|
Post by Jarlaxle on Dec 29, 2006 3:03:02 GMT -5
I would not be surprised if one country decided to meet with another and start making ridiculous demands or accusations just to justify the war so they don't appear as savage and blood thirsty Al Queda did.
I wonder who the victors might be should such a war occur. Considering the arsenals everyone has at their command, it could be anyones victory. In the event that all the aggressive nations are destroyed or crippled, who would be the first to become the new superpower I wonder.
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Dec 29, 2006 13:11:24 GMT -5
For the US to be completely annihilated without having the other side having too much damage done to them, the other side would need to turn Israel against the US. But that would never happen. They hate Israel even more than they hate the US. They just hate the US because they support Israel.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Dec 29, 2006 23:21:03 GMT -5
I wonder who the victors might be should such a war occur. Considering the arsenals everyone has at their command, it could be anyones victory. Quite simply, Jarlaxe, if either of the two sides attacked with every nuclear device at their disposal, who the victor of the battle is might be irrelevant, because that many nuclear devices could destroy all life on Earth several times over. True, the bombs wouldn't likely be used on a world-wide scale, limited to one or two continents, but whichever continents those are could potentially be completely annihilated.
|
|
|
Post by buttonpresser4815 on Dec 29, 2006 23:34:42 GMT -5
I have had a comical theory in mind lately about the increasing obsession with celebrities. What if a celebrity is killed while they are in a certain nation outside the US? How would the US react and how would the nation react if the assassins were not from the country?
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Jan 1, 2007 2:31:13 GMT -5
I personally would not care about the celebrities, but most would be outraged. I doubt the nation would go to war just because of that, but they would probably not just stand by and let the assassin get away with it if they can catch him.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Jan 1, 2007 22:14:52 GMT -5
Did anyone here think for a second that a country would go to war over such a matter? It would not happen, unless a country was REALLY looking for an excuse, but they could come up with something better. They would disclaim responsibility and take part in the investigation with the celebrity's country.
Perhaps if there were extreme tension between two countries, then the death of some celebrity might further the tension, maybe cause the offended country to make demands, but it would hardly be worth a war.
|
|
|
Post by buttonpresser4815 on Jan 1, 2007 23:25:33 GMT -5
As i said, a COMICAL theory, one that is highly unlikely to ever occur. There are far more probable but similar causes, for example, the assassination of a national leader in another country, that led to the outbreak of World War I.
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Jan 1, 2007 23:33:27 GMT -5
Well, if someone resides in another country under their home country's passport (like I did in Egypt), then if they'd been killed by that government or someobdy, there would be either tension, or an investigation. But I was on a Diplomatic Passport, which would mean that there would be an investigation if I were killed.
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Jan 3, 2007 0:32:26 GMT -5
But still nothing as drastic as declaring war unless a country was just looking for a good excuse to declare it.
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Jan 3, 2007 22:06:48 GMT -5
If they wanted to declare war, they could just do it out of the blue.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Jan 4, 2007 22:25:54 GMT -5
They could, yes, but doing so would place them in a bad position on the world stage, since they would clearly be the aggressors, and that might cause a great number of countries to join the fight against that country for being reckless and generally out of control. Granted, there are many countries who would not care one way or the other about such a war, but I suspect that many democratic countries and the UN would feel obligated to get involved.
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Jan 4, 2007 23:00:00 GMT -5
It would put them in a bad position, possibly. Japan did it in WW2, and nobody helped the US in their war against Japan until 2 days before it ended when the USSR joined. Instead, they got Germany and Italy to declare war on them. So they had more enemies when Japan attacked them.
Granted the UN didn't exist quite yet in 1941.
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Jan 5, 2007 4:13:57 GMT -5
And still a direct declaration of war was still made even with the UN in place. I recall the US's claims against Iraq were quick and random. They said it was because they had weapons of mass destruction but they were very quick to jump into a war just for something like that.
|
|
|
Post by The Rogue on Jan 5, 2007 16:04:28 GMT -5
When really, the true intentions were to have a base of operations in the Middle East, and having to do so would require ousting Saddam.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Jan 5, 2007 22:17:56 GMT -5
Its definately possible. What is truly tactless about the reasoning behind the war in Iraq is the accusation itself. They invade the country on a baseless accusation of having weapons of mass destruction--this coming from the country who has the largest stockpile of said weapons in the entire world. It is as if they are the self-appointed protectors of the world, when they have the potential to be the greatest threat. A tad hypocrytical.
|
|