Another World Conflict in our times?

[Bootie]

Just a quick poll to start a bit of debate. Keep it military.

My question is... do you think there will be another world wide conflict in the next 20 years.

With North Korea bristling, Iran winding up the Americans, China becoming militarily stronger, Russia possibly slipping back into cold war mode and numerous other what ifs where do you see the future taking us.

 

[Nathangun]

You forgot to mention the north icecaps, there will be war for oil up there, even if will be naval battles.

 

[Hedgehog]

I think as usual there will be the little Skirmish here and there, with Israel and the Palastine community plus, And I get the feeling that America will step back from policing the rest of the World, Have they learnt there lesson with the two conflict's they are involved in now....I think Yes Take a step back USA

 

[AirborneBob]

I think we (Americans) will always feel responsible to defend the interests of the free people of the world throughout the globe. We are tied to a global economy in which scarce resources are the life blood of our free economy. Threats to those resources will be challenged, and we will provide assistance to those that are allied with us in the cause of freedom.

 

[Bootie]

I think we (Americans) will always feel responsible to defend the interests of the free people of the world throughout the globe. We are tied to a global economy in which scarce resources are the life blood of our free economy. Threats to those resources will be challenged, and we will provide assistance to those that are allied with us in the cause of freedom.

Why is this?

 

[PoorOldSpike]

Churchill said- "In war, one has neither friends nor enemies, only interests", in other words if there's nothing to be gained, don't go to war, and I daresay current and future politicians say the same thing when contemplating going to war, ie-"What's in it for our country?"

 

[Sempai]

I think the world is always in conflict. But the most european countries and the USA have the luck they had no one on their own ground. If You don´t count the worldwide media-compatible performed fight against the terror. And I think there are to many powerful people and lobbies who have enough interest to hold the world in conflict. So my answer is definitely a big YES!!!

Greetings

 

[AirborneBob]

Why is this?

I think its because We are the biggest free nation in the world, ergo we shepard the small nations and show the world that a free market democracy can work for all.....After the Spanish American war, we became the exofacto Big Brother in the Western Hemisphere, and we took up the mantel and responsiblty of protecting (to use POS's quote) 'our interests' around the world. Later we determined that communism and the dreaded "domino effect" was a direct threat to our national sovergnity, and pulled out the stops to stop the world wide spread of communism (yeah Regean!!!). Now, Islamic-terrorism is the threat, and the same vigor will be expended to fight that as much as we opposed communism.

 

[PoorOldSpike]

I think we (Americans) will always feel responsible to defend the interests of the free people of the world throughout the globe. We are tied to a global economy in which scarce resources are the life blood of our free economy. Threats to those resources will be challenged, and we will provide assistance to those that are allied with us in the cause of freedom.[/SIZE]

What 'scarce resources' are the 'lifeblood of Americas free economy'?

 

[USS Wyoming]

The "fight" over resources is exagerrated, but you hear about it all the time in main stream media. Middle eastern oil, grain shortages similar to those of the former USSR, and other lesser resources that garner our attention from time it time.

There isn't any shortage of oil, there is only a shortage of large quantities of very affordable oil. Countries, like mine can absorb higher oil costs, but only when our economy is in a growth stage. I work in the natural gas industry and they are very similar. When it comes to food products, the US hasn't had a shortage since the Dust Bowl of the 1930's and that was regional. We might have regional or localized shortages that drive up commodity prices, but we are essentially self-sufficient with the ability to export internationally.

I think the only likleyhood of a conflict on a broadfront exist if the US fails to maintain the ability to project military influence worldwide. It doesn't mean I want to see the US actually project that military influence. I think it would be foolish to think a large conflict could not occur if one of the western countries did not maintain armed forces capable of international projection.

 

[PoorOldSpike]

Could the US be self-sufficient in everything she needs, instead of importing it?

 

[Wardog]

When considering the rapid rate of world population growth and the limited resources available to the masses, countries will fight for those resources. One of those resources that is becoming scarce: potable water. We might be able to overcome oil shortages by using alternative energy sources, but nobody can do without water, even for a day. Although desalination offers some promise for those countries that can afford the process, it takes large amounts of heat energy to produce potable water. The nations that are most in need are those that are the poorest and can't afford the expense for such an undertaking. Some might say that the poor nations couldn't fight a war for these dwindling resources because they couldn't afford the military forces large enough to support such an adventure. True, but China for one, has water resources that are on a steep decline and in twenty years she'll be strong enough to launch such a war, should it be required for her survival. I do believe that future global wars will continue to be fought, ad infinitum.