A Third World War

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein Quote

A world war is a military conflict affecting the majority of the world's major nations. World wars usually span multiple continents, and are very bloody and destructive. In most of these cases, a war is usually initiated by a formal declaration of war by the country's government. Not during this stage. It seems countries love to ignore their own constitution these days.

People suggest that the Israel-Lebanon conflict could spark a full military confrontation in the Middle East region. Would Israel escalate even further and start bombing military targets in Iran and Syria? Could these actions force Islamic radicals to topple the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Oman, and Kuwait? Could it also force insurgents in Iraq to conduct a massive frontal assault on the democratic government centre in Baghdad (the so-called green zone)?

The military operations currently being conducted in Afghanistan and Iraq are to combat an insurrection against the elected central government. Some people would suggest these are wars on terror, but the terminology is inappropriate today. Before, the Taliban were in control of much of Afghanistan and were driven away by US and Afghan allies. NATO is currently doing a peacekeeping mission in that country in addition to US missions against Taliban pockets in southern Afghanistan. For Iraq, official combat operations were ended after the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Today, the US and its remaining coalition partners are handling occupation duties, with a transitionary phase to let local Iraqi forces to take over each of their provinces' security.

Back to the Middle East, now it only becomes a wider problem if Israel launches an attack on Iran, would it suspend oil production? Oil prices could pass $100/barrel causing price shocks against the West. It could even be more hard felt if radical extremists started attacking Saudi refineries or destroy Kuwaiti oil wells. Again, this a factor that we should consider.

Could North Korea spark a disasterous crisis if it chose to resume its attack on its Southern democratic neighbor? As such, there is approx 34,000 US soldiers over there, and is pretty much the "trigger point" if a Korean conflict would re-occur. However, would the US retaliate severely keeping in mind the reaction of China if a military confrontation re-ignites on the Korean peninsula? What would be the reaction by Japan, Australia, Indonesia, and Vietnam? Could Taiwan be thrown into the violence? Who knows if China could take that chance to invade Taiwan and settle it once and for all? At this point, US naval forces would be stretched to their limits.

Could the events in Somalia spark a military conflict in Africa? The country has been going through fighting and anarchy for over 15 years. In May 1991, the northern clans broke away and declared an independent Republic of Somaliland. The current transitional government is currently weak and is unable to combat the Islamic factions that have taken control of Mogadishu and much of the southern half of the country. Fortunately, the UN plans to re-modify its arms embargo and allow the deployment of an African peacekeeping force. I doubt for the moment that we will see US forces in that country in the near future.

As for the response to Israeli attacks on Lebanon, it is certainly mixed. Most allies would agree that Israel has the right to defend itself, and it had to respond severely towards the capture of its soldiers, but there will be a line where the conflict should be limited to, and some countries believe that line has been crossed. The suggestion that anti-semitism is somehow involved in the way the EU and Russia are reacting to the conflict is complete bollux (aka bullsh*t). I am surprised people would still continue to use this reasoning every time a conflict or issue happens which involves Israel. Using the Iraq litmus test is ridculous given the fact tha some countries have long been a resource to the US all these years. Using one example such as Iraq to determine whether our allies are friends or liars is a cheap excuse. Don't use France because that's an easy answer, and they're also arrogant bastards. =)

Anyway, the main reasoning from the EU and Russia is the fear that the conflict could escalate to the level where there can be no turning back. Israel is planning on mounting a ground offensive into Lebanon. Which seems worse? An attack to take over the southern half of the country, or perhaps seeing Israeli tanks in Beirut? How far can the world be willing to tolerate all of this before all the red flags start waving?

In a nuclear war (god forbid), there can never be full protection with a missle shield. Let's be realistic here. During their tests, it was only about 50-60% effective. The developers and even the military are not too sure how it would perform in a real case scenario. Even if Russia or China decide to launch a missile strike against the US, we are talking about hundreds of missiles, not just a few or several. Both of those nuclear-missle countries basically shrug when the US announced their deployment of their missile shield. They do know that a massive attack would easily overwhelm such a defense. Isn't it true that the shield was only designed to stop a single missile being launched from North Korea or Iran for example? This is why I am not placing any faith in such a system. If it's there, fine. But I do not plan on staying put. Besides, there is the fallout to consider.

The one thing I am afraid is that Israel would continue to destroy Lebanon and perhaps Syria and Iran even if they do return the captured soldiers unharmed. If that's the case, go fill up your car gas tank, sell your stocks, start buying canned goods, then run for the hills.