We are really small when comparing to those high ups, that can decide if your country will go on war or not...
USA and North Korea are in tension, that is getting higher and higher.
The real tension is between North and South Korea. North Korea poses only a proxy threat to the U.S. and does not represent a direct threat. Moreover - we would roflstomp them.
The real tension is developing in the Republic of Korea (RoK - informally known as South Korea).
When I first went to Korea as part of Ulchi Freedom Guardian in 2008, the popular opinion of North Korea was that they were long-lost family that needed to be reconnected with. The U.S. was viewed, largely, as an interloping outside party by those under the age of about 35 or so. College students frequently protested the presence of the U.S. military (to put it into perspective, however, all students are required to participate in at least one demonstration as part of degree programs - it's a way of trying to educate them about their rights, or something) and that presence was cited as being the reason they were so distant from the North (not an entirely inaccurate claim - but certainly the incorrect context/interpretation).
Then North Korea started sinking ships - which was the first publicly known fatal incident incited by the North Koreans (the two have been known to posture to comical extremes in the past - but there had always been a long standing ideology that they were family and not to kill each other).
The protests rapidly shifted to South Korea's policy regarding North Korea.
North Korea lobbed artillery shells into an island owned by South Korea - and the atmosphere became almost opposite of what it was, years ago. Sure - there's still a little bit of a coolness between some of the newer generations and the U.S. presence - but they are beginning to understand the purpose of our having a presence... and dare I say that there has been development of appreciation for the fact that they know we have a whole army ready to bleed and die beside them if it comes to it.
And that's also why most of it depends upon South Korea.
Part of the purpose of Ulchi Freedom Guardian and Foal Eagle are to practice joint command strategies and simulations with the South Korean military (as well as other NATO forces) - but the goal as established by the Bush Administration was to have the South Koreans leading the exercises by a given year, with the U.S. being a supplemental ally as opposed to the ring-leader.
Further - the economic and political relationship we have with South Korea forces us to respect their wishes regarding North Korea (so long as they pose no direct, imminent threat). It has been long understood that the U.S. is there to reinforce South Korea's stance/policy/action. Military action against North Korea against South Korea's wishes or without consultation would have disasterous economic and foreign implications - as we would almost literally be intruding into what they see as a family affair.
If they are being this cheeky, is because they believe in their power... And if one of them attacks, and another attacks back, it won't end easily, because of pride, greediness, evilness, etc...
North Korea's resolve would likely crumble very quickly after the lies of their propaganda machine were exposed. Keep in mind - they are led to believe that they are in a paradise - that the technology they enjoy today is the best humanity has to offer. The things we enjoy on a daily basis are highly restricted and rare items.
Facing down an army with soldiers full of customary jewelry, cellular phones, mp3 players, etc would rapidly begin to conflict with the propaganda they have been fed about the rest of the world.
Not to mention most of our weapons are about three to four generations ahead of theirs. The standard body armor used by our soldiers would be a sort of miracle material to them. Our jets may as well be chariots of the gods, and our bombs their wrath.
Though we wouldn't have to drop bombs on them. Just drop packages of food and "you've been horribly, horribly misled" - and that would probably do it.
Not so high but there's also tension between USA and Russia, and Russians would not hesitate if they had a good excuse to attack usa, as they don't like them and got their reason....
There is a little tension between the U.S. and Russia - but a lot of that is ancient history. Russia has been recovering a lot of their economy and will be starting to expand, here, before too much longer. They find themselves in conflict with China, currently, as much as anywhere else.
They still hold a considerable amount of power, though, as they are one of the only other nations (aside from the U.S.) that have both the technology and the industrial experience to produce a considerable range of high-tech products and solutions (there are some smaller corporate entities within Europe, but those are often hard to nail down to a single european country).
Immigration from Russia (and former states within the USSR) to the U.S. exploded in the decade following the collapse of the USSR, and there are a growing number of U.S. citizens visiting those regions each year, as well.
Twenty to Thirty years from now, assuming the U.S. still exists, the U.S. and Russia will likely have started down the road to developing a relationship similar to that between the U.S. and Britain.
Russia has as ally China..... China at WW2 was nothing compared to today China, it's like comparing an ant to a dinosaur, and they (including usa) all got this mentality of "i don't give a f*", so basically you'd be in trouble somehow if there's was war
Russia and China are not at all allied. The recent development of the PAK-FA cements this, as Russia approached India (a staunch population, industrial, economic, and territorial rival of China) to co-develop the project. That is no different than the U.S. deciding to supply resources to the European Allies against the Axis powers, in terms of the political point being made.
Russia has, wisely, decided that it is better off partnering up with India than with China (the way things are going there, currently).
Though it shouldn't be surprising why not. Russia is the most free market in existence, currently (as universal irony would hold); there's not a single industry there that sees a partnership with China as anything other than what it is: suicide.
And as I said, it wouldn't end well if they started attacking each other, as they wouldn't stop, and would want to show the power they have, and other countries would be dragged into it to, what would make it into a world war
Thoughts?
The next 'world' war will be an ideological war. In the wake of the coming domino of bank foreclosures, a push for a global centralized currency and government to manage world economies will take hold with the backing of a number of individuals and foreign interests. These systems will be campaigned under the flags of "equality" and "justice" against "greed" and other such things.
Then you will have little savages like me that reject such foolish notions of the hive-mind, who will stand in the way of that happening.
It will be more of a global civil war than a world war. Nuclear weapons and other such things will kind of be forgotten. The weapons of choice will be control over media outlets (propaganda), and social engineering campaigns (engineered crimes, plants, 'false opposition,' etc). Strategic targets will include food and general good production/distribution capability (people will side with who has the ability to feed them, usually - destroying the ability of self-declared independent states to provide for the needs of its people will weaken its position) and possibly include engineered plagues for crops and/or livestock (human populations will largely be left alone).
Nuclear weapons have very limited utility in the coming war. The goal is not to subjugate people through force, but through deception. In order for such strategies to be effective, people must feel they can place their trust in one entity or another. The only way for this "global bank of justice" to earn that trust is to use sleight of hand and covert tactics to undermine the authority of resistance and to paint them as being the 'bad guy' in all of this.
You can't do that while nuking the piss out of their cities.
But if you paint them as incompetent - massive losses to their livestock, crops, etc - and incapable of providing needs (loss of industrial capability, waning medical competency, shoddy power grid, etc) ... then you can portray yourself as the most sensible and functional alternative.
That's the shape of the coming war. It will not be a war between nations... but a war to preserve them.
