Rudimentary WW3 Theory - Debunkers Welcome!

rexusdiablos

Howdy All,

I've been kept overtly busy work-wise though I've been itching to return to the boards and debate the current state of play.

The theory is as follows:

1. Israel will unsuccessfully attack Iran (provoked by their uranium progression) inciting an effortless flank and onslaught from their nemesis to the east.
   
2. The United States, United Kingdom and France will blockade the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf area.
   
3. Russia will become wary due to United States flanks to the west (Polish American bases) and east (Iranian naval region).
   
4. Russia and China collaborate against the audacious United States and the subsequent 'Western V Eastern' model forms the basis of WW3.

While certain variables are interchangeable (which entity attacks whom first) others are simply fact (Operation Brimstone collaboration). I'm looking forward to your opinions on this one. Lets keep the discussion healthy and intelligible.

Rexus

,8,1

Not far off at all. Like 9/11, all roads lead to Israel.

rexusdiablos

,8,1 wrote: »

Not far off at all. Like 9/11, all roads lead to Israel.

Thats an obscure and vague comment but fellow night-owls are always well received nonetheless.

Mahatma coat

rexusdiablos wrote: »

Howdy All,

I've been kept overtly busy work-wise though I've been itching to return to the boards and debate the current state of play.

The theory is as follows:

1. Israel will unsuccessfully attack Iran (provoked by their uranium progression) inciting an effortless flank and onslaught from their nemesis to the east.
   
2. The United States, United Kingdom and France will blockade the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf area.
   
3. Russia will become wary due to United States flanks to the east (Polish American bases) and west (Iranian naval region).
   
4. Russia and China collaborate against the audacious United States and the subsequent 'Western V Eastern' model forms the basis of WW3.

While certain variables are interchangeable (which entity attacks whom first) others are simply fact (Operation Brimstone collaboration). I'm looking forward to your opinions on this one. Lets keep the discussion healthy and intelligible.

Rexus

plausible,

what would qualify an attack on Iran as a success in your eyes?

again it all leads to Israel (under US protection) as the instigators which seems like the most likely scenario

ArthurGuinness

It is my guesstimate that world war three will begin within the next 4yrs. Nostradamus predicts that the world will end when there is a black pope. At that time I think it is safe to say that the pope was the “world leader” well you can see where I am going with this more later……......... :rolleyes:


By the by I am sure you have all read this at some point, however I am new to this forum so if not here is what Nostradamus had to say on world war 3 http://www.faqs.org/faqs/nostradamus/part6/

DubTony

ArthurGuinness wrote: »

It is my guesstimate that world war three will begin within the next 4yrs. Nostradamus predicts that the world will end when there is a black pope. At that time I think it is safe to say that the pope was the “world leader” well you can see where I am going with this more later……......... :rolleyes:

All these predictions *sigh*. One I remember distinctly goes as follows. I had the "happy privilege" of attending a Christian Brothers school. We were told that when the virgin Mary appeared at Garabandal, Spain she said that there would be 3 popes after Paul and during his reign we would have "the end of time". We've had them all, John XXIII, John Paul I and John Paul II. I remember being told that the third Pope after John would be "the black Pope". He's not.

All these predictions. :rolleyes:

Anyway, if these WWIII predictions come true, we won't have to worry about global enslavement by agents of the NWO. Or will the 500 million of us who survive, be enslaved anyway? :eek:

Run_to_da_hills

ArthurGuinness wrote: »

Nostradamus predicts that the world will end when there is a black pope. At that time I think it is safe to say that the pope was the “world leader” well you can see where I am going with this more later……......... :rolleyes:

Are we sure Nostradamus was not speaking of a black president, The election is is only 20 days away. :eek:

meglome

,8,1 wrote: »

Not far off at all. Like 9/11, all roads lead to Israel.

Maybe in your head they do but I've been reading up on 911 for years now and haven't seen one actual piece of evidence that points to Israel.

meglome

rexusdiablos wrote: »

[*]Israel will unsuccessfully attack Iran (provoked by their uranium progression) inciting an effortless flank and onslaught from their nemesis to the east.

They'll just fire a load of missiles or do a commando raid, no need for an invasion.
"inciting an effortless flank and onslaught from their nemesis to the east." Explain?

rexusdiablos wrote: »

[*]The United States, United Kingdom and France will blockade the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf area.

Why?

rexusdiablos wrote: »

[*]Russia will become wary due to United States flanks to the east (Polish American bases) and west (Iranian naval region).

Imagine the Russians being wary of the US, hard to believe :rolleyes: Why would the Russians be wary of the Iranian naval region?

rexusdiablos wrote: »

[*]Russia and China collaborate against the audacious United States and the subsequent 'Western V Eastern' model forms the basis of WW3.

The Chinese are living it large off the huge amounts of cash the West spend with them. All they have to do is keep investing this money in the west and that will give them better results than any war.

rexusdiablos

Mahatma coat wrote: »

plausible,

what would qualify an attack on Iran as a success in your eyes?

again it all leads to Israel (under US protection) as the instigators which seems like the most likely scenario

The attack itself would be quite deliberated without any cloak and dagger. Iran's nuclear sites would be the easiest locus to justify to the western world. The CIA would most likely have a hand in orchestrating such affairs. The blinded American populace would willingly rally in support of the attacks.

Both McCain and Obama (most recent presidential debate) have already acknowledged that a nuclear enabled Iran is a threat to the western world and that they will be proactive rather than reactive.

rexusdiablos

meglome wrote: »

Maybe in your head they do but I've been reading up on 911 for years now and haven't seen one actual piece of evidence that points to Israel.

Can anyone briefly contest or vouch for this (,8,1,'s claim)? Lets not turn this into a 911 conflict thread. If links or documentation can be provided to support the claim then its a valid aspect of the conversation. Otherwise leave your speculations at the door. I'm trying to cling to cling to fact as stringently as possible.

rexusdiablos

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Are we sure Nostradamus was not speaking of a black president, The election is is only 20 days away. :eek:

Prophecy falls under the realm of superstition (which I'm open to but not leaning towards for the purposes of this thread) though it is an interesting correlation.

rexusdiablos

meglome wrote: »

They'll just fire a load of missiles or do a commando raid, no need for an invasion. "inciting an effortless flank and onslaught from their nemesis to the east." Explain?

Yep, their missile attack would be devastating and almost effortless. Israels enemies are not curtailed to the country of Iran however. Many of the surrounding factitious groups boast less impressive technology but would indulge in the opportunity to kick the Israelites when they're down nonetheless. How they choose to indulge remains to be seen and shouldn't necessarily imply an invasion.

meglome wrote: »

Why?

Think about it...A naval blockade (popular since the days of the Roman Empire) would function as a siege which would cripple Iran economically (they import 40% of their benzene, an oil-refining product for example). The global price of oil would manically increment sending the western world into a more critical economic crisis (the benefits of this are obvious only if you buy the NWO theories).

meglome wrote: »

Imagine the Russians being wary of the US, hard to believe. Why would the Russians be wary of the Iranian naval region?

meglome wrote: »

The Chinese are living it large off the huge amounts of cash the West spend with them. All they have to do is keep investing this money in the west and that will give them better results than any war.

Sorry Meglome but you’re really lacking any commendable insight into the Russian and Chinese prerogatives. In layman’s terms Russian and Chinese naval warships that escort commercial tankers to Iran would be in violation of the blockade. Imagine how volatile a predicament like this could become considering the amount of destructive naval arsenal at hand. It’s nothing more than an incestuous power struggle for Iranian oil supplies. The Georgia/Ossetia war is nothing more than a diversion.

bonkey

rexusdiablos wrote: »

Israel will unsuccessfully attack Iran (provoked by their uranium progression) inciting an effortless flank and onslaught from their nemesis to the east.

If it would be effortless, then the Israeli's would have to be pretty dumb to line themselves up for that. I don't know about you, but I don't generally consider the Israeli's to be dumb.

AS for "their nemesis to the east"...who are you talking about? The Iranians? The Saudi? As for effortless...I somehow think the Israeli army, combined with the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan would make any large-scale manouever there far from effortless.

The United States, United Kingdom and France will blockade the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf area.

All three of them? Surely a single US carrier group would be sufficient to blockade the entire Strait, particularly considering the virtually-non-existant Iranian navy.

Russia will become wary due to United States flanks to the east (Polish American bases) and west (Iranian naval region).

The only thing Polish American bases are to the east of is Western Europe. They're not even east of the SoH...so for something to have an eastern flank from Polish American bases, and a western flank from the SoH would be difficult. Even if you have your eastern and western flanks mixed up...Russia doesn't lie between the two.

Tipsy Mac

Since World War 2 the only certainty seems to be that if you have a nuke you are safe, the sooner Iran gets nukes the more stable the region will be. Why one country who has nukes dictates that another can't is beyond me, perhaps my history book was missing the chapter where the Americans/UK/Russians/French etc sought permission from the rest of the world to build theirs.

Kama

Surely a single US carrier group would be sufficient to blockade the entire Strait, particularly considering the virtually-non-existant Iranian navy.

Operation Brimstone was a wargame for this a month or so ago.

Blockading the Strait of Hormuz wouldn't be that easy...one of the problems with hitting Iran is they can block the Straits quite easily, with all the attendent 'problems' for oil supply.
Iran has had the Sunburn missile for a while, by way of the Russians iirc, which is a specially designed US fleet-killer, and presumably some other nice stuff. Sunburn was designed specifically for hitting the US fleet, as part of the Russian 'asymmetric' doctrine to counter US battlefleets. Very fast, dynamic trajectory changes, lethal payload. Its like Argentina 'Gotcha!' all over again.

You wouldn't need a navy, you'd have dispersed missile sites from land, in nasty mountainous terrain making it harder to hit. Iranian planning has based itself on an asymmetric Passive Defense to resist bombing campaigns; a ground invasion of Iran would be all manner of hell, even as a straight military campaign, disregarding the Shia Iraqi component completely.

However, the Israeli strike part looks quite plausible. Bombing nuclear plants after they go active is a lot messier than before, hard to tell if this is saber-rattle rhetoric or if they will.

rexusdiablos

Thanks for throwing in your two cents bonkey. I’ll do my best to correct you.

bonkey wrote: »

If it would be effortless, then the Israeli's would have to be pretty dumb to line themselves up for that.

One word: CATALYST

Consider and amalgamate Ahmadinejad’s vehemence laden speeches and the notion of a nuclear enabled Iran. It shouldn’t be too cerebrally taxing for any of us to deduce Israel’s apprehension. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has expressed the gravitas of his nations current predicament. If they idly stand by they face an apocalyptic demise whereas if they launch a pre-emptive strike its probable that this will CATALYSE an American intervention.

This is what you need to realise bonkey: Israel is damned if they do and conversely damned if they don’t. Through desperate stratagem they’ve concluded that the optimum approach is to take Iran down with them and hopefully arise from the debris and rubble as the relative victor with America as the analogical Zimmer frame. Bush is simply exploiting this for his own territorial gain. Upon his recent visit to commemorate Israel’s 60th birthday he discussed leveraging the attack capabilities and precision of the Israeli Air Force.

Yes, Iran’s retaliation would be effortless but I fail to see how you can intelligibly argue that this renders a proactive Israel as a ‘dumb’ nation.

bonkey wrote: »

AS for "their nemesis to the east"...who are you talking about? The Iranians? The Saudi?

The Iranians are a given. The most likely suspects would be Lebanon and Gaza (Hezbollah and Hamas) wouldn’t you think? In the likelihood that America assists the attack (possibly an air attack) it seems natural that Sunni Arab street (the masses of poor Sunnis) from Algeria to Egypt and all the way to Pakistan, India and Indonesia would begin to foster an anti-western mentality that could lead to further friction and coaxed hostilities. The strange irony is that all of these regions are essentially discontent with Iran’s power accrual but they seem to be adhering to the good ol’ adage of “better the devil you know”.

bonkey wrote: »

All three of them? Surely a single US carrier group would be sufficient to blockade the entire Strait, particularly considering the virtually-non-existant Iranian navy

I’m too tired to outline how you’ve grossly underestimated Iran’s militant shrewdness and might (If you insist I'll obligingly accommodate). Kama’s initial post should shine some light on this though. Remember that the blockade is but a means to an end: invasion.

bonkey wrote: »

Even if you have your eastern and western flanks mixed up...Russia doesn't lie between the two.

Yep, the west and east were indeed typos and have since been rectified but I still don’t get you. Is Poland not to the west of Russia and the Strait of Hormuz to its east?

Here’s a supporting article that outlines Russia’s concerns with the American bases in Poland:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/15/europe/15poland.php

bonkey

rexusdiablos wrote: »

One word: CATALYST

This doesn't really address my point...

You're claiming that someone with a layman's knowledge of military powers should be able to see just how easily Iran could shaft Israel....but that Israel themselves would just walk right into this problem.

Not only that, but you're arguing that by walking into it, they'll catalyse WW3, but they'll do so because its somehow the least-worst option.

This is what you need to realise bonkey: Israel is damned if they do and conversely damned if they don’t.

I disagree. For Israel to be "damned if they don't", it assumes that the leaders of Iran (and I don't just mean Ahmadinejad) have a death-wish. Thing is, I don't believe for one second that they do. They're willing to encourage the poor and downtrodden to become suicide bombers, and they're possibly willing to use their military....but going to war with multiple nuclear powers in the manner you speak of has one and only one outcome for them - that being a messy death.

Through desperate stratagem they’ve concluded that the optimum approach is to take Iran down with them

Why are they waiting? Why haven't they done this already?
Alternately...why would they initiate war with Iran, knowing its a "everyone loses" strategy and not go all-out from the start? Why start with some strategic strike and then let themselves be overrun as you say would "easily" happen?

Even as a MAD-type strategy, it seems hopelessly flawed.

Yes, Iran’s retaliation would be effortless but I fail to see how you can intelligibly argue that this renders a proactive Israel as a ‘dumb’ nation.

Starting a fight you can only lose makes little sense. Starting it and not going all-out from the start makes no sense. Waiting to start it seems pointless, unless you're going to wait for the enemy to give you something to retaliate to...which isn't your scenario.

I’m too tired to outline how you’ve grossly underestimated Iran’s militant shrewdness and might (If you insist I'll obligingly accommodate).

You were the person asking for discussion. If you've no inclination to discuss the topic you asked people to discuss with you, I've no intention of insisting that you do so.

It does strike me, however, that you seem to have Iran as capable of taking on the US, the French, the UK, all the while kicking Israel's butt...on the basis that amongst them all the Iranians are being underestimated. And yet you tell me I'm way off base with my suggestion that your scenario seems to paint just one of these 4 other players as "dumb".

Kama’s initial post should shine some light on this though. Remember that the blockade is but a means to an end: invasion.

Why? Why invade? If the objective is to stop Iran's military attacks on Israel, the invasion is not necessary. If the objective is to punish Iran for its military attacks on Israel, then invasion is not necessary. Given that you seem to see this invasion as a hopelessly lost cause, I would again put it to you that if its clear to a military-versant layman, then its not unreasonable to suggest that the same considerations would be noted in the military.

So again you're left needing to explain why the US et al would pick a losing strategy. Why is it the least worst option?

Yep, the west and east were indeed typos and have since been rectified but I still don’t get you. Is Poland not to the west of Russia and the Strait of Hormuz to its east?

The entirety of Russia lies north of the SoH, and most of it lies to the west. There's also a handful of countries in the way.

Here’s a supporting article that outlines Russia’s concerns with the American bases in Poland:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/15/europe/15poland.php

I didn't question that the Russians were unhappy about Poland. I questioned the geographical scenario you painted. I was hoping we could clear that up so I could go on to question why - if that was sufficient grounds to go to war - that Poland/Iraq didn't already post the same threat.

rexusdiablos

Hi All,

I'm up the walls with work at the moment but I recommend taking just ten minutes to review this video and let me know what your opinions are on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ScYQ_llIjU

The video discusses the liklihood of WW3 with Russia and America as the main protaganists.

Bonkey: thanks for your posts, I'll get back to you in due course! :pac:

Kama

Apropos of naval attacks on Iran, Kaplan has a piece in the Atlantic on Iranian asymmetric defense, suicide swarmboat attacks, and Irans capability to shut down the Gulf.