Are we seeing WWIII in the making?

[Riverwind (imported)]

Note that I started this thread here and not the political section.

Question

With the problems with Iran, the new leader in North Korea, unrest throughout the middle east with the Arab Spring, are we looking at the ground work for the next world war?

It seems to me that everybody is in a pissing contest and he who blinks first is going to be dead.

We have a dual American/Iran citizen that went to Iran to visit family arrested tried and commend to death as a spy.

We have Iran closing off the Strait of Hormuz and staging war games threatening to stop all oil in the strait.

We have a untested new leader of Korea who is ready to show his stuff.

Are we ready for all out WAR?

River

[humanbean (imported)]

it's possible Iran might eventually get around to building a couple nuclear missiles(i think suitcase nukes are more likely though) & i think they're unstable enough to actually try and use 'em one day. but, WW3 is gonna require a major nuclear power backing Iran. that means China and/or Russia and they don't have as much reason as they used to, to shove their dicks in THAT blender, anymore. some of the governments levelled or under threat by the arab spring were/are actually sorta U.S. friendly. with U.S. influence noticably undermined in the middle-east, why should Russia or China stick their necks out?

worst i see happening is Iran selling/giving nukes to terrorists. death toll of 6 or 7 digits, all told. nasty enuf, but NOT WW3.

[moi621 (imported)]

I'm afraid like Brer Rabbit and the first part of the briar patch story,

"closing the straits" type press hype empowers the idiots.

Best to maintain a quiet presence. "Hype" has been known to make wars.

Moi

And stop giving away secrets too, like cell phone tracking Osama

[Dave (imported)]

Iran can only threaten to close the Straits of Hormus. Every country in the world knows that.

If they sent their navy into the straits to create the blockade, the USA could sink the ships with a single missile to each boat. AND that would be the end of the Iranian Navy.

If they stationed guns atop the highlands on either side of the straits, we have drones that they can't see and those drones guide cruise missiles with lasers from some base in New Mexico or Nevada.

This would be a big defeat for Iran so they won't do it but they can saber rattle and scare some investors who have bladder-release problems and anal seepage at the first rumor of anything.

[fhunter]

Iran can only threaten to close the Straits of Hormus. Every country in the world knows that.

If they sent their navy into the straits to create the blockade, the USA could sink the ships with a single missile to each boat. AND that would be the end of the Iranian Navy.

If they stationed guns atop the highlands on either side of the straits, we have drones that they can't see and those drones guide cruise missiles with lasers from some base in New Mexico or Nevada.

This would be a big defeat for Iran so they won't do it but they can saber rattle and scare some investors who have bladder-release problems and anal seepage at the first rumor of anything.

As far as I remember, recently, Iran somehow captured one of the drones. They claimed, that they took control of the thing.

As for the Iranian Navy - by the open information, I see, that they have relatively small ships. If I was Iranian engineer, I'd suggest creating a fleet of decoys or really cheap ships.

How much missile launches (and lost drones) cost? Modern wars are mostly economic.

Oh, one more thing, where is USA with it's drones and missiles, when we were (and are) dealing with Somalia pirates?

I can definitely agree only with the last part of the post - it is about scaring and hype.

[Dave (imported)]

>>I Can't say much about the Somalia pirates but I did read this recently:

>>I think there's another article but I want to go to sleep tonight...

>>

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... th-science

By Neal Ungerleider

Fast Company

Piracy is a serious problem in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. While NATO, Russian, Iranian, and Chinese ships all escort merchant vessels through the Gulf of Aden, foreign militaries can't be everywhere at once. Ships traveling through dangerous waters often need to create their own improvised anti-pirate defenses ... and the market for these products is booming. A variety of arms contractors and boutique manufacturers are producing everything from “stinky water” walls to high-powered water cannons to deter murderous Somali pirates.

One firm, the International Maritime Security Network, markets an expensive defense package called the “Triton Shield Anti-Piracy System.” The integrated product, which includes everything from on-ship security guards to a specialized camera system, also creates a wall of very stinky water. Bloomberg's Julie Bykowicz uncovered an impenetrable wall of stinky, foul-smelling water that can be deployed by Triton against potential pirate skiffs. International Maritime Security's Ralph Pundt described the smell as that of “a skunk on steroids.”

Lasers can also be used to defend against pirates. Earlier this year, British defense contractor BAE Systems announced the successful deployment of its prototype anti-pirate laser. BAE's Laser Distraction system uses a special eye-safe laser that can either provide a visual warning to pirates at distances greater than two kilometers or temporarily disorient attackers at closer distances. Ships can either deploy the Later Distraction system semi-autonomously or have a crew member operate the product.

Meanwhile, fellow British manufacturer BCB International (which has been featured in Fast Company before for its miniature drones) markets an anti-pirate air cannon. The Buccaneer is a lightweight air cannon designed to fire and deploy a net around any small craft trying to board a ship. The cannon has a range of approximately 2,700 feet and fires proprietary projectiles that create a net in the water around the craft. Apart from net projectiles, the Buccaneer also fires high-powered smoke projectiles.

BCB International's Phillippe Minchin told Fast Company that “the use of lethal force should be selected as a ‘last resort,’ whereas non-lethal protective measures can help to create a ‘layered’ and proportional defense around a vulnerable vessel or offshore platform. BCB International’s Buccaneer launchers utilize compressed air to launch entanglement nets up to 60 meters, which are designed to foul oncoming skiffs’ props and therefore disable the attacker before they have a chance to attempt boarding. Usefully, the Buccaneer can also deploy payloads such as smoke cartridges out to 700 meters, which means that like the LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) system, it can create an effect on a target well before it comes into close proximity with the vessel.”

LRAD systems are frequently used by military and civilian craft to repel pirates. The sonic systems, often deployed by police and military forces at riots worldwide, create an unbearable wall of noise. In 2008, a British cruise ship successfully used LRAD to repel Somali pirates. LRAD is a proprietary product of the LRAD Corporation, who make a significant portion of their sales from commercial shipping.

Fast Company reported previously on the growing use of advanced technology by Somali pirates. Because pirates have begun using more sophisticated methods to trap shipping vessels — it's not unknown for savvy maritime criminals to track sea traffic via Internet postings — protective measures have changed.

However, according to one expert, the best security is the old-fashioned kind. Jay Bahadur, author of "The Pirates of Somalia," believes that armed guards are the most important anti-pirate defense. In an email, Bahadur told Fast Company that while “I think there have been some valid counter-piracy technologies developed by defense contractors — the proposed BAE "laser distraction system" comes to mind — but in the end, it comes down to what shipowners can afford. Commercial shipping is one of the most cutthroat industries in the world, and shipowners don't have the budgets to spend on space-age defenses. The recent drop-off in piracy has been due to the increased use of armed guards, not technological innovation, which in turn have been made economically feasible by skyrocketing ransoms and lengthening captivity periods. One insurance company issued a stat a few months back that 80 percent of pirate attacks were being repelled by armed guards, and no vessel employing them has been hijacked.”

Additional anti-pirate security devices are expected to be unveiled at the 2012 Transport Security Expo, which will be held in London this coming November.

[punkypink (imported)]

I don't think so. Those countries are small enough not to be able to dominate the world, so it is in their best interests not to end up in a war. Certainly any conflicts that do break out will be localised rather than global.

[Riverwind (imported)]

You all could be right however, I am not talking about rational people, I am talking about religious zealots who believe to the death in there cause.

River

[punkypink (imported)]

Well N.Korea's new leader is no religious zealot. Frankly, Iran's religious zealotry is far from "world-ending". The only zealots who believe enough in "death in their cause" are groups and individuals, who don't actually control a nation. Of the beligrant nations I can see even assuming their leaders are mad enough they simply do not have the might to wreck global warfare. For a world war to happen you'd need superpowers to fight and all the superpowers at this time I don't see any of them wanting to throw away what they enjoy, to end the world.

[MacTheWolf (imported)]

Hopefully, diplomacy will prevail as it did in October 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As I recall, we were on the brink of a nuclear war with the USSR then too. Fortunately, cooler heads such as Khrushchev and Kennedy agreed diplomacy was better than armageddon.