and most steadfast opponent, Islam. After about three centuries on the strategic defensive, following the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683, Islam has resumed the strategic offensive, expanding outward in every direction. In Third Generation war, invasion by immigration can be at least as dangerous as invasion by a state army.

Nor is Fourth Generation warfare merely something we import, as we did on 9/11. At its core lies a universal crisis of legitimacy of the state, and that crisis means many countries will evolve Fourth Generation war on their soil. America, with a closed political system (regardless of which party wins, the Establishment remains in power and nothing really changes) and a poisonous ideology of "multiculturalism," is a prime candidate for the home-grown variety of Fourth Generation war – which is by far the most dangerous kind.

---- from "Understanding Fourth Generation War"
In other words, while the first three generations of modern warfare were an upscale of firepower, attrition, and then finally speed of waging wars between arbitrary nation states. Forth generation warfare conducts itself without such arbitrary legal entity, as it's really a psychosocial war on culture. Where abstract ideologies and beliefs are the firepower/warheads, information technology is the weapon of choice for attrition, and networking/viral behavior accelerates its speed of societal collapse. Furthermore, you're still stuck on perceiving war with a third generation warfare narrative, and that's how you came to have a bias in your worldview of war based on oversimplified old war stories acting as filters.

Tyler Cowen: Be suspicious of stories
Like all of us, economist Tyler Cowen loves a good story. But in this intriguing talk from TEDxMidAtlantic, he asks us to step away from thinking of our lives -- and our messy, complicated irrational world -- in terms of a simple narrative.

Ralph Langner: Cracking Stuxnet, a 21st-century cyber weapon
When first discovered in 2010, the Stuxnet computer worm posed a baffling puzzle. Beyond its unusually high level of sophistication loomed a more troubling mystery: its purpose. Ralph Langner and team helped crack the code that revealed this digital warhead's final target -- and its covert origins. In a fascinating look inside cyber-forensics, he explains how.

Loretta Napoleoni: The intricate economics of terrorism
Loretta Napoleoni details her rare opportunity to talk to the secretive Italian Red Brigades -- an experience that sparked a lifelong interest in terrorism. She gives a behind-the-scenes look at its complex economics, revealing a surprising connection between money laundering and the US Patriot Act.
And yes, the real battlefield of forth generation warfare is in fact our global economy. Conducted by none other than international corporations, operating beyond nation states' boundaries and regulations. They are the real participants of World War III.
Posted 1/10/12
Do Africa, India and Brazil have a big enough military to take part in a world war o.0
And surely WWIII would be over very quickly, what with countries like North Korea having Nuclear weapons
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/10/12 , edited 1/10/12
For once I can say I agree with Dom from the get go. Even if the global economy isn't formally concidered a war, as far as I know. Though I'm yet to pay keen attention to the economic related subjects... For the most part.

So if a traditional war would again, for some reason, break out some time in the future in such a grand scale, I don't think they would name it WWIV, just because we have a more subtle war going in our economics.
Posted 1/10/12

DomFortress wrote:

The problem of your hypothesized WW3 scenario is the lack of consideration regarding forth generation warfare.

I developed the framework of the first three generations ("generation" is shorthand for dialectically qualitative shift) in the 1980s, when I was laboring to introduce maneuver warfare to the Marine Corps. Marines kept asking, "What will the Fourth Generation be like?", and I began to think about that. The result was the article I co-authored for the Marine Corps Gazette in 1989, "The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation." Our troops found copies of it in the caves at Tora Bora, the al-Qaeda hideout in Afghanistan.

The Four Generations began with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the treaty that ended the Thirty Years' War. With the Treaty of Westphalia, the state established a monopoly on war. Previously, many different entities had fought wars – families, tribes, religions, cities, business enterprises – using many different means, not just armies and navies (two of those means, bribery and assassination, are again in vogue). Now, state militaries find it difficult to imagine war in any way other than fighting state armed forces similar to themselves.

The First Generation of Modern War runs roughly from 1648 to 1860. This was war of line and column tactics, where battles were formal and the battlefield was orderly. The relevance of the First Generation springs from the fact that the battlefield of order created a military culture of order. Most of the things that distinguish "military" from "civilian" - uniforms, saluting, careful gradations or rank – were products of the First Generation and are intended to reinforce the culture of order.

The problem is that, around the middle of the 19th century, the battlefield of order began to break down. Mass armies, soldiers who actually wanted to fight (an 18th century's soldier's main objective was to desert), rifled muskets, then breech loaders and machine guns, made the old line and column tactics first obsolete, then suicidal.

The problem ever since has been a growing contradiction between the military culture and the increasing disorderliness of the battlefield. The culture of order that was once consistent with the environment in which it operated has become more and more at odds with it.

Second Generation warfare was one answer to this contradiction. Developed by the French Army during and after World War I, it sought a solution in mass firepower, most of which was indirect artillery fire. The goal was attrition, and the doctrine was summed up by the French as, "The artillery conquers, the infantry occupies." Centrally-controlled firepower was carefully synchronized, using detailed, specific plans and orders, for the infantry, tanks, and artillery, in a "conducted battle" where the commander was in effect the conductor of an orchestra.

Second Generation warfare came as a great relief to soldiers (or at least their officers) because it preserved the culture of order. The focus was inward on rules, processes and procedures. Obedience was more important than initiative (in fact, initiative was not wanted, because it endangered synchronization), and discipline was top-down and imposed.

Second Generation warfare is relevant to us today because the United States Army and Marine Corps learned Second Generation warfare from the French during and after World War I. It remains the American way of war, as we are seeing in Afghanistan and Iraq: to Americans, war means "putting steel on target." Aviation has replaced artillery as the source of most firepower, but otherwise, (and despite the Marine's formal doctrine, which is Third Generation maneuver warfare) the American military today is as French as white wine and brie. At the Marine Corps' desert warfare training center at 29 Palms, California, the only thing missing is the tricolor and a picture of General Gamelin in the headquarters. The same is true at the Army's Armor School at Fort Knox, where one instructor recently began his class by saying, "I don't know why I have to teach you all this old French crap, but I do."

Third Generation warfare, like Second, was a product of World War I. It was developed by the German Army, and is commonly known as Blitzkrieg or maneuver warfare.

Third Generation warfare is based not on firepower and attrition but speed, surprise, and mental as well as physical dislocation. Tactically, in the attack a Third Generation military seeks to get into the enemy's rear and collapse him from the rear forward: instead of "close with and destroy," the motto is "bypass and collapse." In the defense, it attempts to draw the enemy in, then cut him off. War ceases to be a shoving contest, where forces attempt to hold or advance a "line;" Third Generation warfare is non-linear.

Not only do tactics change in the Third Generation, so does the military culture. A Third Generation military focuses outward, on the situation, the enemy, and the result the situation requires, not inward on process and method (in war games in the 19th Century, German junior officers were routinely given problems that could only be solved by disobeying orders). Orders themselves specify the result to be achieved, but never the method ("Auftragstaktik"). Initiative is more important than obedience (mistakes are tolerated, so long as they come from too much initiative rather than too little), and it all depends on self-discipline, not imposed discipline. The Kaiserheer and the Wehrmacht could put on great parades, but in reality they had broken with the culture of order.

Characteristics such as decentralization and initiative carry over from the Third to the Fourth Generation, but in other respects the Fourth Generation marks the most radical change since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. In Fourth Generation war, the state loses its monopoly on war. All over the world, state militaries find themselves fighting non-state opponents such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the FARC. Almost everywhere, the state is losing.

Fourth Generation war is also marked by a return to a world of cultures, not merely states, in conflict. We now find ourselves facing the Christian West's oldest and most steadfast opponent, Islam. After about three centuries on the strategic defensive, following the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683, Islam has resumed the strategic offensive, expanding outward in every direction. In Third Generation war, invasion by immigration can be at least as dangerous as invasion by a state army.

Nor is Fourth Generation warfare merely something we import, as we did on 9/11. At its core lies a universal crisis of legitimacy of the state, and that crisis means many countries will evolve Fourth Generation war on their soil. America, with a closed political system (regardless of which party wins, the Establishment remains in power and nothing really changes) and a poisonous ideology of "multiculturalism," is a prime candidate for the home-grown variety of Fourth Generation war – which is by far the most dangerous kind.

---- from "Understanding Fourth Generation War"
In other words, while the first three generations of modern warfare were an upscale of firepower, attrition, and then finally speed of waging wars between arbitrary nation states. Forth generation warfare conducts itself without such arbitrary legal entity, as it's really a psychosocial war on culture. Where abstract ideologies and beliefs are the firepower/warheads, information technology is the weapon of choice for attrition, and networking/viral behavior accelerates its speed of societal collapse. Furthermore, you're still stuck on perceiving war with a third generation warfare narrative, and that's how you came to have a bias in your worldview of war based on oversimplified old war stories acting as filters.

Tyler Cowen: Be suspicious of stories
Like all of us, economist Tyler Cowen loves a good story. But in this intriguing talk from TEDxMidAtlantic, he asks us to step away from thinking of our lives -- and our messy, complicated irrational world -- in terms of a simple narrative.

Ralph Langner: Cracking Stuxnet, a 21st-century cyber weapon
When first discovered in 2010, the Stuxnet computer worm posed a baffling puzzle. Beyond its unusually high level of sophistication loomed a more troubling mystery: its purpose. Ralph Langner and team helped crack the code that revealed this digital warhead's final target -- and its covert origins. In a fascinating look inside cyber-forensics, he explains how.

Loretta Napoleoni: The intricate economics of terrorism
Loretta Napoleoni details her rare opportunity to talk to the secretive Italian Red Brigades -- an experience that sparked a lifelong interest in terrorism. She gives a behind-the-scenes look at its complex economics, revealing a surprising connection between money laundering and the US Patriot Act.
And yes, the real battlefield of forth generation warfare is in fact our global economy. Conducted by none other than international corporations, operating beyond nation states' boundaries and regulations. They are the real participants of World War III.


I am so obliged to agree, but we can't be entirely sure of what may happen, if it happens.

We know corporations have been at war for a great deal of time, so it seems the idea of a third world war involving them is redundant. Even so, I can't help but see a side of things where every modern war was more initiated by companies than politicians, behind the scenes, that is.
35796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Stoke, England
Offline
Posted 1/10/12
Many people have predicted that the next world war will occur soon, due to the recent increase of tension between Iran and America. And also the fact that Israel is itching to attack Iran, whilst Iran enriched a uranium plant. The UK will of course follow America wherever they go, and most of the european countries should be allied together aswell, meaning that America would have help from them, should it get that far. Other people have said that North Korea and China have threatened to start World War Three all by themselves. My guess is that it would be America, Europe and the Asian allies of the two vs the Middle East and the communist states, the latter two not being allied, but rather it would be a three-way war of sorts. Africa, South America and Australia shouldn't be involved whatsoever.

Posted 1/10/12 , edited 1/10/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:

For once I can say I agree with Dom from the get go. Even if the global economy isn't formally concidered a war, as far as I know. Though I'm yet to pay keen attention to the economic related subjects... For the most part.

So if a traditional war would again, for some reason, break out some time in the future in such a grand scale, I don't think they would name it WWIV, just because we have a more subtle war going in our economics.

DeusExMachine wrote:



I am so obliged to agree, but we can't be entirely sure of what may happen, if it happens.

We know corporations have been at war for a great deal of time, so it seems the idea of a third world war involving them is redundant.
Even so, I can't help but see a side of things where every modern war was more initiated by companies than politicians, behind the scenes, that is.
Keep in mind that before the states established an arbitrary monopoly over warfare with the Treaty of Westphalia, war was participated and waged by all levels of the socioeconomic class throughout history. Therefore in essence the phrase "world war" was simply meant for a political double-speak of centralizing warfare; only the states can legally mobilize the people to go into wars, every other claims are made illegitimate by the states. Therefore whichever socioeconomic class controls the states and world politics, gets to wage war on whomever they define a threat or a challenge at their class.

With that in mind, there's really no subtlety when considering the casualties of socioeconomic class conflicts. Case in point, the modern demand for diamonds as a commodity wasn't always there before 1938. But through the clever marketing scheme between De Beers and N.W. Ayer, together they changed an entire generation of young couples in love, on their perception and symbolic interaction through wedding engagement rings. This is known as the classic Diamonds are Forever advertizing campaign, which is what I consider an arbitrary ideology/belief.

FOREVER DIAMONDS
A powerful company, a catchy slogan, and how they forever changed the way we value diamonds.

By Barry B. Kaplan
Now fast-forward into today's modern Blood Diamonds industry, can we honestly say that the modern economy of conducting business as usual through amorality isn't somehow financing warfare, one way or another? Think about it, the only reason that those African warlords aren't being arrested and charged for human rights violation, it's only because they're supplying the rest of the developed worlds of their arbitrary demand for diamonds. And both ended up profiting from themselves serving their own self-interest. This is the corporate cultural practice called externalities.

THE CORPORATION [4/23] Externalities
4. What is an externality? Milton Friedman describes it as the effect of a transaction between two parties on a third party who is not involved in the transaction. A technical sounding term that basically means let somebody else deal with the problems the corporation creates.
3639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Sea of Nostalgia
Offline
Posted 1/11/12
The war will probably be between the East and the West. Armageddon will be horrendous.
Posted 1/12/12 , edited 1/12/12
I'm not sure that we will see a 'massive armies fighting it out' sort of war in any of our lifetimes. It's possible, but...there are just far too many factors against it, from the sophistication of armaments to the various economic factors therein.

Whatever conflict may arise may not even be definable in statist terminology -- consider the current conflict against Al Qaeda. Sure, so many people want (almost need) to see this as a battle against some easily recognizable foe with recognizable borders and governments, but al Qaeda refuses to cooperate The effectiveness (including cost effectiveness) of cell-based long-term conflict may redefine how future generations will define warfare. I would suggest the distinct possibility that we are in the early phases of World War III right now, it's just playing out in a manner different from the kinds of wars that make for such dramatic cinema.
Posted 1/13/12 , edited 1/13/12

BlaculaKuchuki wrote:

I'm not sure that we will see a 'massive armies fighting it out' sort of war in any of our lifetimes. It's possible, but...there are just far too many factors against it, from the sophistication of armaments to the various economic factors therein.

Whatever conflict may arise may not even be definable in statist terminology -- consider the current conflict against Al Qaeda. Sure, so many people want (almost need) to see this as a battle against some easily recognizable foe with recognizable borders and governments, but al Qaeda refuses to cooperate The effectiveness (including cost effectiveness) of cell-based long-term conflict may redefine how future generations will define warfare. I would suggest the distinct possibility that we are in the early phases of World War III right now, it's just playing out in a manner different from the kinds of wars that make for such dramatic cinema.
Just as well, for as far as I can tell stunt like this should remain in the history of video games fiction.

Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq
Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010 on http://collateralmurder.com
On wait, that stuff was actually real. And so were these.

Sam Richards: A radical experiment in empathy
By leading the Americans in his audience at TEDxPSU step by step through the thought process, sociologist Sam Richards sets an extraordinary challenge: can they understand -- not approve of, but understand -- the motivations of an Iraqi insurgent? And by extension, can anyone truly understand and empathize with another?

I don't know about the rest of you, but personally I'm glad that war itself has evolved so much, to a point that no state military can conduct themselves in a conventional sense.
115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F
Offline
Posted 1/16/12
So if a traditional war would again.
Posted 1/16/12

lucypoint11 wrote:

So if a traditional war would again.http://www.collegefun4u.com/track.php?u=3
It seems like your image source doesn't want to have its bandwidth being leeched. So would you mind elaborate your argument regarding "traditional war"?
1767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / In my mind
Offline
Posted 1/21/12
China, Korea, India. USA most likely and maybe not the single European states but their UN troops. Afrto do nearly nothing with this.ica will have
You must be logged in to post.