BF2S Forums How likely is a world war in the next ten or so years?

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

You're the one who brought the fanciful notion of a European/NATO war for Israel into this. I hsave a right to respond. I edited my last post btw. I don't think you understand European sentiment wrt Israel - probably because you imagine Europe to be just like the US.

Again, just because YOU hate Israel does not make my post illogical. Do you honestly think there is any country on earth could initiate a nuclear attack without NATO getting involved as a result? The reason I provided my example is because it is the most likely scenario for a world war to occur. Iran would be the most likely country to make such a nuclear attack because of the reasons I outlined earlier. To claim that NATO would not get involved just because it's Israel that is attacked only shows that you are hopelessly biased. Then again, we already knew that, didn't we?

Have you looked at the NATO charter? NATO couldn't justify an attack given its charter, which is one based on 'if one of us is attacked, then we all attack'. Israel is not a member of NATO. I kindly posted Article 5 of the charter, I guess you missed it. I am simply using logic here. My dislike for the Israeli government is incidental.

PS Of course I'm biased against Israel, just like you are hopelessly biased towards Israel and against muslims.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-12-03 05:26:29)

CameronPoe wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

You're the one who brought the fanciful notion of a European/NATO war for Israel into this. I hsave a right to respond. I edited my last post btw. I don't think you understand European sentiment wrt Israel - probably because you imagine Europe to be just like the US.

Again, just because YOU hate Israel does not make my post illogical. Do you honestly think there is any country on earth could initiate a nuclear attack without NATO getting involved as a result? The reason I provided my example is because it is the most likely scenario for a world war to occur. Iran would be the most likely country to make such a nuclear attack because of the reasons I outlined earlier. To claim that NATO would not get involved just because it's Israel that is attacked only shows that you are hopelessly biased. Then again, we already knew that, didn't we?

Have you looked at the NATO charter? NATO couldn't justify an attack given its charter, which is one based on 'if one of us is attacked, then we all attack'. Israel is not a member of NATO. I kindly posted Article 5 of the charter, I guess you missed it. I am simply using logic here. My dislike for the Israeli government is incidental.

PS Of course I'm biased against Israel, just like you are hopelessly biased towards Israel and against muslims.

Now you're just avoiding the reality of such a situation. This has nothing to do with the NATO charter in terms of defending one another. We all know that Israel is not a member of NATO. NATO has not and will not restrict its military action to defending a fellow NATO member who is attacked. NATO would attack any nation that unjustly initiates a nuclear attack on another.

Here's another example. If France, a member of NATO, all of the sudden decided to nuke Beijing without just cause, NATO would take up arms against France. You need to realize that no country could get away with using a nuclear weapon in such a manner (no matter what country they are attacking) without NATO getting involved. This is beyond petty biases and grudges, and the technicalities of any charter.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-03 05:37:42)

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Now you're just avoiding the reality of such a situation. This has nothing to do with the NATO charter in terms of defending one another. We all know that Israel is not a member of NATO. NATO has not and will not restrict its military action to defending a fellow NATO member who is attacked. NATO would attack any nation that unjustly initiates a nuclear attack on another.

I would find it difficult to imagine the Turks or French even contemplating the idea if it was in relation to Israel. Let's face it - we're really talking about USA, and possibly the UK and Germany, stepping in.

Edit: As for added hypothetical - what kind of logic are you using here!?!?! The NATO charter could NEVER be invoked to attack one of its OWN members!!! Sheesh. That's hilarious. What you really want to say is: some nations would pitch in. Not NATO.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-12-03 05:34:50)

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Now you're just avoiding the reality of such a situation. This has nothing to do with the NATO charter in terms of defending one another. We all know that Israel is not a member of NATO. NATO has not and will not restrict its military action to defending a fellow NATO member who is attacked. NATO would attack any nation that unjustly initiates a nuclear attack on another.

I would find it difficult to imagine the Turks or French even contemplating the idea if it was in relation to Israel. Let's face it - we're really talking about USA, and possibly the UK and Germany, stepping in.

Edit: As for added hypothetical - what kind of logic are you using here!?!?! The NATO charter could NEVER be invoked to attack one of its OWN members!!! Sheesh. That's hilarious. What you really want to say is: some nations would pitch in. Not NATO.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

You need to realize that no country could get away with using a nuclear weapon in such a manner (no matter what country they are attacking) without NATO getting involved. This is beyond petty biases and grudges, and the technicalities of any charter.

You are just being ignorant and pig-headed now. Only SOME members of NATO would get involved if it were in relation to Israel. NATO as an entirety would not. Other situations could quite conceivably cause NATO to break the conventions of its charter I agree.

CameronPoe wrote:

You are just being ignorant and pig-headed now. Only SOME members of NATO would get involved if it were in relation to Israel. NATO as an entirety would not. Other situations could quite conceivably cause NATO to break the conventions of its charter I agree.

I did not say EVERY nation would get involved. That is true of NATO military action throughout history. Not every nation always gets involved. You are basing your argument, and now personal attacks, off of an irrelevant fact that already exists concerning NATO. The organization NATO would get involved in the scenarios I have outlined. The fact that EVERY nation in the charter would not get involved does not change a thing. Many of those nations do not have world class militaries.

CameronPoe wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

You are just being ignorant and pig-headed now. Only SOME members of NATO would get involved if it were in relation to Israel. NATO as an entirety would not. Other situations could quite conceivably cause NATO to break the conventions of its charter I agree.

I did not say EVERY nation would get involved. That is true of NATO military action throughout history. Not every nation always gets involved. You are basing your argument, and now personal attacks, off of an irrelevant fact that already exists concerning NATO. The organization NATO would get involved in the scenarios I have outlined. The fact that EVERY nation in the charter would not get involved does not change a thing. Many of those nations do not have world class militaries.

It wouldn't really be action under a NATO banner. So why use the term NATO?

It would be under a NATO banner as I have already outlined. Because some nations do not participate in the military action does not change that fact. I'm pretty sure EVERY instance of military action undergone under the NATO banner did not include all of its members.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-03 05:48:55)

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

I did not say EVERY nation would get involved. That is true of NATO military action throughout history. Not every nation always gets involved. You are basing your argument, and now personal attacks, off of an irrelevant fact that already exists concerning NATO. The organization NATO would get involved in the scenarios I have outlined. The fact that EVERY nation in the charter would not get involved does not change a thing. Many of those nations do not have world class militaries.

It wouldn't really be action under a NATO banner. So why use the term NATO?

It would be under a NATO banner as I have already outlined. Because some nations do not participate in the military action does not change that fact. I'm pretty sure EVERY instance of military action undergone under the NATO banner did not include all of its members.

Well call it what you want - it would likely only be USA, and possibly UK and guilt-ridden Germany.

ghettoperson wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

It wouldn't really be action under a NATO banner. So why use the term NATO?

It would be under a NATO banner as I have already outlined. Because some nations do not participate in the military action does not change that fact. I'm pretty sure EVERY instance of military action undergone under the NATO banner did not include all of its members.

If it isn't in the NATO charter, then it wouldn't be under the NATO banner. Simple as.

Countries that are in NATO might get involved, but that doesn't mean that NATO is involved. If I rob a bank, it doesn't mean that the ghettoperson family rob a bank, it means I rob it.

True, but only to a certain extent. The scenarios I have outlined have never happened before. Actually using nuclear weapons changes everything. My point is that a nuclear Iran, especially one that has initiated a nuclear attack, is a serious threat to NATO and they would intervene under the NATO banner. Iran has historically been a supporter and initiator of terrorism against NATO members.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-03 06:19:33)

CameronPoe wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

True, but only to a certain extent. The scenarios I have outlined have never happened before. Actually using nuclear weapons changes everything. My point is that a nuclear Iran, especially one that has initiated a nuclear attack, is a serious threat to NATO and they would intervene under the NATO banner.

Iran has never threatened anyone other than Israel. The US is Israel's only dependable ally. So we're talking about US + Israel vs. Iran. Hardly WWIII.

I disagree. Iran has historically been a supporter and initiator of terrorism against several NATO members. If Iran actually attacked a country with a nuclear weapon this would be viewed as an extreme threat to NATO. Take nuclear weapons out of the equation, and it's just the US + Israel...which I already outlined earlier in this thread.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-03 06:21:30)

CameronPoe wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Iran has never threatened anyone other than Israel. The US is Israel's only dependable ally. So we're talking about US + Israel vs. Iran. Hardly WWIII.

I disagree. Iran has historically been a supporter and initiator of terrorism against several NATO members. If Iran actually attacked a country with a nuclear weapon this would be viewed as an extreme threat to NATO. Take nuclear weapons out of the equation, and it's just the US + Israel...which I already outlined earlier in this thread.

Which NATO members? Enlighten me.

Directly? The US, Spain, and France among others. Here are some examples:

    * The bombing of the French army barracks in Beirut (15 April 83)
    * The bombing of the Marines headquarters in Beirut (26 Oct.83)
    * The car bomb that exploded near the American embassy in Beirut (20 Sept. 84).
    * 28 October, 91  An explosive device blew up the car of an American sergeant in Turkey. The Turkish   Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.
    * 29 October,  91  A rocket was fired at the American Embassy in Beirut and caused slight damage.
    * 30 October, 91  A rocket was fired at the Spanish Consulate in Zidon.
    * 17 March, 92  A car bomb was discovered next to the American Consulate in Istanbul.


Indirectly? For one, Iran supports Hezbollah, who has initiated terrorist attacks against NATO members.


Are you suggesting that if Iran actually initiated a nuclear attack on any nation, NATO would not view this as a threat on which the organization needs to act on?

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-03 06:37:03)

i think its possible, china has undergone a HUGE military transformation and they have also said that if Taiwan declares independence, then they will attack and the us has said that they on the other hand will support the taiwanese militarily.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005448.asp
http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/ … -1088r.htm

You can speculate about this all you want, but the reality is that everything will depend on economical and political relations and situations of THAT moment.