2014 = 1914?

[Clark Griswold]

Read a good article in the Atlantic and wanted to see what the opinion of others was on the idea that we are actually close to another major conflict between the new Great Powers via alliances and waxing / waning influence.

Yes, It Could Happen Again

Instability in Ukraine, chaos in Syria, conflict in the East China Sea—the trigger points for World War III are in place.

[10percenttruth]

It was good till the author started to make up the WWIII scenario. The details seemed a bit of a stretch.

[Clark Griswold]

It was good till the author started to make up the WWIII scenario. The details seemed a bit of a stretch.

Valid critique - I could still see the whole mess starting in the East China Sea or Russia in Eastern Ukraine to "stabilize" a humanitarian crisis

I think the only thing holding back the next big one is whether or not they think the world will accept whatever it is they do - I.e. Russia takes part or all of Ukraine, China takes the Senkako islands and or Taiwan - if the West demonstrated it still has a pair by defeating ISIS, not being cowed by Russia, supporting Israel, deterring North Korea, etc... They may consider it not worth the cost... Aggression happens when someone thinks they can win or that you won't do anything about it

A good operation by NATO in Syria / Iraq would give them pause

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited August 24, 2014 by Clark Griswold

[SurelySerious]

I.e. Russia takes part or all of Ukraine

Putin checked that container

[Clark Griswold]

Putin checked that container

Good point - should have said Eastern or all of Ukraine

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited August 24, 2014 by Clark Griswold

[pintail21]

There are friction points, but the author doesn't even address the economic concerns.

The United States is responsible for about 30% of China's GDP. Do you honestly think they'll throw that (and any semblance of relations between them and any other SEA nation) away for a couple uninhabitable islands?

China owns a ton of our debt and if the dollar's value crashes that harms them as well.

Furthermore China has no desire to be the world's #1 superpower. How often do you see them stepping in for humanitarian aid, joint patrols, etc? They have a pretty sweet gig riding our coattails and being #2 or #3.

It's fun to play imaginary war games and no doubt it does wonders for Lockheed's stock, but there's no way China gets froggy and plays with mutually assured destruction.

[Clark Griswold]

There are friction points, but the author doesn't even address the economic concerns.

The United States is responsible for about 30% of China's GDP. Do you honestly think they'll throw that (and any semblance of relations between them and any other SEA nation) away for a couple uninhabitable islands?

China owns a ton of our debt and if the dollar's value crashes that harms them as well.

Furthermore China has no desire to be the world's #1 superpower. How often do you see them stepping in for humanitarian aid, joint patrols, etc? They have a pretty sweet gig riding our coattails and being #2 or #3.

It's fun to play imaginary war games and no doubt it does wonders for Lockheed's stock, but there's no way China gets froggy and plays with mutually assured destruction.

True - the economic hit could be huge for them and unless their victory over whatever coalition they would be fighting was utterly complete and the US was completely pushed out of the Far East, they would be very isolated. I think the idea of the author was to imagine a war started by miscalculation of reaction, not intentionally poking the US / Japan in the eye with full expectation of WWIII to follow. Reading the article and specifically those scenarios ,I thought it would be more plausible that an ally of the US / Europeans does something crazy and that is a possibility for a trigger event, i.e. accidental shoot-down of a Chinese aircraft by Japanese forces, Ukrainian forces massacring ethnic Russians in retaliation for an atrocity, Philippines Navy getting into a skirmish with the PLAAN, etc... I think something like that, actions by forces not directly under our control but whom we are linked by treaty or association to defend is a fuse that could be easily lit.

But all this armchair speculation hopefully will be moot, the Cuban Missile Crisis ended well and that was about as close to Armageddon as humanity has come.

[BB Stacker]

There are friction points, but the author doesn't even address the economic concerns.

The United States is responsible for about 30% of China's GDP. Do you honestly think they'll throw that (and any semblance of relations between them and any other SEA nation) away for a couple uninhabitable islands?

China owns a ton of our debt and if the dollar's value crashes that harms them as well.

Furthermore China has no desire to be the world's #1 superpower. How often do you see them stepping in for humanitarian aid, joint patrols, etc? They have a pretty sweet gig riding our coattails and being #2 or #3.

It's fun to play imaginary war games and no doubt it does wonders for Lockheed's stock, but there's no way China gets froggy and plays with mutually assured destruction.

I don't necessarily disagree with your doubt that any of this is likely to occur or that the author failed in not even addressing economic issues...but it's worth pointing out that the major belligerents of WWI (particularly Germany and the UK) were highly economic interdependent in 1913, at least as much if not more so than the US and China today.

[ComingLeft]

Clark,

I read the article the same way. This year I have had to pick up Martin Gilbert's History of the 20th Century twice. I cannot believe how people forget, but our enemies use history for valid TTPs. Where is the line in the sand? The current climate does not include Ukraine, but the Article 5 argument is strong. Thankfully these treaties are know, in contrast to the previous century. Russia and China have a better idea of what the US will fight over than our own people.

I want to believe in the mission against IS, but I feel this is another regional conflict that takes our attention away from key actors. I have not been "briefed" so I question the credibility of the IS threat. Our intervention "validates" their twisted ideology; without our attacks, they are killing each other.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[Clark Griswold]

Clark,

I read the article the same way. This year I have had to pick up Martin Gilbert's History of the 20th Century twice. I cannot believe how people forget, but our enemies use history for valid TTPs. Where is the line in the sand? The current climate does not include Ukraine, but the Article 5 argument is strong. Thankfully these treaties are know, in contrast to the previous century. Russia and China have a better idea of what the US will fight over than our own people.

I want to believe in the mission against IS, but I feel this is another regional conflict that takes our attention away from key actors. I have not been "briefed" so I question the credibility of the IS threat. Our intervention "validates" their twisted ideology; without our attacks, they are killing each other.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

I agree with your assessment that Russia / China are figuring out we are in a somewhat isolationist mood or a limited intervention mood now but a good take down of IS will help the West in several ways:

- demonstrate NATO (best organizational construct to use) can get its act together when necessary and act decisively

- defeat the major Jihad organization in the world (currently) thus inflict a loss on the larger action against the Islamist / Jihad movement

- is relatively low risk to NATO forces to be involved (operation would be pretty much Odyssey Dawn part 2) and thus likely to be successful if the Kurds / Iraqis / Syrians can handle the ground combat. With a strong air campaign giving them CAS, AI, persistent ISR and Information Dominance - they should be able to win (eventually).

The risk of blow-back is real and it does give them a recruiting cause but letting them secure a nation-base and HUGE resources to fund their stated goal of aggressive expansion thus gaining more resources and funding more aggression just lets the fire get bigger before we will have to put it out. Like it or not, the West is probably going to be putting down Islamic insurgencies for sometime to come, better to nip it in the bud as Deputy Fife would say... now, if these nations start to break down into smaller nations that make more sense ethnically, religiously, etc... and what comes about is not a threat to the US, Europe, its neighbors, etc... then maybe we should just sit back and let them come about but I see IS as a cancer to be cut out vice Kurdistan which is something to be quietly supported...

Back to the idea of 2014 being like 1914 with a wider war not far away, this made me pause for a minute:

In Eastern Ukraine, Rebel Mockery Amid Independence Celebration

Something going even more wrong with this than what it already is is just the type of incident that leads to escalating retaliations.

[BB Stacker]

- demonstrate NATO (best organizational construct to use) can get its act together when necessary and act decisively

Uh I dunno if you were around for Odyssey Dawn/OUP but while it demonstrated a lot of things about NATO one thing it didn't do is demonstrate that NATO can get its act together.

Protip: in order to fight an air war, you need bombs. Unfortunately most NATO air forces seem to have missed that memo.

[BitteEinBit]

Clark,

Where is the line in the sand?

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

It is red, and it moves constantly. That line in the sand...I wouldn't worry about that line in the sand...no one else takes it seriously.

Aggression happens when someone thinks they can win or that you won't do anything about it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The US has been checking that container since around 2009 or so....

On anther note, a lot of you mentioned the economic factor in keeping countries from starting anything. Keep that in mind if and when the world sees another recession or economic collapse in any way similar to 2008. The world dynamic is a little different today than it was in 2008. Sure, keeping what little economic stability we have right now may keep some of the potential aggressors at bay, but introduce some economic recessions felt around the world and all bets are off. The stage is already set with everything else...

In my opinion still not likely, but certainly possible.

[Clark Griswold]

Uh I dunno if you were around for Odyssey Dawn/OUP but while it demonstrated a lot of things about NATO one thing it didn't do is demonstrate that NATO can get its act together.

Protip: in order to fight an air war, you need bombs. Unfortunately most NATO air forces seem to have missed that memo.

Understood, I did not participate in OD / OUP so I've only got outside knowledge on the whole op.

I saw on the forums and open source about NATO's cluster f's and low supply of PGMs.

NATO runs short on some munitions in Libya

The only way to get in shape is to exercise or play in the game, if we want NATO to be a credible force/construct then we've got to use it when we can or should. Most of the other members are not resourcing their forces as they should, members are required to spend 2% of their GDP on defense and only a handful actually do and what they do spend is geared towards either their direct territorial defense or own defense industry. Decent article on NATO's need for an overhaul here.

This will take a long time, a lot of politics, and money but getting the Euros to start to help police this area of the world when needed (North Africa & Middle East) thru NATO can relieve some of the pressure on the US.

It is red, and it moves constantly. That line in the sand...I wouldn't worry about that line in the sand...no one else takes it seriously.

The US has been checking that container since around 2009 or so....

On anther note, a lot of you mentioned the economic factor in keeping countries from starting anything. Keep that in mind if and when the world sees another recession or economic collapse in any way similar to 2008. The world dynamic is a little different today than it was in 2008. Sure, keeping what little economic stability we have right now may keep some of the potential aggressors at bay, but introduce some economic recessions felt around the world and all bets are off. The stage is already set with everything else...

In my opinion still not likely, but certainly possible.

I agree, it is unlikely but possible.

Like you, what I could see really making a next major powers conflict possible is a "black swan" type of event causing one or more of the major military powers to do something rash.