Future Timeline

Yes, it's time to get that thread going here.

Since the Ukrainian war is now destabilizing the Iranian nuclear negotiations with the Iranian involvement in providing arms to Russia the likelihood of a global conflict of some dimension is beginning to grow, this may not be a global apocalypse nuclear exchange but instead more of three separate conflicts occurring with Russia, China, and Iranian involvements on one side in one case and America and its regional allies on the other.

Ukraine interestingly is probably the closest to finishing and may not actually overlap that much with potential Iranian and Chinese theatres should they occur. And rather than a cohesive alliance of tyrannies vs. democracies may be more an attempt by each to exploit Western distraction with another. This may almost become a chain reaction of global conflicts for the next few years rather than one simultaneous conflict. Russia's military arms are running extremely low and it is quite probable that the West may increase weapons production and bolster their forces pretty dramatically which while the Ukrainian conflict may drag on as long as the weapon flow from the West continues in some form will likely continue to crawl towards a Russian defeat. Since in my eyes at least, Russia is the least powerful of the three autocracies in question.

With Iran the main reason to expect conflict here is that the collapse of the nuclear negotiations is likely to massively empower the Iran war hawks in America who have been present for the last 20 years, and this won't change with either a Republican or Democratic administration. Europe which has been one of the main players in preventing this conflict is likely going to have to acquiesce to the American/Israeli point of view with Iranian weapons raining down on Europe. Not only this, but with how far along Iranian nuclear enrichment programs are the likelihood of a strike now especially with internal weakness in Iran may be beginning to look very appealing. There are reasons to think this might not get escalated to that level at this point as it will dramatically intensify the energy crisis worldwide as war engulfs the Persian Gulf and draws in most of the local military players in the region and will very likely be extremely damaging to American naval power even if the US ultimately prevails in destroying the Iranian nuclear program. (Which likely won't make a long-term occupation of Iran the goal here.) But we have seen that major resistance can stop even what should be a quick victory (Russia/Ukraine hello?), and Iran is probably more conventionally defensible than Ukraine is which will hurt the Americans, although the public is probably less united against America than the Ukrainians against the Russians.

That brings us to the issue of China. With American naval assets distracted with Iran, this may be the Chinese opportunity to make their move on Taiwan. This would massively disrupt Western electronic supply chains (even though the West is now trying to get expensive semiconductor production online) and this would be the biggest bloodbath of all as China is by far a scarier opponent than a corrupt Russian military, or a determined yet technologically underdeveloped Iran. The Chinese military would probably most be hindered by the fact it isn't super used to fighting large scale conflicts although it would have geographic proximity and a frightening array of high-tech ballistics at is disposal with fairly unfavorable geography for the Americans. The win condition here would be to cut off supplies to China which the American navy could probably still manage at Malacca however, a lot of American naval forces will be stretched due to a simultaneous war with Iran and keeping Taiwan supplies and fed could be very, very difficult in this scenario without seeing a Taiwanese surrender due to famine if this becomes a war of attrition scenario.

None of this gets to nuclear weapons level armageddon exchange (it could depending how feisty people get), but a series of combined global conflicts could be possible over the remainder of the decade.

Good article kind of along these lines:

Can the US Take on China, Iran and Russia All at Once?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... ify%20wall

Depending on how mature US's laser defence umbrella system has gotten, there is a reasonably good chance it will achieve strategic conditions in a global conflict with China, Iran and Russia. While China and Russia may have gotten little ahead with their hypersonic weapon programs, US has been busy developing towards an integrated and layered laser defense system capable of thwarting ballistic and hypersonic weapons no matter how many are streaking towards American and allied assets. Forcing China and Russia to admit strategic defeats will invariably depend on the robustness of said laser defence system on top of its ability to work with its allies in Europe and Asia to launch an overwhelming, coordinated offensive China and Russia won't be able to handle. The Pentagon knows this. Yeah, many were saying the laser defence trials had mixed results and the capabilities limited but I think that's disinformation by the US military to hide its true capabilities.

raklian wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:40 pm Depending on how mature US's laser defence umbrella system has gotten, there is a reasonably good chance it will achieve strategic conditions in a global conflict with China, Iran and Russia. While China and Russia may have gotten little ahead with their hypersonic weapon programs, US has been busy developing towards an integrated and layered laser defense system capable of thwarting ballistic and hypersonic weapons no matter how many are streaking towards American and allied assets. Forcing China and Russia to admit strategic defeats will invariably depend on the robustness of said laser defence system on top of its ability to work with its allies in Europe and Asia to launch an overwhelming, coordinated offensive China and Russia won't be able to handle. The Pentagon knows this. Yeah, many were saying the laser defence trials had mixed results and the capabilities limited but I think that's disinformation by the US military to hide its true capabilities.

Ok, I am no expert on laser defense systems, but I sincerely doubt that they now have the capability of "thwarting ballistic and hypersonic weapons no matter how many."

caltrek wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 6:04 pm

raklian wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:40 pm Depending on how mature US's laser defence umbrella system has gotten, there is a reasonably good chance it will achieve strategic conditions in a global conflict with China, Iran and Russia. While China and Russia may have gotten little ahead with their hypersonic weapon programs, US has been busy developing towards an integrated and layered laser defense system capable of thwarting ballistic and hypersonic weapons no matter how many are streaking towards American and allied assets. Forcing China and Russia to admit strategic defeats will invariably depend on the robustness of said laser defence system on top of its ability to work with its allies in Europe and Asia to launch an overwhelming, coordinated offensive China and Russia won't be able to handle. The Pentagon knows this. Yeah, many were saying the laser defence trials had mixed results and the capabilities limited but I think that's disinformation by the US military to hide its true capabilities.

Ok, I am no expert on laser defense systems, but I sincerely doubt that they now have the capability of "thwarting ballistic and hypersonic weapons no matter how many."

It's one of the objectives, made possible by the fact it only costs a fraction of a traditional munition (missiles, bullets, etc.) for each laser shot thanks to latest advances in laser technology. I'm not saying they have successfully tested it, although I have a reason to believe they are not going to declare to the public what its full capabilities are at the moment. One can reason if we launch an attack on China, it would seem we are confident in our ability to defend ourselves from a reprisal to an extent. There is no doubt the laser defense system will play a large role in their contingency planning and decision-making.

raklian wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 6:08 pm

caltrek wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 6:04 pm

raklian wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:40 pm Depending on how mature US's laser defence umbrella system has gotten, there is a reasonably good chance it will achieve strategic conditions in a global conflict with China, Iran and Russia. While China and Russia may have gotten little ahead with their hypersonic weapon programs, US has been busy developing towards an integrated and layered laser defense system capable of thwarting ballistic and hypersonic weapons no matter how many are streaking towards American and allied assets. Forcing China and Russia to admit strategic defeats will invariably depend on the robustness of said laser defence system on top of its ability to work with its allies in Europe and Asia to launch an overwhelming, coordinated offensive China and Russia won't be able to handle. The Pentagon knows this. Yeah, many were saying the laser defence trials had mixed results and the capabilities limited but I think that's disinformation by the US military to hide its true capabilities.

Ok, I am no expert on laser defense systems, but I sincerely doubt that they now have the capability of "thwarting ballistic and hypersonic weapons no matter how many."

It's one of the objectives, made possible by the fact it only costs a fraction of a traditional munition (missiles, bullets, etc.) for each laser shot thanks to latest advances in laser technology. I'm not saying they have successfully tested it, although I have a reason to believe they are not going to declare to the public what its full capabilities are at the moment. One can reason if we launch an attack on China, it would seem we are confident in our ability to defend ourselves from a reprisal to an extent. There is no doubt the laser defense system will play a large role in their contingency planning and decision-making.

Yes, such "defensive" systems encourage pursuit of a first-strike scenario, and for that reason have historically been considered destabilizing, at least by analysts on the left.

Xyls,

You're getting ahead of yourself. Rather than spiraling out of control, it's much more likely the fighting in Ukraine will be confined there until the War ends.

At the same time, there are precedents for relatively small wars becoming much larger ones. WWI is one example. Consider this timeline: https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/key-dates

The principal combatants, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Britain, France, and Russia went to war in August 1914. However, it wasn't until November that the Ottoman Empire entered the fight, in May 1915 Italy started fighting, and only in April 1917 did the U.S. enter the conflict. It slowly expanded.

WWII had the same "slow burn." Some argue the war actually began in 1937 when Japan invaded China. Even after what is traditionally considered the start of WWII, the German conquest of Poland in September 1939, there was an eight-month period called the "Phoney War" where the Allied and Axis powers fought minimally and tried to negotiate with each other.

My point is that few Europeans in the warring countries thought in 1914 or even 1915 that they were part of something that would later be known as a "World War," and would see millions of troops from other continents come to Europe to fight. The same was true for the Chinese and Japanese from 1937 to 1939 or later, and even for Western Europeans as late as mid-1940.

funkervogt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 6:53 pm
You're getting ahead of yourself. Rather than spiraling out of control, it's much more likely the fighting in Ukraine will be confined there until the War ends.

The problem is we don't know that. The risk of expanding into a larger conflict is real, given the increasing number of state actors getting involved, with Israel being the latest addition to the party. There is no guarantee it will stop there.

.

.

Cold fact is no one knows how the Ukraine War will end. I for one was sure that Russia was going to start moving their tactical nuclear launchers into place by now, but they haven't. Instead, they've gone all in on drone warfare, which completely shocked me and suggests a far different outcome for the war than I originally anticipated. Sure, there probably won't be a nuclear exchange, but this newfound focus on drones signals a massive and long-awaited, long-feared shift towards autonomous warfare. Indeed, Russia may actually achieve some of their aims far better if they focus on drones, such as by completely screwing with Ukraine's infrastructure in a way they can't possibly recover from and lead to the state basically becoming Syria 2.0, something they couldn't accomplish with easily targetable, not-so-easily replaceable boots on the ground, and without the international condemnation of the deployment of nuclear weapons. We currently do not respect drone warfare, nor do we consider drone swarms WMDs, so Russia can use them with relative impunity.

Who knows. If World War 3 erupts, the answer to Einstein's uncertainty may not be just nukes but also and perhaps even predominantly drones.
World War III will be fought with nukes and drones; World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

But getting back to the start, no one knows how this will end. Every smaller regional war in the past 77 years could have become World War 3. People were as convinced the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Yom Kippur War, and the Soviet-Afghan War were the start of WWIII as some are that the Russo-Ukraine War is. But of course it's possible that this one IS it. Ukraine means more to Russian identity than Korea, Vietnam, Israel, or Afghanistan, after all. It's also possible that we're going to look back upon these days in 2022 and think "We seriously thought THAT was the start of World War 3? We were really bored, weren't we."

I have my own feelings that I won't bore others with, but no one knows.

World War 3 has been ongoing since at least the end of World War 2. I guess if humans and bots start fighting that will be World War 4. Damn man and all I wanted from the start was to make lots of currency, chillax, and eat lots of junk food and real food

Putin ally: Western weapons supply to Ukraine will lead to 'global catastrophe'

1h ago 08.39 GMT

A close ally of Vladimir Putin has warned that the world faces a “global catastrophe” if Washington and NATO countries supply weapons that threaten Russian territories.

Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the Duma - Russia’s lower house of parliament, said such action would also make arguments against using weapons of mass destruction “untenable”.

In a post on the messaging app Telegram, Volodin said that the United States and NATO’s support of Ukraine is leading the world to a “terrible war”.

He wrote:

"If Washington and NATO countries supply weapons that will be used to strike civilian cities and attempt to seize our territories, as they threaten, this will lead to retaliatory measures using more powerful weapons. Arguments that the nuclear powers have not previously used weapons of mass destruction in local conflicts are untenable."

And when will we learn nothing Russians say is to be taken seriously?

LBC Radio was talking about this today.

Given the situation in Ukraine, and the longer-term potential for escalation in Europe, there's been speculation among senior UK figures that it could happen at some point.

I would personally refuse, and find the idea completely insane.

wjfox wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 6:11 pm LBC Radio was talking about this today.

Given the situation in Ukraine, and the longer-term potential for escalation in Europe, there's been speculation among senior UK figures that it could happen at some point.

I would personally refuse, and find the idea completely insane.

Mine would be N/A as I have both Dyspraxia and Epilepsy.

Yuli Ban wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 12:15 pm

The game is rigged.

.

erowind wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 6:09 am

Xyls wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:00 pm And when will we learn nothing Russians say is to be taken seriously?

In all my days on this forum never have I written off an entire ethnicity like this. Blatant racism like this being accepted in liberal circles really sucks.

Perhaps the words you mean are “nothing the Russian oligarchy says is to be taken seriously.”

PheonixRu was a warmongering nationalist, but he’s right about one thing, russophobia is real.

If we were to extend this to seeing all East Europe as "backwards" then slavophobia would be more acurrate imo.

These are the theatres of the war:

2. Myanmar,
3. Taiwan,
4. East Africa -- particularly Ethiopia,
5. Korean Peninsula,
6. Taiwan,
7. Malay peninsula,
8. Iraq and / or Jordan,
9. The Japanese islands.

If you're wondering why the list begins at #2, it's because Ukraine is first.