Conquer Club

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:30 am**

And no, I don't mean a date for WW3, I mean a date for WW3.........oh whatever, just name a date when you think WW3 will happen (not looking forward to it btw). If I knew how to request these damn polls I'd do that but I don't possess this secret knowledge so I can forget about classy stuff like that.

My guess is 2054, beware of Russia mtfs!

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:55 am**

my guess:
I think the next big war might start within 10 years. It is predicted that around 2020 food production will peak and mass starvations should be expected. The countries which will be most affected are asia and the middle-east.

Anyway as seen in the middle east, once there are food shortages, people start to riot and rebel. This may cause massive numbers of civil wars all over the globe. But the biggest problem is how China has been dealing with these kinds of troubles. The chinese have already been directing the people's anger towards it's neighbours by highlighting territorial disputes. I think this may end up in China trying to invade south-east asia, which is one of China's primary sources of food(South-east asia has many rice fields).

With many of those countries having a mutual protection pact with the USA, this may end in catastrophe. And the fact that america is quite Keynesian, they might see this as similar to WWII. Mainstream economists think it was WWII which ended the great depression, so with this in mind american politicians might be very willing to go to war.

Another possibility would be the USA going bankrupt and withdrawing it's overseas presence. The USA is already starting to focus on it's domestic mining and oil/gas production. This means america will become less dependent on the rest of the world and less interested in the rest of the world. And, even though I'm against american interventionism, I have to admit that in some parts of the world the USA is the only one standing between peace and war.

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:09 am**

Tomorrow.

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:44 am**

waauw wrote:my guess:
I think the next big war might start within 10 years. It is predicted that around 2020 food production will peak and mass starvations should be expected. The countries which will be most affected are asia and the middle-east.

Anyway as seen in the middle east, once there are food shortages, people start to riot and rebel. This may cause massive numbers of civil wars all over the globe. But the biggest problem is how China has been dealing with these kinds of troubles. The chinese have already been directing the people's anger towards it's neighbours by highlighting territorial disputes. I think this may end up in China trying to invade south-east asia, which is one of China's primary sources of food(South-east asia has many rice fields).

With many of those countries having a mutual protection pact with the USA, this may end in catastrophe. And the fact that america is quite Keynesian, they might see this as similar to WWII. Mainstream economists think it was WWII which ended the great depression, so with this in mind american politicians might be very willing to go to war.

Another possibility would be the USA going bankrupt and withdrawing it's overseas presence. The USA is already starting to focus on it's domestic mining and oil/gas production. This means america will become less dependent on the rest of the world and less interested in the rest of the world. And, even though I'm against american interventionism, I have to admit that in some parts of the world the USA is the only one standing between peace and war.

When was the last time USA stopped a war from happening? History will tell you that wherever USA goes, they bring a war with them!

BigBallinStalin wrote:Tomorrow.

Planning something major are you? I'm calling the FBI!

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:25 pm**

Gillipig wrote:When was the last time USA stopped a war from happening? History will tell you that wherever USA goes, they bring a war with them!

not entirely true. it would be more accurate to say where there's the start of a war the US sticks its nose in, or if there's already a war in progress we jump in.

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 3:58 pm**

Gillipig wrote:When was the last time USA stopped a war from happening? History will tell you that wherever USA goes, they bring a war with them!

You do realize that the USA is the only thing what stands between China and countries like Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, ... China could defeat any of these countries with ease if it weren't for the US.

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:15 pm**

I'm going to stay never, right now countries are just too interdependent on each other in order to make a large scale war feasible, and the profits wouldn't benefit anybody.

I see more of a likelyhood of a US, China, Russia trilateral pact since each of the 3 has an important commodity i.e. resources, manpower, or domestic industry.

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 6:40 pm**

Thursday.

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:02 pm**

DoomYoshi wrote:Thursday.

is that insider info?

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:05 pm**

Crazyirishman wrote:I'm going to stay never, right now countries are just too interdependent on each other in order to make a large scale war feasible, and the profits wouldn't benefit anybody.

I see more of a likelyhood of a US, China, Russia trilateral pact since each of the 3 has an important commodity i.e. resources, manpower, or domestic industry.

Well actually, if you look at the great depression and WWII, or if you look at the wars in the middle east. A lot of the fighting is being fought precisely because of the interdependencies. When countries feel uneasy about their suppliers, they are sometimes willing to take drastic measures. Though I do see the prisoners dilemma in this.

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:56 pm**

What date is Westboro Baptist Church picking?

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:05 pm**

waauw wrote:
Gillipig wrote:When was the last time USA stopped a war from happening? History will tell you that wherever USA goes, they bring a war with them!
You do realize that the USA is the only thing what stands between China and countries like Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, ... China could defeat any of these countries with ease if it weren't for the US.

Well, the US prevents S. Korea and Japan from seeking nuclear weapons because the US wants them to remain dependent on US 'help'. If this wasn't the case, then S. Korea and Japan would have nukes, and it would be a stalemate like India v. Pakistan, or any two countries with nukes that don't like each other.

That's why I don't buy the underlined.

Wars are expensive, and the opportunity cost is high (loss of trade). However, one scenario where China might invade Taiwan is that China becomes politically unstable, so in order to retain power, the Party ignites that nationalist fervor by launching a war. They also get to blame Taiwan for the "subversives" who are 'creating' all those damnable riots.

And, over the decades, I'm not sure if the US could even stop such a scenario. The Western European countries asked themselves if the US would intervene with nuclear weapons if the Russians invaded the rest of Europe. They thought: No, so they built their own nukes (which is a similar, possible scenario for a more secure Asia--if only the US would allow it to happen).

Posted: **Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:10 pm**

Crazyirishman wrote:I'm going to stay never, right now countries are just too interdependent on each other in order to make a large scale war feasible, and the profits wouldn't benefit anybody.

I see more of a likelyhood of a US, China, Russia trilateral pact since each of the 3 has an important commodity i.e. resources, manpower, or domestic industry.

I want to say the same, but that's what people thought shortly before WW1 happened... You have to remember that the people who head states (democratic presidents to dictators, and of course legislators) can make some very stupid decisions, which affect everyone yet don't nearly affect themselves (externalized costs). And there's not too much culturally that goes against the trend of stupidity within such bureaucracies.

It also depends on how vulnerable major democracies and authoritarian states (RUS, CHI) are in the long-run (e.g. deficit spending for providing social welfare programs aren't sustainable; same with restrictive labor regulation).

It also depends on how stupid the electorate is. They live within markets and don't realize the benefits, and they have these fantastic visions of the political process.

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 2:49 am**

waauw wrote:
Gillipig wrote:When was the last time USA stopped a war from happening? History will tell you that wherever USA goes, they bring a war with them!
You do realize that the USA is the only thing what stands between China and countries like Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, ... China could defeat any of these countries with ease if it weren't for the US.

lol, China is not afraid of the US military, they don't want to lose customers that's all.

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:02 am**

Gillipig picked his date:

show

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:29 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
waauw wrote:
Gillipig wrote:When was the last time USA stopped a war from happening? History will tell you that wherever USA goes, they bring a war with them!
You do realize that the USA is the only thing what stands between China and countries like Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, ... China could defeat any of these countries with ease if it weren't for the US.

Well, the US prevents S. Korea and Japan from seeking nuclear weapons because the US wants them to remain dependent on US 'help'. If this wasn't the case, then S. Korea and Japan would have nukes, and it would be a stalemate like India v. Pakistan, or any two countries with nukes that don't like each other.

That's why I don't buy the underlined.

Wars are expensive, and the opportunity cost is high (loss of trade). However, one scenario where China might invade Taiwan is that China becomes politically unstable, so in order to retain power, the Party ignites that nationalist fervor by launching a war. They also get to blame Taiwan for the "subversives" who are 'creating' all those damnable riots.

And, over the decades, I'm not sure if the US could even stop such a scenario. The Western European countries asked themselves if the US would intervene with nuclear weapons if the Russians invaded the rest of Europe. They thought: No, so they built their own nukes (which is a similar, possible scenario for a more secure Asia--if only the US would allow it to happen).

The difference is that back then the world got divided into 2 pieces and with both South-korea, Japan and Taiwan so close to communist régimes. They probably would've gotten within the influence of these communist states. Taiwan would've been invaded for sure, looking at the tremendous hostility there was. South-Korea would've lost the Korean war if it wasn't for the americans, as the chinese were backing the north-koreans. Japan, would probably not have resisted as much towards communism since all their close neighbours would've been communist. China and the Sovjet Union would've never let these guys develop nuclear weapons at risk of having a threat so close to them.

So to sum up, I don't think these countries would have had the time to develop nuclear weapons without the americans, especially since you've got to keep in mind that south-korea wasn't as highly developed as it is today.

I do agree about the internal instability of China though. Even today that is a problem for them and it is in fact a problem for any empire expanding beyond it's originial borders.

Gillipig wrote:
waauw wrote:
Gillipig wrote:When was the last time USA stopped a war from happening? History will tell you that wherever USA goes, they bring a war with them!
You do realize that the USA is the only thing what stands between China and countries like Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, ... China could defeat any of these countries with ease if it weren't for the US.

lol, China is not afraid of the US military, they don't want to lose customers that's all.

That's where you're wrong. The chines have to fear america, just as the sovjets had to fear the americans during cold war(and the americans had to fear the sovjets). The biggest threat of these two clashing is this turning out to become a pyrrhic war.

Additionally keep in mind that everybody in the world knows that the US has been developing weapons in secret for the past few decades, but nobody really knows what or how. I read articles a couple of years ago about secret weapons the USA might have been testing during the Iraq war. Supposedly america has laser beams far more advanced than any other country on the planet.

Also, you talk about China losing customers, but you forget one thing. The rules of economics are different during wartime. Take for example Nazi Germany. One of the reasons why bankrupt Germany was able to wage war throughout europe was because the first thing they did when invading Poland was seizing all the gold.

Posted: **Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:24 pm**

waauw wrote:Supposedly america has laser beams far more advanced than any other country on the planet.

Posted: **Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:31 am**

waauw wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
waauw wrote:
Gillipig wrote:When was the last time USA stopped a war from happening? History will tell you that wherever USA goes, they bring a war with them!
You do realize that the USA is the only thing what stands between China and countries like Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, ... China could defeat any of these countries with ease if it weren't for the US.

Well, the US prevents S. Korea and Japan from seeking nuclear weapons because the US wants them to remain dependent on US 'help'. If this wasn't the case, then S. Korea and Japan would have nukes, and it would be a stalemate like India v. Pakistan, or any two countries with nukes that don't like each other.

That's why I don't buy the underlined.

Wars are expensive, and the opportunity cost is high (loss of trade). However, one scenario where China might invade Taiwan is that China becomes politically unstable, so in order to retain power, the Party ignites that nationalist fervor by launching a war. They also get to blame Taiwan for the "subversives" who are 'creating' all those damnable riots.

And, over the decades, I'm not sure if the US could even stop such a scenario. The Western European countries asked themselves if the US would intervene with nuclear weapons if the Russians invaded the rest of Europe. They thought: No, so they built their own nukes (which is a similar, possible scenario for a more secure Asia--if only the US would allow it to happen).

The difference is that back then the world got divided into 2 pieces and with both South-korea, Japan and Taiwan so close to communist régimes. They probably would've gotten within the influence of these communist states. Taiwan would've been invaded for sure, looking at the tremendous hostility there was. South-Korea would've lost the Korean war if it wasn't for the americans, as the chinese were backing the north-koreans. Japan, would probably not have resisted as much towards communism since all their close neighbours would've been communist. China and the Sovjet Union would've never let these guys develop nuclear weapons at risk of having a threat so close to them.

So to sum up, I don't think these countries would have had the time to develop nuclear weapons without the americans, especially since you've got to keep in mind that south-korea wasn't as highly developed as it is today.

I do agree about the internal instability of China though. Even today that is a problem for them and it is in fact a problem for any empire expanding beyond it's originial borders.

I more or less agree*, but to return to our main point: that's back then. Today, the US' subsidizing their national security isn't necessary, but it is "necessary" in that it keeps those countries dependent on the US. It's like the mafia having you in their pocket.

Recall: "You do realize that the USA is the only thing what stands between China and countries like Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, ... C[u]hina could defeat any of these countries with ease if it weren't for the US."

You're talking about today's times, and it's not without US that they could be defeated. It's the US placing them in that position, which reinforces the need for more US-provided "security."

Posted: **Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:37 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:Gillipig picked his date:

Aha, I was wondering when you would introduce your sister to us. Oh she is fiiine

!!

Posted: **Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:36 pm**

waauw wrote:Supposedly america has laser beams far more advanced than any other country on the planet.

two words for you: rail gun

Posted: **Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:43 pm**

fadedpsychosis wrote:
waauw wrote:Supposedly america has laser beams far more advanced than any other country on the planet.

two words for you: rail gun

3 letters for you:
O I C

Posted: **Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:02 pm**

waauw wrote:
fadedpsychosis wrote:
waauw wrote:Supposedly america has laser beams far more advanced than any other country on the planet.

two words for you: rail gun

3 letters for you:
O I C

OIC: Opioid Induced Constipation

Yep that will win any war hands down.

My date is 9/7/2024 when oil supply can't meet demand. The fight starts for resources in an all out war.

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:34 am**

waauw wrote:
fadedpsychosis wrote:
waauw wrote:Supposedly america has laser beams far more advanced than any other country on the planet.

two words for you: rail gun

3 letters for you:
O I C

nah, my Officer In Charge isn't involved in the production

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:11 pm**

Conquer Club

WW3-pick a date

WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date

Re: WW3-pick a date