what's the world's most dangerous flashpoint?

[egb_hibs]

the assasination of benazir bhutto leads to the scarey possibility of a nuclear state falling apart.

is pakistan v india the world's scariest potential flashpoint?

china v north korea perhaps?

china v taiwan?

china v russia?

israel / palestine?

israel / us / iran?

what do you think and why?

[Smurf]

Pakistan v India. Came too close when there was stability in Pakistan a few years back..

The whole Pakistan situation scares the feck out of me.. Until the US invasion of Iraq there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq but the chaos allowed them to move in with still devastating effects today...

Imagine them in a country of chaos that's effectively their base...

[SteveIrwin]

scotland - england ?

[HailHail]

the impending full on civil war in iraq if and when the yanks ever pull out and leave the puppet regime we installed in its place. As in Afghanistan, once western troops are gone the extremists or whatever you want to call them will inevitably defeat the puppet regime whose 'defence forces' are probably already heavilly infiltrated. What with the current pakistan carry on, we could have a nuclear islamic extremist superblock stretching from the borders of India almost to the borders of israel.

Potentially the most dangerous religo-political superblock since the Franco-Catholic one snuffed out by the war of the Spanish succession over 300 years ago. Thankfully, good old Louis XIV had no nukes.......

[HailHail]

or the taxi queues in Bathgate or Club Earth in Livingston at 2am weekends.....

[Green Sleeves]

Has to be Pakistan-India for so many reasons. Nuclear weapons, the scale of militarisation, the religious divisions, the size of the populations involved, the lack of democracy, and the level of poverty that helps fuel desperation and fundamentalism.

The United Nations should be moving into action to ensure that all nuclear weapons on both sides are deactivated.

[alnewhaven]

Ar present, I agree with India /Pakistan for the reasons already given by others.

Another factor is that they have already gone head to head twice, with India having been victorious on both occasions. That might encourage a more fundamentalist leader in Pakistan to go nuclear from the outset, especially as I believe Indias conventional forces to outnumber Pakistan quite substantially.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Has to be Pakistan-India for so many reasons. Nuclear weapons, the scale of militarisation, the religious divisions, the size of the populations involved, the lack of democracy, and the level of poverty that helps fuel desperation and fundamentalism.

concisely and lucidly argued.

The United Nations should be moving into action to ensure that all nuclear weapons on both sides are deactivated.

but here i have to wonder what your smoking.

[egb_hibs]

i think china v russia, is a joker yet to be played. russia is dying off at a rate faster than the rest of europe. millions of chinese have sneaked over the siberian border and settled russia's mineral rich hinterlands.

russia either rolls over and dies, or eventually needs to make a grab back for the potential wealth it will need in it's death throes in order to cling to any delusion of a future.

while other situations seem more volatile, the scarey thing about this one is the arsenals both sides pack.

[alnewhaven]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

i think china v russia, is a joker yet to be played. russia is dying off at a rate faster than the rest of europe. millions of chinese have sneaked over the siberian border and settled russia's mineral rich hinterlands.

russia either rolls over and dies, or eventually needs to make a grab back for the potential wealth it will need in it's death throes in order to cling to any delusion of a future.

while other situations seem more volatile, the scarey thing about this one is the arsenals both sides pack.

As you listed in your initial post, there are a number of potential flashpoints around the world. I read it as being which is the most volatile at this moment.

Russia/ China seems more like the calculating stance of the Cold War period as I imagine both governments to be more rationally inclined than eg, an Islamic fundamentalist leader of wherever. Against that, the drawdown of the former Soviet nuclear arsenal, or a smaller Chinese arsenal than either the USSR or NATO at the peak of the Cold War, could mean that a first strike could successfully take out the opponents retaliatory capacity and thus become an attractive option.

[Smurf]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The United Nations should be moving into action to ensure that all nuclear weapons on both sides are deactivated.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Get real FFS. This is the real world!

Of course in principle you're spot on but principles mean sweet fa in the UN.

The UN is guilty as charged as being completely ineffective.

Just think Iraq or on the other side of the coin Israel/Palestine.

The list is endless.. Turkey's don't vote for Christmas..

[Green Sleeves]

Originally Posted by Smurf
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Get real FFS. This is the real world!

Of course in principle you're spot on but principles mean sweet fa in the UN.

The UN is guilty as charged as being completely ineffective.

Just think Iraq or on the other side of the coin Israel/Palestine.

The list is endless.. Turkey's don't vote for Christmas..

If we accept the logic that Pakistan and India should be allowed to keep their nuclear weapons then we also have to accept that in all probability they will eventually use them. Then you could ask who were the turkeys who voted for Xmas. Except it'd be too late by then.

The UN is ineffective in many respects but like the EU its still a work in progress. What other international organisation has the potential to check the activities of rogue states or unstable nuclear states? For all its current defects, and its domination by the Security Council states, the UN is still our best institutional hope for world peace. Which admittedly doesnt seem like much at present.

[GORDONSMITH7]

Between these two I think..................


[Only Registered Users Can See Links. Click Here To Register]


BIG G

[hibadelic]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

i think china v russia, is a joker yet to be played. russia is dying off at a rate faster than the rest of europe. millions of chinese have sneaked over the siberian border and settled russia's mineral rich hinterlands.

russia either rolls over and dies, or eventually needs to make a grab back for the potential wealth it will need in it's death throes in order to cling to any delusion of a future.

while other situations seem more volatile, the scarey thing about this one is the arsenals both sides pack.

Despite the fact they have a treaty stating they don't have any claim to land in the other country and that they are huge trading partners?

Can't see any evidence for this ever being something the Chinese would go to war over tbh. They'll take over the land gradually using population and economics. The Russians aren't exactly exploiting the supposed mineral riches anyway.

When you say "most dangerous flashpoint" doesn't that imply something that could happen at any time? IMO the situation on the Russia/China border could take 30 years before there's any concern. There's certainly no imminent danger.

FWIW I think you can rule out China, they're too smart to start getting involved in wars whilst they put everything into developing economically.

India and Pakistan are both bonkers, hate each other and have a long history of argy bargy, they also have nuclear weapons, making them more dangerous. I'd go for them as I'm predicting peace in the Middle East soon
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[BurbankHibee]

If it kicks off in India v Pakistan, who's going to man the phones for customer service, tech support etc ?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I think the China Taiwan conflict could kick off pretty quickly. The Philipines also seem a likely candidate for trouble, internally though.

[Burbank Lilywhite]

Currently even if you remove yesterday's events it was Pakistan. To an extent they created armed Islamic fundamentalists. As a hedge against the Soviet Union, and for leverage against India.

They (Pakistan's goverment) has been holding this burning candle at both ends for almost 30 years and its burnt to the middle.

Long term I would go with egb's idea of China v Russia. There are plenty of old wounds and scores to settle there.

[AndyM]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Has to be Pakistan-India for so many reasons. Nuclear weapons, the scale of militarisation, the religious divisions, the size of the populations involved, the lack of democracy, and the level of poverty that helps fuel desperation and fundamentalism.

The United Nations should be moving into action to ensure that all nuclear weapons on both sides are deactivated.

Absolutely except for the last point. - the UN are as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Pakistan - India is genuinely scary stuff. Thankfully the Indian Government is quiet at the moment on this issue - probably watching on extremely nervously.

[Smurf]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If we accept the logic that Pakistan and India should be allowed to keep their nuclear weapons then we also have to accept that in all probability they will eventually use them. Then you could ask who were the turkeys who voted for Xmas. Except it'd be too late by then.

The UN is ineffective in many respects but like the EU its still a work in progress. What other international organisation has the potential to check the activities of rogue states or unstable nuclear states? For all its current defects, and its domination by the Security Council states, the UN is still our best institutional hope for world peace. Which admittedly doesnt seem like much at present.

If Pakistan ends up like Yugoslavia and its nuclear weapons should fall into the hands of fundamentalists what should we do?

Go through the UN route? If that was to fail (as it would) and the US was to take unilateral action would you oppose?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Burbank Lilywhite
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Currently even if you remove yesterday's events it was Pakistan. To an extent they created armed Islamic fundamentalists. As a hedge against the Soviet Union, and for leverage against India.

see greensleeves, to follow your logic - the foreign policy of the USSR could equally be said to be the root of all the world's ills.

which in a funny kind of way means that with a little bit of work, we can blame al qeada on the french revolution. and why stop there...

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by hibadelic
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Despite the fact they have a treaty stating they don't have any claim to land in the other country and that they are huge trading partners?

Can't see any evidence for this ever being something the Chinese would go to war over tbh. They'll take over the land gradually using population and economics. The Russians aren't exactly exploiting the supposed mineral riches anyway.

When you say "most dangerous flashpoint" doesn't that imply something that could happen at any time? IMO the situation on the Russia/China border could take 30 years before there's any concern. There's certainly no imminent danger.

FWIW I think you can rule out China, they're too smart to start getting involved in wars whilst they put everything into developing economically.

India and Pakistan are both bonkers, hate each other and have a long history of argy bargy, they also have nuclear weapons, making them more dangerous. I'd go for them as I'm predicting peace in the Middle East soon
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ok i take your point about china / russia being a slower burn than 'flashpoint' infers - but i wouldn't put any stock in there current treaties. they have lots of scores to settle - and russia will soon become something at least, if not more, frightening than a fundamentalist nuclear pakistan; a nuclear state in a death spiral.