war question

[cellio]

A possibly-morbid thought experiment for a Friday afternoon:


Ok, suppose for the sake of argument that we were headed toward what historians will later label World War III -- US at war with Iraq and North Korea, much of the Arab world at war with Israel, Pakistan/India heating up even more, NATO divided, China perhaps taking the opportunity to go after Taiwan, terrorism abounding, serious consideration of nukes, etc etc. (Yes, I realize that not all events in this list are linked, but enough of them are that some subset of this could set off the rest, I would think.) So the question: at what point in time would the general consensus be that this is the case? When, for example, during the 1930s/1940s did the public (in the affected locations) generally realize that the events they were seeing were much, much bigger than a conventional war of limited scope? And how long before then did people who expressed such ideas get dismissed as paranoid?

(It's a thought experiment; do not read into this presumptions of my opinions of current affairs.)

Comments

total war

[buoren.livejournal.com]

I'm rather fascinated by this sort of subject (from a purely historical standpoint), since from certain sources, one could draw the conclusion that Japan could have swung either way, in being an ally of the United States, or an ally of Germany. Regardless of which way it swung, however, their war started with the Nanking Incident, or the Rape of Nanking, depending on point of view, in 1937. As far as the Japanese were concerned, way before they bombed Pearl Harbor, the United States had already entered the war, by imposing an oil and machined parts embargo on Japan, after seeming to agree to some basic concepts (which came out of total cultural misunderstandings on both parties).

I think that once there are multiple countries on a particular side, and a vague sense of "balance" between them, it could be considered a World War. If the U.S.-U.S.S.R. cold war ever heated up, it would most definitely be a World War, since many many smaller countries would be dragged into the conflict, regardless of their actual contribution.

Here's a scenario for you:

U.S. attacks Iraq. The governments of the Arab states who have shown support of the U.S. fall, and are replaced by regimes which are significantly more sympathetic. NATO splits, as the Germans and French sit this one out. North Korea demands that South Korea accept a proposal of reunification that vaguely resembles one country-two systems, backed by nuclear weapons. The U.S. decides to sit this one out. South Korea breaks ties with the U.S. Japan restarts its nuclear program. China decides to resolve its "internal matter" of Taiwan, and the U.S., under congressional pressure, reaffirms protection of Taiwan.

By this point we might be able to call it World War III. We have a set of Arab powers plus China, who are fighting off what they perceive as Western Imperialism.

We have, as core players, on one side:
China
Korea
Pakistan (after revolt)
Arabia (after revolt)
Jordan
Syria
Lebanon
Egypt (after revolt)
Iraq
Iran

On the other:
U.S./Canada/Australia/Britain
Japan
(what's left of) Taiwan
Israel
India


If you look at the two sides, that's a lot of people that're going to have to die before one side either wins, or both sides come to their senses. And regardless of the results, if the U.S.-Iraq war expands to include other Arab nations and a breakdown of the United Nations/NATO situation, then we could see the proliferation of at least a handful of new nuclear states. The Japanese were very very close to having a nuclear weapon when we nuked them, and presumably could develop them rather quickly; Taiwan would be able to produce one within a year if it could get all the parts. North Korea and Pakistan already have them, and supposedly Iran would be able to create the technology without too much difficulty.

Hm. Not a pretty picture.

Re: total war

[rectangularcat]

Canada to wait before deciding about Iraq

I would not put Canada in the USA/Australia/Britain camp. Far from that, there as been a lot of backlash here about the war on wherever since the US "forgot" to mention Canada in his State of the union speech last year (when he was thanking those countries which helped in the after math of 9/11.. we only let a whole bunch of planes land here) and then when the US bombed one of our training exercises in Afghanistan and killed 4 of our soldiers (the last casualties we have incurred on a mission was during the Korean War).

Here is a quote from our prime minister that offer to support this "You know, you cannot exercise your powers to the point that of humiliation for the others. And that is what the Western world, not only the Americans, the Western world has to realize, because they are human beings too, and there are long-term consequences if you don't look hard at the reality in 10 or 20 or 30 years from now. And I do think that the Western world is going to be too rich in relation to the poor world. And necessarily, you know, we look upon us being arrogant, self-satisfying, greedy and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize that it's even more." Chrétien interview on Sept. 11


I don't know how much that point of view impacted the other members of the G8, but it sure made me proud to be Canadian that day.