THE ODDS OF WAR

Avgas

Now that the world cup is upon us.....

Just wonder what people think are the odds of a decent proper war between states kicking off?

I’ve informally put some odds based on my own extensive reading, computer simulations and astral projections…..inner vocies, etc.

My ranking System:
100/1-Realm of Walt?
50/1-Not really a runner for lots of reasons
10/1-long shot
7/1- Could happen but too many Unknown Unkowns
5/1-Possible not Plausible
2/1-Plausibly Possible
3/2-I see it coming even if no-one else does.

AT THE STARTING GATE:

North Korea versus South Korea/USA: 5/1
Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear projects: 2/1
Turkey invades Iraqi Kurdistan: 5/1
Columbia versus FARC + Venezuela: 10/1
Russia versus Georgia-Re-Match-Part III: 5/1
Macedonia versus KLA/Kosovo Re-Match: 5/1
Peru versus Ecuador: Amazonian Derby-re-match: 10/1
India versus Pakistan-Re-match No.V: 10/1
US + Iraq versus Iran over Basra: 10/1
Israel invades Lebanon (v. Hezbollah)-yet again: 5/1
Israel versus Syria possibly with Hezbollah (again): 7/1
Turkey versus Greece (over Cyprus): 100/1
China versus Vietnam over Spratly Islands: 10/1
Argentina versus UK-Falklands/Malvinas Re-Match?: 50/1
Ethiopia versus Eritrea re-match: 5/1
Rwanda invades Congo (again): 5/1
Saudi Arabia invades Yemen: 7/1
China versus India: 100/1
China versus USA, over Taiwan: 50/1
China meances Taiwan towards reunifircation talks and US lets them off: 10/1
Armenia versus Azerbaijan (with or without some Russian involvement): 5/1
Moldovia versus Russia: 10/1
Russia versus NATO over Arctic Oil: 10/1
Russia versus NATO over Estonian ‘Russian’ minority: 10/1

Oh and….

Ireland versus UK over Rockall: 3/2.

NERDY DETAIL: Out of 25 possible war scenarios both the USA and Russia would be directly implicated in 5 out 25 ‘wars’ (but against each other only in 2 of these). China features in 3-4 scenarios. Israelis in 3.

Any others…that…. people care to open a notional book on?

OS119

i think 50/1 on a Falklands clash are niavely long odds...

4/1 right now, and 2/1 in some easily forseeable circumstances, and much more dependent on internal Argentine politics rather than UK defence cuts or the state of the Argentine military.

Avgas

hmmmmm...well yes...maybe 50/1 was a tad optimistic...not as if I'm doing this properly with software.....BUT.. based on the IR literature I spend far too much time half-reading........the strongest predictors of war initiation are usually (a) previous war/form and/or (b) regime type-specifically-authoritarian regimes facing internal democratic challenges or actually democraticising.

They've got the first bit.....BUT.....as long as Argentina remains nominally democratic...... ye're probably safe. While they are up to their usual fun and games...like defaulting on their debt....(we could be joining them!).....they are somehow democratic.....hardly Switzerland or Sweden......but not the Argentina of 1982......

Yes their bitter about losing but its all about oil now, of which there seems to be quite a bit. However, there are many strategies open to them before the desperate and almost certain to fail strategy of invasion. These would principally take the form of litigation .....and maybe a bit of Cod-War type thing.... with boats at sea hassling British oil vessels...etc.

They may even explore the idea of a Citizens 'unarmed' peaceful "Malvinas Freedom Flotilla".......

we all know how that ended.......................:rolleyes:

The order of the new UK carriers probably kills off any WALT plans the Argentine Admiralty have regarding Malvinas. On the other hand...if the JSF debacle continues.....UK might not have a whole lot to fly off them.....Navalised Eurofighters?


Conclusion: If I were you OS119 I wouldn't splurge on that Arctic sleeping bag just yet...I'd say BA will remain more deployed in the 'hot'n'high' parts of the globe........

BlaasForRafa

OS119 wrote: »

i think 50/1 on a Falklands clash are niavely long odds...

4/1 right now, and 2/1 in some easily forseeable circumstances, and much more dependent on internal Argentine politics rather than UK defence cuts or the state of the Argentine military.

I'd say the odds on another falklands war are more like 5000/1, the Argentinian military is nowhere near as strong as it was back in 1982. I think the people there would be horrified at the thought of another war.

on the other hand, any war situation involving russian and/or its former republics and odd little entities like Transnistria, North and South Ossettia, Dagestan, Chechnya and Nagorno-Karabach are pretty much odds on. Theres too much emnity and too many spare AK-47s going around for their not to be aggro and theres always some tin-pot Captain with a bunch of rusty old T-55's running about.

Thats not to even speak about the Uzbeks and Kazakhs and the Kyrgyzy and the Tajikies and the Karabazies and the Maloobahz and the rest.

BlaasForRafa

Avgas wrote: »

The order of the new UK carriers probably kills off any WALT plans the Argentine Admiralty have regarding Malvinas. On the other hand...if the JSF debacle continues.....UK might not have a whole lot to fly off them.....Navalised Eurofighters?

I think its going to be a loooooooooooong time till the UK has one new carrier let alone the two it would need to have one on deployment and one being overhauled.

Plus the fact that the JSF is taking so long and the UK's Harriers are so long in the tooth, there will almost certainly be a "fighter gap" in the British navy.

Combat Aircraft Magazine and Air Force Magazine have both had articles severely critical of the JSF in the last year. Its projected that the cost per flying hour of the JSF will be more than the F15 or F/A18 and it won't be able to carry as much ordinance as either of those aircraft lest it lose its stealth characteristics.

I've thought for a while now that the JSF should be scrapped and the USAF get more F15's and the USN continue to optimise the F/A18. As for the UK I thought that navalized Eurofighters would be an option. Perhaps F/A18s or maybe even Rafales....although I doubt the UK media would like that suggestion!

Delancey

Who here is willing to bet that neither of the planned Royal Navy carriers will ever be built ?
No keel laid and already costs are up 250 million STG - throw in the new Defence Review and I think it will be a miracle if 1 is built , 2 ? - never.

OS119

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I'd say the odds on another falklands war are more like 5000/1, the Argentinian military is nowhere near as strong as it was back in 1982. I think the people there would be horrified at the thought of another war.

i don't think a logical appraisal of capabilities of either the RN or the Argentine Air and Sea forces has any baring whatsoever on the chances of an armed clash around the FI - in 1977, 1982, and ever since the RN has been demonstratably an order of magnitude more powerful than the Argentine Navy and Air Forces, yet Argentina consistantly seriously considered invading (Carlos Menem, and both the Kirchers have not just explored the posibility, but seriously considered action, and all came to within a week or two of military operations). its political act that is, imo, entirely driven by domestic political forces within Argentina. time and again Argentine politicians have got themselves out of popularity slumps by banging on the 'las Malvinas' drum - it doesn't matter whether they've just defualted on their debts, inflation is at 50million % and they are throwing students out of helicopters: wave the flag, make some belicose speeches and suddenly you're a national God who can do no wrong. any Argentine politician who successfully grabbed the FI would be president for life, and Argentine politicians know it - the Argentine people would i'm sure be horrified by another war, unless of course they won it, in which their horror would disappear...

iceage

And of course lets not forget that there is also now another incentive for the argentines to look to the FI.

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/dynamic/22/285x214/102996_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/102996&usg=__36vffOqYy3SATf30dUWsP6d1WNY=&h=214&w=285&sz=15&hl=en&start=25&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=N9hkqYuo4646dM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=115&prev=/images%3Fq%3Doil%2Bfound%2Bin%2Bfalklands%26start%3D21%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26ndsp%3D21%26tbs%3Disch:1

The first time the Argies were whipped up into a frenzy they came, they saw, they strutted they're stuff and then they got a serious trimming. A swift kicking will ensue I reckon if they try it again. A second attempt IMO will bring nothing but condemnation.

Sabre rattling I hope is all this is. But of course to be taken very seriously, vast quantities of oil and gas in the offing tends to focus peoples attention.
Maybe Britain could do a deal on the price of a barrel or two to keep them happy.

Avgas

OS119 wrote: »

yet Argentina consistantly seriously considered invading (Carlos Menem, and both the Kirchers have not just explored the posibility, but seriously considered action, and all came to within a week or two of military operations)

Interesting....that is news to me that actual operations were detected close to initiation....or are these bogus runs just to keep UK's garrison costs up?

You don't have a reference for that OS119 by the way...I'm not saying I doubt you...just its news to me they were that 'close' to the wire......

Delancey

Avgas wrote: »

OS119 wrote: »

yet Argentina consistantly seriously considered invading (Carlos Menem, and both the Kirchers have not just explored the posibility, but seriously considered action, and all came to within a week or two of military operations)

Interesting....that is news to me that actual operations were detected close to initiation....or are these bogus runs just to keep UK's garrison costs up?

You don't have a reference for that OS119 by the way...I'm not saying I doubt you...just its news to me they were that 'close' to the wire......

+ 1 . I too would be interested to learn more - yes , there has been an increase in tension but that close to taking action ?

OS119

Avgas wrote: »

OS119 wrote: »

yet Argentina consistantly seriously considered invading (Carlos Menem, and both the Kirchers have not just explored the posibility, but seriously considered action, and all came to within a week or two of military operations)

Interesting....that is news to me that actual operations were detected close to initiation....or are these bogus runs just to keep UK's garrison costs up?

You don't have a reference for that OS119 by the way...I'm not saying I doubt you...just its news to me they were that 'close' to the wire......

the open source stuff is rather disperate but available - Argentine op security has always been pretty good - but yeah, the 'unhidable' stuff like unannounced readiness exercises, increased training operations that are much more realistic than the normal stage-managed rubbish, and rushed cannibalisation of stored/'reduced readiness' ships and aircraft to increase the availability of the frontlone units, all have been noticed (that they've been noticed is no secret to anybody, least of all the Argentines) at moments when its politically interesting, and not when its not so interesting.

such things are expensive, and by and large the civilian governments of Argentina have no interest in the military and deliberately keep them starved of funds, so for such activities to take place suggests something 'special' to be happening, and that it it ordered - and paid for - at a very senior political level. so, it must be for something...

its quite possible that they are designed to be seen, to get us to react and sink money we can't afford into the FI defences - the one problem with that is that they know we can afford to ramp up the defences periodicly, or even to increase them permanently, without impacting on anything else we do. they aren't stupid by any means, and they know that making us reinforce every now and then only means we keep a sharper eye on what they're up to. the other option (apart from them genuinely thinking about having a go) is that, like the rhetoric, its for internal consumption - though this time aimed at the military, get them to think its still on the cards so they toe the line.

none of which suggests that if they thought there was a genuine opportunity they wouldn't take it.

Avgas

Hi OS119,

I think the most plausible scenario is your third last one...... that such 'incidents' are 'rewards' for the military keep them occupied -there was a Coup attempt in 1988 which was very serious......the crisis of 2001 would have also provoked another natural moment when the military might have thought it natural to step in.......and so on......

I came across this......

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Falklands-War-II.6090942.jp

It is a piece which seem reasonable and an above average journalistic take with quotes from UK MOD types basically saying that, on balance, a full invasion is unlikely but some form of asymmetric conflict at sea is possible. Much depends on how the UN rule over Argie claims under UNCLOS. Another Cod War-is quite possible and would be hard to deal with. Also makes the point that Argie capabilities are more degraded now…despite mutterings of nuclear submarines…..in fact they appear to have no proper amphibious ships and the UK presence on the Island is bit more substantial than the 60 marines they had in 1982: 1,000 personnel, 4 Eurofighters, etc. The lesson of 1982 is that regimes that lose wars get wiped at home and those that win them get the voters backing….…..which would logically suggest a future unpopular UK government, say Cameron in 3 years after doling out fiscal austerity and misery, would have far more incentives to provoke a full war over the Falklands than the Argies…….?

But of course we know the academic studies show democracies rarely if ever initiate wars against other democratic states………yeah right.:rolleyes:

I'm bringing my odds down to 7 to 1.

deise go deo

Nah brazill will invade the falklands, its so unexpected and pointless it must be true:rolleyes:

Moast likely war has to be an Israeli intervention in the leb again, Just for fun

Avgas

Israeli intervention in the Leb again...for fun?

What would be fun about it?

Considering the last time around in 2006 Hezbollah demonstrated quite a bit of tactical skill in the ground fight.....IDF would be very cautious...remember IDF LOST the 33 day war of 2006 in popular perception....

.....mind you the IDF surely have studied and learned....and would approach things differently a bit.

Hezbollah will also have evolved and adapted, and the average range of their missiles, and their accuracy may have improved.

They would have to use ground troops and Hezbollah while they would be beaten in specific tactical engagements could easily notch up scores of IDF killed and wounded....and domestic opinion may not see the point as it would not provide long term security.....

What the Israel may be hoping is a civil war (again) within Lebanon as those opposed to Hezbollah and Shia dominance basically can't accept their growing role anymore.....they may try to engineer and support that by proxy......but seeing as the Hez get support from both Iran and Syria....internal opposition going that way would have to be brave and foolish ....................

Steyr

delancey42 wrote: »

Who here is willing to bet that neither of the planned Royal Navy carriers will ever be built ?
No keel laid and already costs are up 250 million STG - throw in the new Defence Review and I think it will be a miracle if 1 is built , 2 ? - never.

I see the above and give you this:

**PICS IN THE LINK**

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-events/rn-live/all-news/milestone-for-new-carrier-as-bow-ready-to-set-sail/*/changeNav/6568

There were celebrations today in Devon as the programme to build Britain’s two largest and most powerful Royal Navy warships passed an important milestone.

The bow sections of one of the UK’s two new aircraft carriers, Queen Elizabeth, are now completed and ready to set sail from Babcock’s Appledore shipyard in Devon. They will make a six day journey by barge to Rosyth in Scotland, where the ships will be assembled.

Shipyards throughout the UK are contributing their skills to the project – Glasgow, Rosyth, Newcastle, Portsmouth, Devon and Birkenhead – as well as a further 100 contracts throughout the supply chain.

The two sections will make up the bow of the ship, and together weigh about 400 tonnes. The larger of the two sections - called the bulbous bow - is similar in size and shape to a conventional submarine, yet only a tenth of the full length of the ship. It is designed to increase speed, fuel efficiency and stability - sitting just below the waterline to help the ship to cut cleanly through the water, reducing drag. The second section sits above, making up decks seven to five below the aircraft hangar.

Chief of Material Fleet Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews said:

“Seeing these sections, which are only a small part of the ship, makes the overall scale of the carriers clear. The transportation of the bow sections to Rosyth will be a key step in the construction of these hugely important ships. The two Aircraft Carriers of QE Class will provide the UK with a large, deployable airfield capable of projecting airpower globally - including fast jets, helicopters and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles – to support Joint Operations for up to 50 years.

“It was important from the start of the project to achieve maximum efficiency using new construction techniques. For example, the ‘block integration’ method has allowed us to build the ship in many locations simultaneously, reducing the time it takes to construct. It has the added advantage of spreading the economic benefits widely across the country.”

Babcock’s role in the Carrier build programme is worth around £1 BN, currently employing 292 at the Appledore shipyard and another 432 at Rosyth, including around 140 apprentices.

Significant progress has been made since manufacture began at Appledore shipyard in December 2008, and with major sections of the bow completed the Queen Elizabeth is visibly taking shape. Work now continues on the forward section of the ship, from the keel up to the flight deck.

Bulbous bow:

30.3 metres long (equal to 3.5 double decker buses)
10.8 metres wide
9.6 metres high (taller than five average men)
293 tonnes
Upper section of bow:
21.6 metres long
17.4 metres wide
6.2 metres high
141 tonnes

Six shipyards will construct the blocks that make up the hull:

i. BAE Systems, Glasgow
ii. Babcock, Appledore
iii. Babcock, Rosyth
iv. A&P, Newcastle
v. BAE Systems, Portsmouth
vi. Cammell Laird, Birkenhead

4. The Aircraft Carrier Alliance is a single integrated team in which MOD acts as both partner and client. Formed from MOD, BAE Systems, Babcock and Thales UK, it is responsible for delivering the Queen Elizabeth Class ships on time and to cost.