NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen some rather silly scenarios for the next war between major powers posated here recently, so I thought I'd toss a hopefully better scenario into the works.

Here it goes:

Sometime in the next 5-10 years, HH Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, dies. The PRC's claiments to the position of the Pachen Lama, Qoigyijabu, names a pro-Beijing candidate. The CTA denounces the "new Dalai Lama". Tensions throught the TAR rise to a boiling point, which is not helped by the PRC's heavy handed response.

A (possibly staged) "terrorist attack" against PRC government targets in Lahsa is tied back to Tibetian exiles in Dharamsala. The PRC demands India hand over numerous exile leaders. India refuses.

Stepped up terrorist attacks by Pakistani related forces occur in India. At least one is traced back to the PRC.

Roughly around the same time, explosives used in major terrorist attack against US forces in Iraq are traced back to China through Iran.

These are reasonable extrapolations and set the basis for a US/India
vs PRC/Pakistan war.

Yes I pulled a lot of it out of my ass, but much less than most of these scenarios do. And yes, it's very incomplete.

Comments?

I think a possible trigger could be terrorist related. Not that far off for a scenerio I think. I think you may be on to something with the joint India-US war vs China. I believe it is in India and the US interest to work together in the world.

I've seen some rather silly scenarios for the next war between major powers posated here recently, so I thought I'd toss a hopefully better scenario into the works.

Here it goes:

Sometime in the next 5-10 years, HH Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, dies. The PRC's claiments to the position of the Pachen Lama, Qoigyijabu, names a pro-Beijing candidate. The CTA denounces the "new Dalai Lama". Tensions throught the TAR rise to a boiling point, which is not helped by the PRC's heavy handed response.

A (possibly staged) "terrorist attack" against PRC government targets in Lahsa is tied back to Tibetian exiles in Dharamsala. The PRC demands India hand over numerous exile leaders. India refuses.

Stepped up terrorist attacks by Pakistani related forces occur in India. At least one is traced back to the PRC.

Roughly around the same time, explosives used in major terrorist attack against US forces in Iraq are traced back to China through Iran.

These are reasonable extrapolations and set the basis for a US/India
vs PRC/Pakistan war.

Yes I pulled a lot of it out of my ass, but much less than most of these scenarios do. And yes, it's very incomplete.

Comments?
You realize, of course, that you may be an inspiration for people anywhere in the world with computer access, eh? :eek:

I think a possible trigger could be terrorist related. Not that far off for a scenerio I think. I think you may be on to something with the joint India-US war vs China. I believe it is in India and the US interest to work together in the world.

At the very least, it's in India's interest to work against China and Pakistan. Hostile neighbors and all that.

At the very least, it's in India's interest to work against China and Pakistan. Hostile neighbors and all that.

Actually, if you look at it from a cold, hard economic perspective, it's in India's interest to work against China but [I]with[I] Pakistan. The two nations have a severely mutually dependent economy, no matter how much they might wish it were not so.

This, plus the nuclear card both countries now hold, makes me think that the Kashmir situation may get resolved some time in the near future. Either that or the subcontinent will solve it's population problem for all time.

You realize, of course, that you may be an inspiration for people anywhere in the world with computer access, eh? :eek:

Why thank you. If someone wants to take that and run with it, writing a novel or a game, more power to them.

I've seen some rather silly scenarios for the next war between major powers posated here recently, so I thought I'd toss a hopefully better scenario into the works.

Here it goes:

Sometime in the next 5-10 years, HH Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, dies. The PRC's claiments to the position of the Pachen Lama, Qoigyijabu, names a pro-Beijing candidate. The CTA denounces the "new Dalai Lama". Tensions throught the TAR rise to a boiling point, which is not helped by the PRC's heavy handed response.

A (possibly staged) "terrorist attack" against PRC government targets in Lahsa is tied back to Tibetian exiles in Dharamsala. The PRC demands India hand over numerous exile leaders. India refuses.

Stepped up terrorist attacks by Pakistani related forces occur in India. At least one is traced back to the PRC.

Roughly around the same time, explosives used in major terrorist attack against US forces in Iraq are traced back to China through Iran.

These are reasonable extrapolations and set the basis for a US/India
vs PRC/Pakistan war.

Yes I pulled a lot of it out of my ass, but much less than most of these scenarios do. And yes, it's very incomplete.

Comments?

It would be interesting to see what Russia would do. On the one hand, Russia has a lot to gain by siding with the US in terms of border territory. On the other, there's the Cold War history there.

So though they'd probably ally with the US, it'd probably be like WWII where both sides were allied but still didn't trust each other.

Why thank you. If someone wants to take that and run with it, writing a novel or a game, more power to them.

Don't you want intellectual property credit?

It would be interesting to see what Russia would do. On the one hand, Russia has a lot to gain by siding with the US in terms of border territory. On the other, there's the Cold War history there.

So though they'd probably ally with the US, it'd probably be like WWII where both sides were allied but still didn't trust each other.

Russia's current economic interests lie in the west. Especially how they are using their energy sector to be the powerhouse of their economy. Therefore I believe that Russia would most likely either stay nuetral or side with the west in the manner you laid out.

Actually, if you look at it from a cold, hard economic perspective, it's in India's interest to work against China but [I]with[I] Pakistan. The two nations have a severely mutually dependent economy, no matter how much they might wish it were not so.

This, plus the nuclear card both countries now hold, makes me think that the Kashmir situation may get resolved some time in the near future. Either that or the subcontinent will solve it's population problem for all time.

A lot of that will depend on two things:
1) How well can the PRC control their client state?
2) To what degree are India and Pakistan going to be rational actors?

Right now, I'd say #1 is a bit iffy and #2 is a flat out no.

Russia's current economic interests lie in the west. Especially how they are using their energy sector to be the powerhouse of their economy. Therefore I believe that Russia would most likely either stay nuetral or side with the west in the manner you laid out.

Which would lead to some interesting concessions on both sides when dealing with post-Cold War stuff.

It would be interesting to see what Russia would do. On the one hand, Russia has a lot to gain by siding with the US in terms of border territory. On the other, there's the Cold War history there.

So though they'd probably ally with the US, it'd probably be like WWII where both sides were allied but still didn't trust each other.

Russia has been closer to India than Pakistan or the PRC. There's definately potential for Russia to get involved...

Don't you want intellectual property credit?

For something slapped together like that? Nah.

Russia has been closer to India than Pakistan or the PRC. There's definately potential for Russia to get involved...

And then what of the European nations?

For something slapped together like that? Nah.

In the case, of course, that it catches on. You know.

Russia's current economic interests lie in the west. Especially how they are using their energy sector to be the powerhouse of their economy. Therefore I believe that Russia would most likely either stay nuetral or side with the west in the manner you laid out.

The wild card would be the 'Stans and their oil and gas fields, as well as Russia's problems with Islamic radicals, which could tie in nicely with the Pakistan and Iran tie in. The Xianjang region presents a related wild card, with it's own independence movements, some of which have ties to al Qaida.

And then what of the European nations?

A very interesting question indeed. Suggestions?

The wild card would be the 'Stans and their oil and gas fields, as well as Russia's problems with Islamic radicals, which could tie in nicely with the Pakistan and Iran tie in. The Xianjang region presents a related wild card, with it's own independence movements, some of which have ties to al Qaida.

Any of the former Soviet "stans" would side with the west and or Russia. The reason being is their airfields that can be used to strike China and or any other bad actor in the region. With their dependency on energy as a export they will side with the majority of their export partners. Which is the west.

And then what of the European nations?

Not to be left out of a major conflict and it's spoils you would see some European nations join in.

Any of the former Soviet "stans" would side with the west and or Russia. The reason being is their airfields that can be used to strike China and or any other bad actor in the region. With their dependency on energy as a export they will side with the majority of their export partners. Which is the west.

China has been making deals with the 'stans and Iran for gas and oil. Plus there's plenty of potential for radical Islamic exploitation in the 'stans.

A very interesting question indeed. Suggestions?

Obviously, the UK, France, and Germany will align with the US without too much convincing. The Eastern bloc nations will only ally with Russia if their sovereignty is assured. The rest might align with the US, but they won't be as influential over the course of the war.

More interesting would be the response of Turkey and the Arabic nations, the latter possibly influencing Turkey's decision.

More interesting would be the response of Turkey and the Arabic nations, the latter possibly influencing Turkey's decision.


In my personal belief Turkey aligns itself with the west to much to be influenced a great deal by the Arabs. Afterall the Turks are not "Arabs" they do not speak the same language and the Arabs look at the Turks as different then them. Almost a similar situation with the Persians.

Why thank you. If someone wants to take that and run with it, writing a novel or a game, more power to them.

Well, there are a few writers on here. I'm a n00b as far as writing is concerned, having written only a hugely campy send-up of dubbed anime and American cartoons in general.

Well, there are a few writers on here. I'm a n00b as far as writing is concerned, having written only a hugely campy send-up of dubbed anime and American cartoons in general.

Weren't you the one who wrote about the guys who peeked on chicks and the "feminazi"?

Pakistan wouldn't side with China, they would side with the U.S, their biggest ally. The middle east would be split. Iran, Syria, Jordan on China's side. Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey on the U.S side. Western Europe, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland would be on the U.S side.

The rest of Eastern Europe would do whatever Russia says. Russia would be on the U.S side. China finds itself on the defensive with India attacking from the south west. Russia pouring in from the north and U.S forces in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan as well as those countries themselves would attack from the east. We would win the war fairly easily.

Install a democratic government and begin proceedings for an election. We leave, all over in 12 months, with China set back by 50 years in terms of becoming a superpower...in other words, everyone is happy.

Obviously, the UK, France, and Germany will align with the US without too much convincing. The Eastern bloc nations will only ally with Russia if their sovereignty is assured. The rest might align with the US, but they won't be as influential over the course of the war.

More interesting would be the response of Turkey and the Arabic nations, the latter possibly influencing Turkey's decision.

Eastern Europe has actually become more pro-US than Germany and France in recent years as well. Look at the Iraq war as a prime example. In addition the US is closing or scaling back many of its bases in Germany and moving to newer ones throughout Eastern Europe.

Obviously, the UK, France, and Germany will align with the US without too much convincing.

The UK will go with the US. Germany and France are question marks for me though.

The Eastern bloc nations will only ally with Russia if their sovereignty is assured. The rest might align with the US, but they won't be as influential over the course of the war.

That I can agree with.

More interesting would be the response of Turkey and the Arabic nations, the latter possibly influencing Turkey's decision.

Turkey certainly has an stake in the 'Stans. They sided with Pakistan in '65, but things have changed alot since then. Alot will depend on what happens to their EU application between now and then.

In my personal belief Turkey aligns itself with the west to much to be influenced a great deal by the Arabs. Afterall the Turks are not "Arabs" they do not speak the same language and the Arabs look at the Turks as different then them. Almost a similar situation with the Persians.

Indeed, indeed. The interesting things here are:
1) What happens with Iraq and the Kurds prior to this scenario?
2) As I mentioned above, what happens withy the EU?
3) The questions of Turkey's internal politics - especially the growing conflict between the Islamicists and the military.

Well, there are a few writers on here. I'm a n00b as far as writing is concerned, having written only a hugely campy send-up of dubbed anime and American cartoons in general.

Pakistan wouldn't side with China, they would side with the U.S, their biggest ally.

Very doubtful. For starters, the timeline of this scenario has the Indo-Sino conflict first. Pakistan is firmly in China's pocket against India, and has been for quite a long time. They aren't not going to get involved on the side of China.

Also, relations between the US, Pakistan, and India have been undergoing a major shift since the end of the Cold War. (Hint on the direction of that shift: Bush threatened to bomb Pakistan back into the stone age back in 2001.)

The middle east would be split. Iran, Syria, Jordan on China's side. Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey on the U.S side. Western Europe, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland would be on the U.S side.

Iran definately sides with China. Syria sides with Iran politically, but probably wouldn't get involved. Jordan and Saudi would most likely sit it out, and Israel would be on the alert for Iran's possibly using the US's distraction to take a pop at them, but otherwise not involved. Turkey's a wild card. Afghanistan's majorly on the US side and would love to get in a few against Pakistan. Iraq's a question mark because the outcome of the current situation there is so murky.

The rest of Eastern Europe would do whatever Russia says. Russia would be on the U.S side.

If, and that's a big if, the Russians get involved, yes.

China finds itself on the defensive with India attacking from the south west.

I expect more of the initial ground fighting will be between India and Pakistan, due to that border simply being a lot easier. India will most likely roll up the Pakistani forces.

The ground war between China and India will not likely go either way. The terrain where the fighting would take place is extremely mointainous. China has a positional advantage. However, I expect the air war to favor India, balancing China's positional advantage.

Russia pouring in from the north and U.S forces in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan as well as those countries themselves would attack from the east. We would win the war fairly easily.

Doubtful.

For Russia, they're a maybe involved, at best. The only way I can see them getting involved is if China can be linked to

US ground forces are unlikely to be present in large numbers. Much will depend on what happens in Iraq, especially if and when the US withdraws and how much time passes between the withdrawal from Iraq and the start of this scenario. If the US is in similar circumstances as it is now, with the majority of her ground forces committed to Iraq, there simply wouldn't be signifiucant forces available. Also, if US forces are still there, the Iran connection will need to be seen to. If the US is out, then it becomes a question of whether enough time has passed for the US to fix the damage that war has done to the ground forces.

Install a democratic government and begin proceedings for an election. We leave, all over in 12 months, with China set back by 50 years in terms of becoming a superpower...in other words, everyone is happy.

LOL

I've got to go get ready to go to work now, but when I get home, I'll see about putting up a more likely end game.

You realize, of course, that you may be an inspiration for people anywhere in the world with computer access, eh? :eek:

Which means that the PRC may avoid using it because they know it won't give them results they want?

NSG, circumventing World Wars one at a time. :p

The rest of Eastern Europe would do whatever Russia says. Russia would be on the U.S side. China finds itself on the defensive with India attacking from the south west. Russia pouring in from the north and U.S forces in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan as well as those countries themselves would attack from the east. We would win the war fairly easily.


Ehh...no. Mongolia was the only one that managed to successfully take China. And even then the Mongolian regents got subsumed into it than the other way round.


Install a democratic government and begin proceedings for an election. We leave, all over in 12 months, with China set back by 50 years in terms of becoming a superpower...in other words, everyone is happy.

Why do you people think democracy is a magic cure all band aid for government? Iraq and Afghanistan are certainly shining examples of its failures. And you think applying it to a nation with over a billion people would work? A nation that has a rich history of much infighting for hundreds of years as to deciding who gets to be the one top dog?

Are you delusional?

Why do you people think democracy is a magic cure all band aid for government? Iraq and Afghanistan are certainly shining examples of its failures. And you think applying it to a nation with over a billion people would work? A nation that has a rich history of much infighting for hundreds of years as to deciding who gets to be the one top dog?

Are you delusional?

The Chinese population is not happy with it's government. Over 30% of the PLA doesn't follow orders, including the troops based in China's capital, which is generally more patriotic then the rest of the country. China's young generation, people less then 30 years old are very upset with their country.

More and more Chinese are disallusioned with communism. The only thing keeping Communism in place is the army, which is also expieriencing low morale.

Think of this from an ordinary PLA soldier's point of view. Your government, that you haven't elected, has began taking over countries, you don't like it, you don't like the form of your government. Most of the world has turned against your country. And your country is getting attacked from 3 sides, democratic countries that will remove your government, and open the path for you to vote for a government of your own choice.

Most PLA soldier's don't follow orders now, let alone when the prospect of everything you want to happen to your country is within grasp, and all that has to happen is for you to lose the war.

And compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, China would be far more receptive to democracy, or at least the Chinese people would be.

The Chinese population is not happy with it's government.


And somehow, they'd be happy with a puppet dancing to Washington's tune? No.


Over 30% of the PLA doesn't follow orders, including the troops based in China's capital, which is generally more patriotic then the rest of the country. China's young generation, people less then 30 years old are very upset with their country.

Source?


More and more Chinese are disallusioned with communism. The only thing keeping Communism in place is the army, which is also expieriencing low morale.

It's communism in name only. It's rampant capitalism at this point of time. But they don't mind so much cause the money is circled internally, and revenue comes from imports US installed 'demock-crazy' with money bleeding out of the system, and don't you deny they won't try raping China of every cent they can, would result in open rebellion shortly thereafter.


Think of this from an ordinary PLA soldier's point of view. Your government, that you haven't elected, has began taking over countries, you don't like it, you don't like the form of your government.


Are YOU, an ordinary PLA soldier? I think not.

Besides, from the looks of things, while the average Iraqi didn't much like Saddam's post Gulf War I government, you can bet your last cent they liked it a hell lot better than what's going on now.


Most of the world has turned against your country. And your country is getting attacked from 3 sides, democratic countries that will remove your government, and open the path for you to vote for a government of your own choice.

Hahahhahahahahahaha. Vote for your own choice? Are you that naive?


Most PLA soldier's don't follow orders now, let alone when the prospect of everything you want to happen to your country is within grasp, and all that has to happen is for you to lose the war.

Please sir, can I have more source? :(


And compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, China would be far more receptive to democracy, or at least the Chinese people would be.

The people who currently want democracy in China are the least suited to actually ruling it in a practical manner. Any puppet you pick from China would be practically clueless about it. And given Washington's track record of puppet leaders, he'll be incompetent and utterly corrupt. Not to mention a dictator.

Pakistan wouldn't side with China, they would side with the U.S, their biggest ally. The middle east would be split. Iran, Syria, Jordan on China's side. Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey on the U.S side. Western Europe, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland would be on the U.S side.

The rest of Eastern Europe would do whatever Russia says. Russia would be on the U.S side. China finds itself on the defensive with India attacking from the south west. Russia pouring in from the north and U.S forces in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan as well as those countries themselves would attack from the east. We would win the war fairly easily.

Install a democratic government and begin proceedings for an election. We leave, all over in 12 months, with China set back by 50 years in terms of becoming a superpower...in other words, everyone is happy.

"The belief in the possibility of short, decisive war [is] the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions." -- Robert Lynd

While Pakistan would most likely find itself allied with the US, what of India? The situation becomes more complicated. India and Pakistan, short of a miraculous resolution of the Kashmir difficulty, would not likely be allied. Any war against China via these two nations would have to be conducted indirectly; the US would be a major supporter, but not a primary actor in the sense of US vs. China combat on the Asiatic mainland.

NATO could, conceivably, assume operational control of Kashmir. Placating Pakistan and India on these grounds is vital to ensuring any continued alliance between the two against China.

A relatively "clean" war against China, ignoring the complexities of a multipolar and globalized world, is not only ideal but conceivable.

But factor in the dynamics of economic agreements, political entanglements, and military pacts, then you have a China that can just as easily side with the US against an overzealous Russia, an India whose nuclear prospects bring into conflict with its similarly nuclear-armed northern neighbor, Pakistan, over a shattered Kashmir, a conflict that cannot be ignored; or even an exacerbation of Sino-Taiwanese relations which could expand into a US/Japan/China/Koreas war with Russia and India profiting from the combat sales.

We should draw a four dimensional grid to outline all the possible factors that will result in the next war.

Keep it away from Lunatic Golfballs.

Weren't you the one who wrote about the guys who peeked on chicks and the "feminazi"?

Yeah, and I regret it.

-snip-

At this point, I can only agree with NAS that you appear delusional.

"The belief in the possibility of short, decisive war [is] the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions." -- Robert Lynd

While Pakistan would most likely find itself allied with the US, what of India?

Allow me to restate:
Very doubtful. For starters, the timeline of this scenario has the Indo-Sino conflict first. Pakistan is firmly in China's pocket against India, and has been for quite a long time. They aren't not going to get involved on the side of China.

Also, relations between the US, Pakistan, and India have been undergoing a major shift since the end of the Cold War. (Hint on the direction of that shift: Bush threatened to bomb Pakistan back into the stone age back in 2001.)

The situation becomes more complicated. India and Pakistan, short of a miraculous resolution of the Kashmir difficulty, would not likely be allied.

Exactly so. Especially in light of the Sino-Pakistan alliance against India.

Any war against China via these two nations would have to be conducted indirectly;

Go back and read the scenario - it's Pakistan and China vs India, with the US drawn in later on the side of India.

the US would be a major supporter, but not a primary actor in the sense of US vs. China combat on the Asiatic mainland.

Indeed, for reasons I pointed out above, and more.

NATO could, conceivably, assume operational control of Kashmir.

Not really. Theyre's no president or compelling reason for it.

Placating Pakistan and India on these grounds is vital to ensuring any continued alliance between the two against China.

Again, the initial scenario is China and Pakistan vs India.

I've got to go get ready to go to work now, but when I get home, I'll see about putting up a more likely end game.

Here's how I expect the end game to play out:
The Sino-soviet portion of the war gets bogged down in mountain warfare, with India being unable to advance due to the PLA's positional advantage, and the PLA unable to advance due to India's air advantage.

The Indo-Pakistani portion of the war goes well in India's favor.

The US and whatever western allies it brings engage in a nice naval and air war against the PLAN and PLAAF.

I'll post a finale in the morning...

Far more likely (I've posted this before).

This is from a 1991 scenario by Sam Gardiner, one of the Pentagon's think tank experts.

Backdrop:
Both North Korea and Iran are rattling their sabers a little more than usual. Statements by both of their leaders are more pointed and more aggressive. Both nations at this point are either known or suspected of actually having a few nuclear weapons.

US intelligence receives information that several merchant ships are intended to arrive in US ports over the next week or so. The information is not reliable enough to convince European intelligence services that the threat is real. US intelligence believes that Iran is behind the merchant ship scheme, because the vessels did stop in an Iranian port, but were never in the Pacific at all.

The President orders ships to be searched as soon as they cross inside the 12-mile international limit.

One ship is caught and an actual nuclear device defused outside of the Port of Miami. In the process, however, the entire crew is killed, and although they appear not to be North Korean, they come from a variety of nations across the Middle East.

When a ship outside of Jacksonville is stopped, the special forces team aboard reports the presence of a nuclear weapon shortly before their signal goes off the air. A nuclear detonation has occurred with a yield of 100 kilotons, and a cloud of radioactive seawater is now headed towards Jacksonville.

Well, you can guess what happens next...

We should draw a four dimensional grid to outline all the possible factors that will result in the next war.

Keep it away from Lunatic Golfballs.

LOL!

Far more likely (I've posted this before).

This is from a 1991 scenario by Sam Gardiner, one of the Pentagon's think tank experts.

Backdrop:
Both North Korea and Iran are rattling their sabers a little more than usual. Statements by both of their leaders are more pointed and more aggressive. Both nations at this point are either known or suspected of actually having a few nuclear weapons.

US intelligence receives information that several merchant ships are intended to arrive in US ports over the next week or so. The information is not reliable enough to convince European intelligence services that the threat is real. US intelligence believes that Iran is behind the merchant ship scheme, because the vessels did stop in an Iranian port, but were never in the Pacific at all.

The President orders ships to be searched as soon as they cross inside the 12-mile international limit.

One ship is caught and an actual nuclear device defused outside of the Port of Miami. In the process, however, the entire crew is killed, and although they appear not to be North Korean, they come from a variety of nations across the Middle East.

When a ship outside of Jacksonville is stopped, the special forces team aboard reports the presence of a nuclear weapon shortly before their signal goes off the air. A nuclear detonation has occurred with a yield of 100 kilotons, and a cloud of radioactive seawater is now headed towards Jacksonville.

Well, you can guess what happens next...

The main factor missing there is motive...

In the scenario I gave, at least, the main players are acting on motives that should be obvious (the PRC retaining control of the TAR being the primary one).

The "DPRK/Iran randomly decide to carry out a nuclear attack" scenario is not at all realistic.

The main factor missing there is motive...

In the scenario I gave, at least, the main players are acting on motives that should be obvious (the PRC retaining control of the TAR being the primary one).

The "DPRK/Iran randomly decide to carry out a nuclear attack" scenario is not at all realistic.

I'm not giving a motive, but it's clearly in the interests of either, if provoked, to attack the US without a direct attack.

Making it a plausibly deniable attack (i.e., no Koreans or Iranians on board) is excellent, as the rest of the world will forbid the US from retaliating in any way unless the US can absolultely prove that either was behind the attack.

And, given the fact that no one trusts "intelligence sources", and waits instead for the bald-faced admission by the perpetrator, the US, if it acts, will act in spite of the international community.

I could see Iran doing this if we destroy their nuclear refinement facilities, or get a worldwide UN embargo in place.

Actually, I'm willing to bet that Syria invades Lebanon after July 15 of this year.

They've already warned all of their citizens to leave Lebanon (this week), and have some of their armored forces three kilometers inside the Lebanon border.

The UN observers, meanwhile, want to "bring this up" at their next meeting with the Syrians...

Why do you people think democracy is a magic cure all band aid for government? Iraq and Afghanistan are certainly shining examples of its failures. And you think applying it to a nation with over a billion people would work? A nation that has a rich history of much infighting for hundreds of years as to deciding who gets to be the one top dog?

Why does China have to be a unified nation in the first place? If it's too big for democracy to work, why not split it up? It's been divided before.

And, given the fact that no one trusts "intelligence sources", and waits instead for the bald-faced admission by the perpetrator, the US, if it acts, will act in spite of the international community.

That is exactly what will happen. If you think we're going to do nothing under the circumstances, you are dreaming.

Why does China have to be a unified nation in the first place? If it's too big for democracy to work, why not split it up? It's been divided before.

Because even when it was split up, the people identified themselves as of being from China, regardless of whose kingdom they were in. It was nothing more than a much scaled up inter clan warfare. Splitting them up into several fully separate nations and expecting it to work is delusional. Besides, when they were split up into 3 separate kingdoms, there was a lot of fighting to unify it under one banner.

And even then you still think democracy is some magic cure all band aid. You're just plain mule stubborn. Even in the face of glaring failures.

But then again, you're not even a Chinese I expect, and their outlook is inconceivable to you. The inevitable flaw of thinking everyone thinks like you.

Not that I expected anything different from a near fascist.

Why does China have to be a unified nation in the first place? If it's too big for democracy to work, why not split it up? It's been divided before.

True, however do you not think the current leadership would go for that kind of split? I would bet the wouldn't. It would have to be an outcome of a bloody civil war for that to occur in this day and age.

True, however do you not think the current leadership would go for that kind of split? I would bet the wouldn't. It would have to be an outcome of a bloody civil war for that to occur in this day and age.

Considering China's history of collapsing into chaos (especially when the government has lost "the mandate of heaven") and numerous rebellions in it's recent history (7 or 8 major ones in the last century and a half), combined with the huge problems that the current government is sweeping under the carpet or trying to outrun, another bloody civil war is not at all unimaginable.

That could well be a part of the end game here. I'll try and take a stab at it later today...