Third world war, conventional or nuclear?

[stevie_c2it]

Events over the last five years have thrown into focus the likely nature, causes and locations of the next global conflict.
In a time when both the western and Islamic cultures are viewing each other with a level of hostility and suspicion not experienced since the Crusades, it is unfortunately inevitably that events we have, and are witnessing may be the trigger.
Interestingly, though I believe Iraq will have played its part, I think the likely 'hot spot' is Iran. Currently the USA is opposed to Iran gaining nuclear weapons, but is not in a position to stop them by force. In addition the hard-line regime in Iran has made it clear that they believe Israel should be 'wiped from the map'. Given that the Iranians seem determined to pursue a uranium enrichment programme regardless of Western threats, and that Israel, with good justification, sees itself as the likely target, it is not surprising to learn that, the Americans have, over the last year, been supplying the Israelis with specialist weapons, 'bunker busters' in order for them to carry out a pre-emptive strike on these facilities, should it become necessary.
It requires little imagination to appreciate the outcome, and pick out the countries that would offer military support to either Iran or Israel. What I'm curious to ask AB'ers is whether they believe that Russia or China would take sides after such an event, or stay neutral, which I believe will determine if it is a war to be fought with conventional weapons or not.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Russia would almost certainly remain neutral, since it is too poor to do anything else, and its nuclear capability was destroyed. China would be unlikely to get involved directly either, but it is in an interesting position, as the fastest growing economy in the world, and they would undoubtedly take a keen interest in the result of such a conflict.

Given the US's strategic need for the middle east, it would be interesting to know how they might fight any such conflict. They'd certainly be unlikely to use nuclear weapons if it were avoidable. The oil's not much good if it glows in the dark and can't be processed.

Perhaps bacterial or chemical weapons might be employed. Clearly that would be an act of enormous hypocracy if the US did it, but it's hardly likely to be a major factor in determining their use.

Of course, there's plenty of people who will have you believe that the Middle East was always the location of 'the final battle', cos it says so in the Bible. Nutters.

Let's hope it doesn't come to such a pessimistic situation, eh? ;-)

[Loosehead]

I agree with Waldo as regards Russia and china.

There is no way that Isreal will allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, they know that they will be the target. Regardless of US aid Isreal will use conventional weapons to prevent the development.

On the wider point though I do think that if Isalmic extremists ever get hold of a nuclear weapon they would definately use it, even if it meant total anialation for them, it's just the way they are.

[nedflanders]

I agree with looseheads last paragraph. And also to add ingredients India and Pakistan would get involved. Pakistan as a majority muslim country and subsequently India as their foe! it doesnt bear thinking about. North Korea is another powderkeg potential too.

[stevie_c2it]

Waldo, I share your assessment on China, but am less convinced about Russia. Lets not forget that Premier Putin is a lot less �warm and friendly� to the West than previous Russian leaders like Gorbachev, and in addition, the destabilisation of the middle east and its oil production would greatly assist Russia in regaining its wealth and super power status, thanks to its own mineral wealth and Gas reserves. Look at how they recently held Western countries to ransom over Gas prices.

Ned, you make a valid point, although to-date, politics in India and Pakistan has always been out brinkmanship, with both sides �pushing and shoving� and making threats (example, Kashmir ), so-far it appears neither side has wanted to �throw the first punch�.
It would be a difficult situation for General Musharraf, as although he clearly favours the West, he would be under intense pressure internally to react.
North Korea (the other element in the �axis of evil�), I think must side with Iran, as they surely will see themselves as the next target.

[keyvan]

I tend to disagree with Loosehead on this. I think Iran knows very well the consequences of any attack on Israel. You have to realise that the leadership structure in Iran is quite complex and although the president has made those comments on Israel, they are in no position to even think about it. Afterall, it is not the first time these rhetorics are mentioned. They have been said for many years now. It's one thing saying those thing it's another to implement it and I don't think Iranians judging by the fact that they have not attacked another country will do it. To answer your question Steve, I think Waldo's response is spot on. If it is likely to go down that direction Russia will remain neutral and China has too many financial interests in American market to risk it. Israel of course, right or wrong has always had the full support of the americans and I don't think anyone can deny that. What concerns me however, is the assumption of pre-emptive strike on these facilities and the radiation released from these installations as the results of these strikes.

[stevie_c2it]

Just to clarify a point, when I talk of other super powers getting involved I don�t necessarily mean I expect them to be involved directly (or to be openly hostile to one another), The reality would be something akin to the Vietnam and Korean wars where both America and Russia fought each others ideology by proxy, with Russia supplying military assistance and equipment to the enemies of America, and vice versa.

Kevyan, I don�t think Loosehead is saying that Iran will attack Israel, I think he is talking about extremists in the wider sense, and I would have to gree with him.

You are right in that the Iranian government might well have a good understanding of the consequences of an attack on Israel, however, the issue in hand I believe, is not whether Iran is willing, or not to start a war, but the fact that their continuing pursuit of a nuclear programme, means that Israel, who cannot realistically take that chance, will have to strike first to prevent them gaining a nuclear capability.
Don�t forget the Americans (and Israelis) have already foreseen this eventuality and have taken measures to equip Israel with the tools to carry out the strike.

[keyvan]

I take your point Stevie and thanks for clarifying this.

But personally I doubt it very much if Israel will/ can carry out these strikes by herself knowing fully well that this will result in a backlash. This is why before even before the election of the hard line president Israel has been trying to divert the attention of the world on the nuclear armed Iran so that there will be an international consensus on Iran unlike what we have witnessed in Iraq. I think these attacks are likely to be carried out by the amercians but I would seriously dispute if they do not leave many casualties even if they are equipped to carry this out.

[Lonnie]

Even though Israel has the military might to do something about Irans Nuclear capability, they wouldn't be able to use it, even though they have said that they wouldn't stand by and let Iran go Nuclear.

Iran learnt a valuable lesson from the Iraq experience and are using different plants, spread out, in different locations.

As far as would they use it, and who would come in, certainly, as has already been said, the extremists would, but if nations got involved, I doubt Russia, but I believe China would, (personal opinion), siding with the Islamic world, for various reasons, and yes, if there is another war, I believe it will be Nuclear, but conventional troops would be needed to finish it.

[Doggy2]

I think having a nuclear Iran will create a balance of power in the Middle East and that's what's the Israelis are afraid of. No one seem to be bothered about the UN violations Israel has committed and why they have kept their nuclear activities secret for such a long time. Why should they (iraninans) not have the nuclear energy as they say is for peaceful purposes and Israel have an arsenal of 200 nuclear warheads, which they have blatantly lied about and kept it secret? This is all about hypocrisy. Israel should start dismantling their nuclear warheads if they want to set a good example as a responsible nation.

[Lonnie]

Doggy2, the difference is, Israel has never threatened to wipe another country off the face of the Earth, nor has it got the destruction of another country in its manifesto.

[searchme]

DoggyDoo- you say that having a 'Nuclear Iran will create a balance of power in the Middle East' Then go on to ask why 'The Iranians should not have the nuclear energy as they say it is for peaceful purposes?'..good thinking!!!

Have you forgotten to take your tablets again?

Let Iran (or any Muslim 'country' )have nuclear weapons?..you have got to be bloody joking-would turkeys vote for Christmas?

We've seen what Muslims can do with a few pounds of explosives strapped around 'em,may God help us all if they're let loose with nuclear weapons.

[searchme]

Stevie_c2it-My apologies,I got sidetracked and didn't have the courtesy to even attempt to answer your question. I believe that Russia and China would stand on the sidelines, happily watch us self-destruct,then move in and mop up.

[Drusilla]

searchme, Pakistan is a Muslim country and it already has nuclear weapons.

[searchme]

Drusilla-yes I know.

Frightening isn't it?

[Doggy2]

searchme what is it to you how I answer this question? It's very convenient for the likes of you to blame all the problems in the world on moselm countries. It's typical that whatever comes out of your mouth has the usuall twist of an echo around with another few I won't mention name jumping the band wagon.

Lonnie what are you talking about when you say that the destruction of Israel is in Iran's manifesto? l'd like to know. The president of Iran has made a comment about Israel, which by no way means starting a war as someone on this forum has already mentioned.

It is rich for Israel to involve other countries on this issue when they themselves have blatantly violated the UN charter and have secretly developed these weopons. Why nobody is questioning the legitimacy of these weapons in the hands of the Israelis. Afterall they get all the support they need from Americans with the strong jewish lobby group they have in America.

[Drusilla]

Doggy, are you having a go at me for pointing out to searchme that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons? I am in no way anti Moslem as my posts on this site would prove. Take a look at the question on People and Places regarding Muslims and you will see I have no time for an anti Muslim stance based on prejudice and fear.

[Doggy2]

Drusilla, I am not having a go at you. I am just really p1ssed off with the double standards here! Why is it wrong with Iran to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as they claim but is right for Israel to develop these weopons in secret only to be publicised by Modachai Vanunu. Are we not in mess with Iraq already?

However, you can argue because Pakistan is an ally of America on the so called "war on terror" with a puppet government it is easier for the americans to swallow.

[bernardo]

I believe that there is only a very small probability of a nuclear exchange being used in a war, and any general large-scale war would be conventional. The purpose of Iran in wanting to develop nuclear weapons (if that is what they are doing) is for the purposes of self-defence, and is designed to deter an attack from israel or the USA. Any war between Isreal and Iran (or between India and Pakistan) would probably result in neutrality by all three giant powers (USA, Russia, PRC), and the greatest level of intervention would be by the USA trying to dissuade Israel from attacking Iran, and trying to negotiate a solution. The DPRK is very unlikely to be attacked or invaded, because of the Songun policy, and any attck on Iran is becoming less likely for the equivalent reason.

[Doggy2]

Exactly bernardo, and why shoudn't they when the Iraninans are have been subject to a threat by Israeli planes on its nuclear sites. I think I read in the israeli paper Ha'aretz that the israelis were going to attack Iran in March when Sharon was still in good health.

I thought these weopons are supposed to be used only as deterrent. Now why would Israel want to attack Iran if Iran has not attacked them? Or is this a provocation by Israelis to force Iran to go down the route of developing these weopons as a self defence only to be dealt with later by the americans?

[bazwillrun]

2 quick semi hypothetical scenarios

1: Iran develops nuclear weaopons and then goads Isreal into a position whereby such nuclear weapons can be used on Israel(the main reason they are developing such weapons in the first place)

2: Israel will never allow Iran to be in a position of Nuclear Weapon capability , they will do to Iran the same as they did to Iraq some years back.

If the West just buts out Israel will take care of Irans nuclear quest in the their own way ! They are more than capable