Conflict in the 21st century...

[Boerseun]

Yeah, GAHD - that's about the same way I see it.

 

Pity, though. But I think a confrontation between the US and China is unavoidable - somewhere in the next 20-30 years, I guess.

 

And it's got nothing to do with imperialism, xenophobia, or any such thing. It would simply be a matter of protecting existing interests, and maintaining a balance of power in the world.

 

Because through all of modern history, when a country needs to create jobs in order for the populace to be (and stay) happy, the first and easiest thing to do is to expand the military. This immediately creates a lot of jobs, and stimulates enormous growth in the private sector as well through arms contracts, building of war tools (airplanes, tanks, ships, etc.). This, again, expands the consumer base, which in turn stimulates the rest of the economy, etc. Big countries with the budget to do so invariably turns to the military as a 'magic elixir' to boost the total economy. Not being angry with anybody or any country, you see. It's just an easy way of letting government money filter down to the whole economy. And such a military expansion will, of course, have the US sitting upright. They can't let the Chinese military grow too far - they'll have to expand the US military in lockstep with the Chinese, in order to be able to counter any threat from the East. Hence, a new Arms Race. Whether it'll come to blows would be anybody's guess. Kinda like the Cold War where we all expected to be nuked any second. It never came to that, though.

 

So - we might have another 'Cold War' on our hands, where the prime issue would be access to and control of World Markets. We might even see a couple of proxy wars between the two powers, much like we saw proxy wars between the US and USSR in the Cold War - wars like Vietnam, Angola, etc.

 

Or it might lead to a Global War. China might close its borders to Western products in order to stimulate its domestic economy, thereby denying the US access to a big chunk of the planet's consumers. And US industry would not stand for that. Or, more likely, the West will close their borders to Chinese products in order to protect their own ailing economies, and China would want to force it open. A growing military might just be the wedge China needs in order to force Western borders open to their products, and to keep it open.

 

I don't know - but sparks still might fly...

[InfiniteNow]

I will say this... closing markets is no way to grow an economy. China is going to crush the US economically (already beginning to do so) and it's much better to become sybiotes than aggressors... IMO.

[Tarantism]

I will say this... closing markets is no way to grow an economy. China is going to crush the US economically (already beginning to do so) and it's much better to become sybiotes than aggressors... IMO.

hell yeah....REP!

[Boerseun]

I will say this... closing markets is no way to grow an economy. China is going to crush the US economically (already beginning to do so) and it's much better to become sybiotes than aggressors... IMO.

China can produce products of ever-increasing quality with the cheapest labour on the planet. US companies investing in China (like HP, for instance) are condoning 'slave' labour, for all practical purposes, and are exporting jobs to China because US labour is too expensive.

 

It might be to the US' benefit to close their borders to Chinese products in order to decrease unemployment in the States.

 

And that'll cheese China off, until their labour practices and remuneration comes on a par with the States, so that the States will be more competitve on the world market as far as labour costs are concerned.

 

Anything is possible. But I think we're in for interesting times...

[InfiniteNow]

China can produce products of ever-increasing quality with the cheapest labour on the planet. US companies investing in China (like HP, for instance) are condoning 'slave' labour, for all practical purposes, and are exporting jobs to China because US labour is too expensive.

 

It might be to the US' benefit to close their borders to Chinese products in order to decrease unemployment in the States.

 

And that'll cheese China off, until their labour practices and remuneration comes on a par with the States, so that the States will be more competitve on the world market as far as labour costs are concerned.

Good point about not condoning slave labor. I, by no means, meant to support such actions. Just that our policies are already bending so as not to "cheese-off China" <thanks for the phrase>, so that path's already been forged, and we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

 

 

Anything is possible. But I think we're in for interesting times...

Indeed, we are. At least when our minds find something interesting, we tend to understand it better and devote more thought and energy into the topic...

[Cedars]

I dont think China will be directly involved in large conflict in the 21st century. They may supply arms to countries involved but a great troop movement towards some other land? I dont see that. While oil seems to me to be a huge factor in what will cause future conflict, China has been talking of expanding its waters (200 or 800 miles from shore, I cant remember which) and there is the potential for a lot of oil off the coast in that area of expansion.

 

War is expensive. China would profit from sales more than they would from troop action. China has enough problems feeding its people now. How would they feed their troops far from home?

 

Could China be an agitator for such an event? Sure. They also have an interest in keeping Iran secure from threat at this time. China has gas deals with Iran that create a huge interest in Irans affairs at this time.

 

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,394382,00.html

 

I imagine that to appease Chinas need for Iranian gas/oil, the worlds powers that be would allow extensive offshore drilling for oil off Chinas coast. So now middle east oil is not an issue for Chinas security.

 

Russia has been making money from Iran via the nuke program and other sales. Russia does not need this cash so much as it is an opportunity. Even without this cash flow, Russia has the resources it needs. Russia does not need Iran.

[Cedars]

I think it will be in Europe or the Middle East that large conflicts could erupt and drag in other countries. I think it will be civil war in Europe that causes the issue. What we saw in France with this disorganised group of kids gives a bit of insight in how well prepared France is to defend itself. If domination is the desired result of these extremist muslims, I wonder if they noticed this already.

 

If it is the Middle East there are a few scenarios. #1. The saudi royalty falls to civil strife or terrorism. #2. Border disputes. #3 Civil war . The power to drag in other countries in this Middle East scenario is oil only.

 

I do not list Israel as a numbered cause because I think 1 through 3 will drag in Israel.

[InfiniteNow]

I think it will be in Europe or the Middle East that large conflicts could erupt and drag in other countries.

 

If it is the Middle East there are a few scenarios. #1. The saudi royalty falls to civil strife or terrorism. #2. Border disputes. #3 Civil war . The power to drag in other countries in this Middle East scenario is oil only.

 

I do not list Israel as a numbered cause because I think 1 through 3 will drag in Israel.

(I am admittedly de-contextualizing your post, but...)

 

We're at a time now on the planet where ANY conflict involves ALL countries. The whole borders issue has been diminishing since long ago (I'd personally argue it's highly related with the increase in communications and information availability. I know longer have to walk into a graduate level library or speak to a whole team of folks to learn more... I can just Google it).

 

 

This is my opinion, so please read it as such, but there are only 2 scenarios now.

#1: We find a way to work together as a planet, with all species and lifeforms, to survive.

 

#2: We don't and we all die.

 

 

Then again, death is the only thing we all (ALL Lifeforms) have in common, so maybe it doesn't really matter anyway...

 

 

But, if we are all alive now, we may as well try to find a solution.

[Tarantism]

that seems like a good cap...and to back up that last paragraph, lets not forget that GW Jr. said himself that "you are either withus or against us"...biiiiiiig mistake in my opinion, becuase more and more countries are now starting to recognize the big brotehr that we are to the world. hmmm one other thing that i would like to add is that most world powers crumble after roughly 200 years....and uh...our time is almost up, if not passed, honestly i have not been keeping track, how many years since the Decleration of Indipendance?

[Cedars]

We're at a time now on the planet where ANY conflict involves ALL countries. The whole borders issue has been diminishing since long ago (I'd personally argue it's highly related with the increase in communications and information availability.

 

I would just have to say "africa" to show that isnt true. We (usa) and other countries allow much carnage to go unchecked in the world. And it is escalating conflicts that expand into the big wars.

 

This is my opinion, so please read it as such, but there are only 2 scenarios now.

#1: We find a way to work together as a planet, with all species and lifeforms, to survive.

 

#2: We don't and we all die.

 

Then again, death is the only thing we all (ALL Lifeforms) have in common, so maybe it doesn't really matter anyway...

 

But, if we are all alive now, we may as well try to find a solution.

 

While I agree with your basic philosophy on this issue as you state above, I responded as I did because a significant portion of the population of the planet does not feel this way (whether from ignorace or apathy or another cause doesnt matter). This is how and why conflict in the 21st century is inevitable. Germany was not a majority of the people of europe, yet they were able to launch ww2, which dragged in many nations (yet not all).

 

I am aware that majority of those in the Middle East (for example) are not going to agree with Europes idea of a solution for the ongoing conflicts there. And I would also be pretty confident that the Middle Easts idea of the solution there would be unacceptable to the majority of Europe. So conflict will continue. And that is what the thread asked. What will be the seed(s) of the next conflict(s).

[Boerseun]

Another viable 'escalation' scenario might be if America suffers another terrorist attack, and intelligence might say the culprits are hiding in, say, Russia. The US will have new-found domestic support for prosecuting a 'war on terror' right after an attack on the scale of 9/11, and will have to go and find these guys in order to keep the people at home happy, and to show them that something's being done about it.

 

But now, the terrorists aren't hiding in some backwater state like Afghanistan. They're hiding in a country that has access to thousands of nukes lying around, and a state machinery that has been open to corruption for the last fifteen-odd years.

 

Will America stand by Russia's borders, respecting Russia's sovereignty, and wait for the terrorists to be extradicted by the Russian authorities? Or will they march in and find them themselves, using the "with us or against us" line again? Or will Russia be more assertive in the case of its sovereignty being ignored by another nuclear-capable power?

 

And then countries around the world might get polarised between the two, and somehow a big stuff-up might ensue?

 

Ponderous....

[InfiniteNow]

Will America stand by Russia's borders, respecting Russia's sovereignty, and wait for the terrorists to be extradicted by the Russian authorities? Or will they march in and find them themselves, using the "with us or against us" line again? Or will Russia be more assertive in the case of its sovereignty being ignored by another nuclear-capable power?

Well, if recent examples show anything... sorry Russia. The current American government and the hampster brained middle of the country folks who blindly follow them will easily advocate the strong-arming of another country to "fight terrorism," our most recent catch phrase for "Do whatever the hell we feel like regardless of the reaction of others."

 

 

And then countries around the world might get polarised between the two, and somehow a big stuff-up might ensue?

Oh... hi there China. You're friends with Russia now. Really? Oh... well, uhm... Sorry 'bout that. Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes here... total misunderstanding. You know, it happens, right? Somebody must not have gotten the memo... whatdya say we all get together of some beer and bbq and forget all about this little mishap, eh? Heck, we'll even invite those Rooskies... I mean, um... our Russian friends... :hihi:

 

 

 

Ah... how I long for the days when the only thing I knew about polarisation had something to do with a Klondike bar... :lol:

[Cedars]

Another viable 'escalation' scenario might be if America suffers another terrorist attack, and intelligence might say the culprits are hiding in, say, Russia.

 

They're hiding in a country that has access to thousands of nukes lying around, and a state machinery that has been open to corruption for the last fifteen-odd years.

 

Will America stand by Russia's borders, respecting Russia's sovereignty, and wait for the terrorists to be extradicted by the Russian authorities? Or will they march in and find them themselves, using the "with us or against us" line again? Or will Russia be more assertive in the case of its sovereignty being ignored by another nuclear-capable power?

 

And then countries around the world might get polarised between the two, and somehow a big stuff-up might ensue?

 

Ponderous....

 

At this time I dont see this as viable. Even during the cold war, the closest we came to all out war with Russia was over the nukes in Cuba. And the Russians did pull them out. If anything, the changes in Russia lessen the chance of Russians supporting anyone who could push the USA into all out war with Russia.

 

I also think it would take a huge mind set change in Russia for the people there to support a government that allowed terrorists to reside within its borders, no matter who they were provoking. Islamic fundamentalists have wounded Russia in the last few years and only set the Russian peoples resolve against such provocateurs residing within their borders.

[Cedars]

Another scenario that has troubled me over the last few years. Pakistan and India. There have been several conflicts over the last 50 years between these two over Kashmir. Right now we have one man standing between Paki nukes and the fundamentalists. Musharrif. He will not live forever. Sometime in the near future the people of Pakistan will have a different leader. We will back India for sure over Pakistan if the new leader of Pakistan does not aid the USA in the efforts against the terrorists. And if the new leader of Pakistan is a fundementalist muslim, he will receive support from Iran and at least some of the other islamic nations of the middle east.

 

China may take this opportunity to support the side against India, but it would most likely be in a supply role. I dont think China wants to have the USA economic support for their goods withdrawn totally. There will be the typical denials on the Chinese front and the hesitation of the USA to stop the economic exchange. So for a while China could profit greatly.

[Racoon]

I find Iran's desire for Nuclear Technology and Power to be very disturbing.

How many times are they negotiating, withdrawing from negotiations, asking Russia for tips, International Atomic agency involvement ??? etc...

 

They are Hell bent on destroying Israel and the US.

 

Looks like Iran could be the next front after Iraq! :Waldo:

 

I agree with Gahd about the fight for increasingly scarce clean water supplies!

It seems the most simple and essential resource is what will be fought over.

 

China might become an economic juggernaut, but they face terrible pollution, overpopulation crowding, and suppresion. They view the US as the enemy they will have to defeat economically and technologically, but are "nice" for now, because we're buying the majority of their slave labor products.

 

Cedars last post is also pretty close to the truth. Without the Puppet Mushariff, Pakistan already with nukes, would be radical Islam