RSS
 

Archive for the ‘War and Conflict’ Category

Kurds At War: Turkey, Iraq, and Iran

22 Oct

The latest news on the Kurds’ fight for independence from and/or autonomy from Turkey threatens to drag the U.S. into a conflict (or at least an argument) that it neither wants nor needs right now. Though it may also prove the spark that sets the whole region aflame.

The Kurdish resistance forces fighting the Turkish government call themselves the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK), a group formed in the late 1970s which took up arms against the Ankara government in 1984.  The PKK has long enjoyed a safe haven in northern Iraq, which is home to the closest thing the Kurds have to an actual country.  The PKK recently killed a dozen Turkish soldiers in southeastern Turkey (aka Turkish Kurdistan), prompting the Turkish government to threaten an invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan in an attempt to root out the PKK bases there.  It should be noted that in recent weeks, Iran has been shelling the bases of its own Kurdish resistance movement, called Kurdish Party of Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK).  Those bases are also located in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The problem for the United States is that the Iraqi Kurds are America’s only real allies in Iraq, and they have set up a thriving enclave of freedom and relative prosperity for themselves in the post-Saddam era.  An era that is possible only due to the military and diplomatic protection offered by the United States.  Of course, if one looks at history, it is clear that the U.S actually owes the Kurds quite a bit for America’s past betrayals of the Iraqi Kurds. 

In the 1970s, the CIA, along with the Shah of Iran (pre-Islamic Republic, of course), supported the Kurds in their long struggle against Saddam’s tyranny; until it no longer remained in America’s or Iran’s best interest to support them. In 1975, Saddam and the Shah (two thoroughly undemocratic despots) struck a deal that settled some old border disputes between them, and the Shah and his CIA buddies quickly shut off the flow of arms to the Kurds, and denied them border bases from which to fight Baghdad.  Saddam then crushed the Kurds.  In the 1980s, Saddam was at war with the post-Shah Iran and the Kurds rose up once again in their struggle for freedom.  Saddam gassed them.  Since Iraq was temporarily America’s ally against Iran, not much was said in Washington about this act of genocide.  Then, in the ultimate act of hypocrisy, the first Bush Administration, which normally got things right in the foreign policy department, encouraged both the northern Kurds and the southern Shiites to rise up against Saddam, but then stood by while his elite and ruthless  Republican Guard, which largely escaped the thrashing by the Allies in Kuwait, crushed both revolts while America’s huge army in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia stood by and did nothing.

So, what does the history of Iraq’s brutality towards Iraqi Kurds and America’s continual betrayal have to do with Turkey’s movements along the border with Iraqi Kurdistan?  Consider that Turkey is a long-time American ally, as are the Iraqi Kurds.  A war between them will greatly damage America’s interests in the region, endanger American forces, and serve as a huge failure of American diplomacy in the region.  And, if the U.S. stands by and lets Turkey attack across the border, what justification will the Bush Administration have if Iran decides to do the same thing to punish PEJAK?

Now, those who are of a mind to think of conspiracies, it is possible that this scenario is exactly what President Bush (or more likely, Vice-President Cheney) have in mind to occur.  Regardless of the hypocrisy of allowing one attack (by the Turks), and then responding militarily to another attack (by Iran), such a cross-border incursion by Tehran, even in a "legal" hot-pursuit situation, could provide the casus belli that some in Washington seek in order to attack Iran and end the embryonic nuclear threat posed by the Islamic Fascists in Tehran.

The Kurds, who are the world’s largest ethnic group without a country to call their own, are once again caught in the cross-fire of Middle East politics, and the confused dynamics of American foreign policy.

Links of Interest:

Who are the PKK?–National Public Radio, Oct. 22, 2007

Kurdish Secessionism Looms Over the Middle East–Robert Lindsay: Independent Left Journalist From California,May 11, 2006

Iranians shell anti-Iranian Kurdish PEJAK guerrillas in Iraqi Kurdistan–Kurd Net, May 23, 2007 

 
No Comments

Posted in Current Affairs, History, Mideast Wars, War and Conflict, Wars, Wars in Iraq

 

Is An Iran War Brewing?

19 Oct

Recent events in the Middle East and elsewhere raise the question, not of if, but when, a U.S.-led war on Iran will begin.

Some points to ponder:

         1.  Turkey (an Iran neighbor) is threatening to attack Kurdish rebel (PKK) bases in northern Iraq (also an Iran neighbor).

         2.  Iran has recently been shelling Kurdish rebel (PEJAK) bases in northern Iraq.

         3.  Recent war fears related to the Turkey/Kurd conflict pushed oil prices past the $90 a barrel mark.

         4.  Evidence mounts that Vice-President Dick Cheney is urging President Bush to launch a war on Iran prior to Jan. 20, 2008, when they both must leave office to make way for the new president.  Most likely such an attack on Iran will take place after the election, so as to not affect the Republican nominee’s chances of winning.  See Rolling Stone Magazine’s recent article.

         5.  Some conspiracy theorists contend that the recent revelation of an unauthorized  nuclear-armed B-52 flight across the United States was not truly some kind of incredible error or once-in-a-lifetime chain of events leading to a huge mistake, but a part of some conspiracy or cover-up.  One theory is that the nuclear-tipped cruise missiles were intended for the Middle East and for targets in Iran, and that the flight to Louisiana was some sort of quiet "rebellion" in the ranks of the Air Force.  See Znet,  Atlantic Free Press

          6.  Israel’s recent air strike on Syria looks more and more like an Osirak-style raid to stop an Arab nation from acquiring nuclear weapons.  The New York Times and ABC News report that the target in Syria was a nuclear facility being built with North Korean aid.

          7.  Iran and Russia are getting cozy, and Russia is Iran’s main supplier of weapons.  The Bush administration may be tempted to attack Iran soon, before the Moscow-Tehran relationship turns into a real alliance. 

The world is at a vital turning point.  A U.S. attack on Iran could have serious consequences for the entire world.  These recent events show that strange things are occurring and the world public is left wondering.  We shall see what the future holds…

         

 
No Comments

Posted in Arab-Israeli Wars, Current Affairs, Israel, Mideast Wars, War and Conflict

 

Myanmar-Burma Wars and Conflicts

29 Sep

The South East Asian nation of Myanmar (also known as Burma), has a long history as an independent nation, punctuated by over sixty years of conquest and occupation as a colonial possession of the expansionist British Empire. Burma was seized by the Japanese in World War Two, and became a major battleground as British, Indian, American, and Chinese forces battled against the Japanese. Three year after the defeat of Japan, Burma once again became an independent nation, but almost immediately plunged into civil war, as Karen ethnic group rebelled and a Communist uprising nearly toppled the new government. The civil war began in 1948, and has continued with varying degrees of intensity ever since. In 1988, a pro-democracy movement was crushed violently by the military dictatorship, which also renamed the nation "Myanmar." In late 2007, a new, so-far peaceful anti-government uprising led by Buddhist monks has been met with violence from government security forces.

It should be noted that the current involvement of the Buddhist monks in the 2007 protests harkens back to the long-running resistance to the British conquest and occupation of Burma in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Many of the protests against British rule were led by Buddhist monks, so the current monk-led protests are part of a tradition of Burmese/Myanmar popular action to unpopular and repressive regimes.

Below is a listing of the wars and conflicts of Burma and Myanmar since the first war with the British Empire in the early 1800s.

First Anglo-Burmese War (1824–1826)

Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852)

Third Anglo-Burmese War (1885)

Burmese Resistance to British Conquest (1885-1889)

Second World War: Burma Campaign (1942-1945)

Burmese Civil War (1948-Present)–Long and complex civil war involving several different uprisings and rebellions against the Burmese government. This long-running war includes government warfare against the Karen, Kachin, Shan and other ethnic groups, Communist rebels, and pro-democracy protestors and rebels (these last two in 1988 and 2007).

Chinese KMT Invasion (1950)–Refugee Nationalist (Koumintang, or KMT) Chinese soldiers retreated across the Chinese-Burma border to escape the advancing Chinese Communist armies of Mao Tse-Tung.

Sino-Burma Border War (1956)

 
No Comments

Posted in Burma, Current Affairs, History, Myanmar, War and Conflict, Wars

 

New Web Page on Burma-Myanmar Wars and Conflicts

29 Sep

A new web page uploaded to the Historyguy.com website today dealing with Burma/Myanmar. 

Wars and Conflicts of Burma/Myanmar –The Wars and Conflicts of Burma/Myanmar from the Anglo-Burmese Wars to the pro-democracy Myanmar uprising of 2007.

http://www.historyguy.com/wars_of_burma_myanmar.htm

 
No Comments

Posted in Burma, Current Affairs, History, Myanmar, War and Conflict

 

Stormfront: The Consequences of September 11 and America’s Wars Around the World

11 Sep

So, what are the real consequences of September 11, 2001 on how America wages war around the world?  That would seem to be an stupid question with an obvious answer:  The U.S. invaded Afghanistan to retaliate against al-Qaida and its Taliban allies, and later invaded Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction and initiating a nuclear (or biological/chemical) 9/11.  (Those are the "official" versions of the reasons, by the way).

What many do not realize, largely because the mainstream media ignores or downplays them, is that the United States (and its allies) have been very, very active militarily around the world since the terrorist attacks of September 11 in their efforts to combat radical Islamic militants.

One of the first publicly acknowledged military efforts (after Afghanistan), was the deployment of U.S. Special Forces troops to the Philippines to aid the government there against the Abu Sayyaf rebels in the largely Muslim southern islands.

Another area the U.S. intervened in was the ongoing struggle in Yemen, an Arab country to the south of Saudi Arabia.  There, some of the tribes in the countryside who traditionally cause trouble for the central government, began working with al-Qaida.  This resulted in the U.S. providing aid to the Yemeni government and occasionally popping fugitive al-Qaida terrorists with Hellfire missiles fired from Predator drone aircraft.

Those Predator drones, by the way, are based in tiny Djibouti, a former French colony across the Mandab Straits from Yemen.  American Special Forces, (and, one would assume, Central Intelligence Agency officers), are based as a quick-reaction force for the entire Horn of Africa region.  A more recent, and so far tactically successful intervention, was American aid for the Ethiopian invasion/intervention against Islamist forces in Somalia in December of 2006. U.S. Special Forces traveled with the Ethiopian Army, and the U.S. military launched air and missile attacks on suspected Somali Islamists and al-Qaida fugitives.

American Special Forces also have aided allied nations in improving their defenses, including the Republic of Georgia (formerly an oppressed region of the late, unlamented Soviet Union), who have their own issues as a neighbor of Russia and the rebellious Muslim Russian region of Chechnya.

During last summer’s war in the Mid-East between Israel and Hezbollah, the U.S. re-supplied the Israeli military with ammunition and other materiel to aid the Israelis in their fight against the Islamic militant army.

The U.S. has also given significant material aid to Lebanon in its recent fight against al-Qaida allies in northern Lebanon.

Al-Qaida of course, has not been idle, as bin Laden’s organization maintains insurgencies against U.S. allies in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Thailand, Algeria, Egypt, Libya (yes, the U.S. and Libya kissed and made up, largely because Kaddafy saw the ease with which American forces seized Baghdad), Ethiopia, and is active in undermining government authority in other nations. 

Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida declared war on America in 1996, and few Americans paid him any attention.  He attacked us in 1998, with the African Embassy bombings, and again in 2000, with an attack on the USS Cole.  The assault on 9/11/2001 finally snapped America out of its comfortable sense of security, and the United States launched its Global War on Terror.  Does anyone doubt that this is truly a "World War?"

We will come back to this theme in the future…

 
1 Comment

Posted in Afghanistan War, Arab-Israeli Wars, Current Affairs, History, Mideast Wars, September 11 2001, War and Conflict, Wars, Wars in Iraq

 

The Calm Before The Storm: The World of September 10, 2001

10 Sep

Here it is; the eve of another 9/11 anniversary.  I no longer bother watching the politicians give speeches at Ground Zero, the Pentagon, or in Pennsylvania.  Six years on now, and I look at a changed world.

Prior to September 11, 2001, few Americans, even those who watched the news regularly or read the newspapers would could have told you anything about Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, or the Taliban if asked.  Never mind that bin Laden had declared war on the U.S. back in 1996, and then followed up with attacks against American Embassies in Africa in 1998 and an attack on the USS Cole in 2000; Americans, as a whole, had no idea what was about to hit us.

In the world of September 10, 2001, America’s (and President Bush’s) primary international fear was China.  A recent collision between American and Chinese military planes had caused a ripple of concern for relations between the two powers.  American students generally cared little for the outside world.  The Middle East was known primarily as the place a lot of oil came from, and the location of Saddam Hussein.  By the way, it is generally forgotten that the U.S. and the U.K. were actively conducting aerial warfare against Iraq, and protecting/occupying a large swath of northern Iraq inhabited by the long-oppressed Kurds.

And then there was Afghanistan.  A country largely ignored by America and the non-Islamic world after the big, bad Soviets ended their war against Islamic Jihadists.  Bin Laden was a part of that Islamic resistance movement, but few Americans outside of the CIA and a few history/military affairs geeks among the civilian population bothered to remember that bin Laden (like Saddam in another war), was once on the side that was shooting at our avowed enemies.  Did that make them our friends?  No, just useful tools to fight and weaken our opponents of the moment.

So what does all this talk of the world as it stood on the day before al-Qaida attacked America really mean?  Only that history often turns on events that have links and connections to related, yet often largely unknown events, movements, and people.

Should Americans have seen bin Laden as a vital threat?  Obviously yes, we should have seen him as the threat he proved himself to be.  Are we any different now?  Has America learned its lesson yet? 

Of course not!  Ask any high school or college history teacher in the U.S.  Americans as a whole do not pay much attention to history (unless presented on the History Channel and features lots of explosions and maybe a glimpse or two of Hitler), and that is an ongoing problem.  How many Americans can answer this question?

Has the U.S. and China ever fought a war against each other?  And if so, can you name the wars?  Can you, Dear Reader of this Blog, answer that question without googling it?

This is not an idle question, because one of the more obvious results of the 9/11 attacks and America’s response has been the now four-year-old War in Iraq.  The current war is often compared and contrasted with the American war in Vietnam.  Is it accurate to compare them?  What are the consequences of America’s collective lack of knowledge of the world and its history?  Middle East Muslims remember and talk about the medieval Crusades like they happened last year.  Most Americans could not even explain what the Crusades were about.  Those questions are best addressed in a blog post for another day.  

The next History Guy Blog post will actually be about 9/11 and what has so far resulted from that horrible day.  Stay tuned!

 
No Comments

Posted in Afghanistan War, Current Affairs, History, Mideast Wars, Religion, September 11 2001, War and Conflict, Wars

 

Mideast War Fears: Israel versus Syria Again?

14 Aug

As the summer of 2007 wears on, talk of yet another Arab-Israeli War stirs concerns for the region’s stability.  Israel and Syria have fought four major wars against each other since 1948, along with numerous border clashes and airstrikes.  Israelis (and the U.S. government) consider much of Israel’s warfare in Lebanon against the Palestinians and Hezbollah over the past 30 plus years to have been proxy warfare sponsored by the Syrian Baathist regime in Damascus.  Add to the mix the fact that many of the foreign Islamist militants engaged against American and Coalition forces in Iraq receive some sort of assistance and safe harbor in Syria.

One year ago this summer, Israel fought a fruitless war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Syria, and Syria’s wealthy ally, Iran, supported Hezbollah in that war, and it is believed that elements of the Syrian government are attempting to push their nation into war with Israel.

A little background will help here:

In 1948, Israel declared independence, becoming the world’s only Jewish state in the territory formally known as the British Mandate in Palestine.  The Arabs living in Palestine (who are now known as Palestinians), did not like the idea of living in a Jewish nation, and the Arab nations surrounding Israel/Palestine also disliked the idea of Jews having their own country in land they considered Arab territory.  Thus, in May of 1948, (only three years to the month after the end of the Nazi genocide of Jews called the Holocaust), six Arab nations invaded the new-born state of Israel.  Syria was one of those invaders.  When the war reached an end (a truce took hold, really), the Syrians returned across their own border.  Though the two nations did not fight a major war against each other for another 19 years, many border clashes took place. (see Arab-Israeli Border Wars and Incidents) 

Then, in 1967, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt (with aid and approval from the Soviet Union), planned an attack on Israel.  On June 6, 1967, Israel struck first, devastating the military power of all three Arab neighbors, as well as decimating the Iraq Air Force on the ground.  Out of this quick Six-Day War, Israel seized the Golan Heights, a plateau that overlooked lower ground in neighboring Israel.  The Israelis decided to keep the Golan Heights to prevent the Syrian military from using it as a base for further attacks on Israel.  This has been a point of contention between the hostile neighbors ever since, as Syria wants its territory back, and Israel continues to distrust the dictatorship in Damascus.

The last major clash between Israel and Syria came in 1982, when Israeli forces invaded Lebanon, intending to destroy the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) of Yassir Arafat.  Syria at the time, had tens of thousands of troops and large numbers of anti-aircraft missile batteries in Lebanon, part of a force that had intervened in the long Lebanese Civil War.  As Israeli forces advanced into Lebanon, tank battles between the American-made Israeli tanks and the Soviet-made Syrian tanks ensued, with the Syrians taking heavy losses.  Syria also lost one hundred warplanes over the skies of Lebanon in a large air battle with the Israeli Air Force.  The Israelis also wiped out many Syrian anti-aircraft batteries. 

For the remainder of Israel’s Lebanon War (which ended with an Israeli pullout in 2000), and also during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War, Syria contented itself with supporting Israel’s Lebanese foes, rather than engaging in open combat.

By the summer of 2007, Israeli forces were working feverishly to upgrade their abilities in light of a poor showing in the 2006 war, while at the same time, Syria’s military was rearming with new Russian-made weapons.  There are those who believe that General Asef Shawkat, the head of Syrian Intelligence, and the brother-in-law of Syrian President Bashar Assad, is pushing for a war with Israel.

A new Arab-Israeli War would be problematic, not in the least because there is no guarantee that Israel and its military would win, or even put in a decent showing.  Israel’s poor performance in the Second Lebanon War of 2006, and the relative weakness and military naivete of Israeli Prime Minister Olmert may embolden some in Syria’s government that Syria might be able to force Israel to give up the Golan through force.  Few believe that Israel could be pushed off the Heights, but a good showing by Syria, especially if they can inflict heavy casualties on Israel, may force Jerusalem to the bargaining table.  After all, Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat launched the 1973 October War (alongside Syria), and did end up negotiating a return of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula from Israel.  It is not inconceivable that Assad may be thinking along those same lines.  Also, Israel can look at history as well, and see that an attack may be coming (or think that an attack is coming) and launch a pre-emptive strike ala 1967. 

And how many thousands will die, be maimed, be made homeless if war does come?  Only God (whether you call him Jehovah, Christ, or Allah), knows for sure. 

Syrian general mulling war with Israel–YNetnews.com, Aug. 14, 2007

War Clouds over the Golan –By P. David Hornik, FrontPageMagazine.com Aug. 15, 2007

Israel and Syria seek to calm war fears–Haaretz.com, Aug. 14, 2007

Israel eyes Syria’s growing military–United Press International, Aug. 13, 2007 

 
1 Comment

Posted in Arab-Israeli Wars, Current Affairs, History, Israel, Mideast Wars, War and Conflict, Wars

 

Passing the Buck, and Hurting the War Effort

30 Apr

You have to look carefully in the newspapers to see it.  An enigmatic
title that evokes memories of the "Drug Czar" position from
administrations past.  The new phrase is "War Czar," and the first I
saw it, the news stories were saying that the Bush Administration was
having trouble finding anyone who would take the job.

So, what
is a "War Czar" to do, if one is ever found?  As envisioned by Stephen
Hadley, the National Security Adviser, the person who takes this job
will be responsible for briefing the president every day regarding the
ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  This person would also have the
authority to tell the various members of the president’s Cabinet what
to do. 

The problem is, no one seems to want the job.  At
least three retired 4-star generals have turned down the offer of a job
managing the wars.  Comments have been made that Hadley, the National
Security Director, is farming out an important part of his job,
possibly to pass any failures of policy off to the new person.  Maybe.
Other comments criticize the president for farming out HIS job.
Maybe.  As I see it, the biggest failure (among the individuals
involved), is that of the retired military officers who turned the job
down. 

Retired or not, they made a career of serving their
nation, and now, when their Commander-in-Chief calls on them to help
direct the wars against our enemies, the wars in which our servicemen
and women are dying almost daily, the wars which, if we fail, could
expand into more dangerous regional conflicts, they just said "no
thanks."
I think those generals have turned their backs on their
country.  It is true that the president has not done a good job of
inducing a sense of national sacrifice or ownership of the wars, as FDR
did in World War Two, but these generals should know better. 

If
they cannot stand up and show the nation what is needed to win these
wars, (because the president sure can’t do that), then who will?  Would
Patton, or Eisenhower, or Marshall, or Bradley, or MacArthur turn down
a similar request from their president?  Hell no!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/washington/30hadley.html

 
No Comments

Posted in Current Affairs, Federal Politics, War and Conflict

 

A Comparison of Dutch and American Counter-Insurgency Methods

15 Apr

A recent article in the New York Times highlights some of the problems
the Allies face in dealing with the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/world/asia/06afghan.html

The Dutch regular army troops take a very different approach to
pacification than the Americans, British, Canadians, and other allies.
The Dutch focus more on making personal contact with the locals,
cultivating relationships, and, most unusual of all for combat troops,
they avoid combat with the enemy. 

Many of history’s best counter-insurgency campaigns focused a great
deal of energy, time, and resources, on denying the enemy forces the
use, cover, and allegiances of the local population.  Some, campaigns,
such as the British concentration camps for the Boer civilian
population and the Spanish attempt to squelch the Cuban Revolution in
the 1890s, used barbaric methods to achieve their aims.  (The British
won, the Spanish managed to tick off the Americans so much that the
U.S. intervened).  The Dutch method goes to the other end of the
spectrum to an extreme.  Be friendly, polite, build schools and roads,
and don’t kill anyone.  Even if they shoot at you.

Back in the 1990s, the Dutch participated in an Allied attempt to
protect Bosnian Serbs (http://www.historyguy.com/balkan_war_third.htm)
at a place called Srebernica.  The Dutch soldiers avoided combat, and
allowed the Serbs to slaughter 8,000 Bosnian men and boys.  If I were
an Afghan civilian making nice with the Allies in this war, and I have
to depend on the Dutch Boys from the Gandhi School of Pacification to
save my life from the Taliban or al-Qaida, I’d better have my funeral
plot picked out in advance. 

In all the talk of the "Surge" of American troops into Baghdad, one
facet of that increase of soldiers is that they are now supposed to be
actively patrolling neighborhoods and making face-to-face contact with
local civilians.  In this sense the American strategy in Iraq is
similar to the Dutch ploy in Afghanistan.  The comparison ends here
though, since we all know that the U.S. troops are going to defend
themselves and shoot back.

 
No Comments

Posted in Current Affairs, War and Conflict

 

Nuclear War is Bad for the Environment…

15 Apr

 

 

 

Nuclear War is Bad for the
Environment…

 

…and for humans, dogs, cats,
cows, and just about everything else. Though it could end up solving global warming, at least for a
while. Seriously though, several recent
news stories point out the increasing dangers associated with the nearly
unchecked proliferation of nuclear weapons in an increasingly unstable
world. 

 

What exactly are the possible
scenarios for small-scale regional nuclear conflicts? Those are exactly the type of wars that the
scientists at the American Geophysical Union’s annual
meeting in

San Francisco


warned about.

Even a
Small Nuclear War Could Change the World: New Study Shows Distant and Minor
Nuclear Blasts Could Cause a Global ‘Nuclear Winter’—ABC News Dec. 12, 2006

 

Megacities, global warming
make nuclear war even more dangerous—By Michael
Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com, Dec. 11, 2006Now that
civilization has moved to cities, we are easier bombing targets, say experts.

 

 

The War and
Conflict Journal sees several realistic scenarios that could occur within the
next few years.

 

Scenario 1: Nuclear

North Korea


rolls the dice and makes a go at taking over

South Korea

. The President of South Korea does not appear
too worried though. He says that despite
the North’s nuclear weaponry, the South would still prevail. Is the man a fool, or has

South Korea


have a nuclear ace up its sleeve?

Roh says nuclear North
Korea no match in warfare to the South

 

Scenario 2: 

Iran

and

Israel

duke it out with nukes. Iran’s President is famous for periodically
threatening to wipe Israel off of the map, but Israel’s Prime Minister recently
all but admitted that Israel has nuclear weapons (a well-known fact, but Israel
consistently has not admitted such). These two nations could easily wipe out the entire Middle East and its
oil supplies (once

Iran


creates those weapons).

ISRAEL NUKE
COMMENT SPARKS CONTROVERSY

History Guy: Israel-Lebanon/Hezbollah War (2006)

 

 

Scenario 3: The

U.S.

(with or
without allies), tries to take out

Iran

’s nuclear processing
facilities. To take out the hardened
underground sites, the

U.S.


may resort to “mini-nukes,” or nuclear “bunker-busting” weapons. Messy.

Attack
on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War

History Guy: Iran-U.S. Hostage Crisis (1979-1981)

 

 

 

Scenario 4: 

India

and

Pakistan

, who each possess at least
50 nuclear weapons, fight another war and go nuclear. The two old enemies have been talking peace
lately, but with an active Islamist insurgency in Indian-ruled

Kashmir

, and very important elements of the Pakistani
military and security forces backing the insurgency, the possibility of a
future war that could go nuclear is ever present.

India’s
Strategic Environment and the Role of Military Power—Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, August 22, 2006

 

History Guy: Wars of India

History Guy:
Indo-Pakistani Wars

 

 

 Scenario 4.1: A coup topples
President Mushareff of

Pakistan


and the new government is openly pro-Taliban, pro-al-Qaida, and calls for holy
war to free Kashmir from

India

. The

U.S.

,

Britain

, and

India

decide to take out

Pakistan

’s
nuclear capability. 

U.S.

and British
special forces try to seize the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, but miss a few,
while the Indian military surges across the border to end the “Pakistani
problem” once and for all. Use your
imagination on how a pro-Taliban Pakistani government would react to such an
attack… NOTE: There supposedly WAS such an Anglo-American plan to seize

Pakistan

’s
nukes right after 9/11 when it was not clear which way Mushareff would go when
told to choose between continuing his support of the Taliban and aligning with the
West.

U.S.
Worries about Pakistan Nuclear Arms—

Washington


Post, Nov. 4, 2001

Bombing Pakistan Back
to the Stone Age by Eric
Margolis

 

 Scenario 4.2: 

India


and

China


re-fight their 1962 border war, except this time they both have nukes. Even though they have been talking nicely to
each other lately,

India

has
made no secret of its concern that

China

’s
recent military expansion is up to three times a large as publicly acknowledged
by

Beijing

.

 

Other scenarios
exist of course, but in terms of the most likely wars between nations, these
are the most likely. And you thought the
end of the Cold War made the world a safer place, didn’t you?

 
No Comments

Posted in Current Affairs, War and Conflict

 
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »