Where next?

[Clavicula_Nox]

And what, pray tell, do you find unnatural?

What De Savage said.

I find the entire country of Iraq, for example, to be unnatural. I find the greatest injustice to come out of OIF was the failure to give the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'as their own states and instead waste time, resources, and lives, preserving an arbitrary national boundary that some Europeans came up with that has little to no relevance to the actual location or local ethnic considerations.

Those silly colonial empires. If only they'd put some wiggly bits in we wouldn't be in this mess!

Lol, yeah.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Fair enough, I can roll with that.

[MikeyD]

I find the entire country of Iraq, for example, to be unnatural.

I've got the growing suspicion that the way for stability isn't bickering mono-ethinc mini states. Look at the centuries of bloodly squabbles among the small states of Europe. For stability they'd need something BIG and inclusive, like a new Ottoman empire. Or if you prefer like the U.S. or EU or India or Soviet Russia. A centrally-governed confederacy stretching from the Iranian border to... Gibraltar? I can imagine a wealthy charismatic leader attempting to form a new Ottoman Empire about 2025 - and I can imagine everyone else freaking out ENTIRELY!

[costard]

If we're looking for fictional conflicts, how about Russia and China teaming up to take Alaska and Western Canada? The Battle of the Bering. You tie in Arctic sea-floor sovereignty (so you get parts, but not all, of Europe involved), reasonable supply lines for all parties (the weather is crap, but same for everybody) and significant resources as spoils. Start with the Europeans being mightily pissed at having been kicked out of the Far-East oilfields (Yukos and BP). Japan would have to go neutral (just as likely as China and Russia getting together for the op.) - it'd be a big war.

[MikeyD]

Perhaps a reconsituted 'Soviet' state under Putin tries to bring Mongolia back into its sphere of influence and inadvertantly starts a ground war with China. Russia begins sinking Chinese shipping. Since everything sold in the U.S. is made in China - and bought with borrowed Chinese money - the U.S. is dragged against its will into supporting China in the fight. That leads to Russian attacks against Alaskan ports and oil facilities. And that leads to U.S. armor on Chinese soil fighting Russian tanks. Worst-case scenario -Theatre nuclear weapons when one sides start losing conventionally.

[Cpl Steiner]

Someone I knew ages ago always swore WWIII would be when China and Russia went to war. Such a war probably would resemble the Eastern Front with modern weapons. Not sure how such a war would start but it would be massive.

[Noltyboy]

China heading north into Russia to take control of the Siberian mineral resources. Russian paranoia would never let them work with the chinese and visa-versa.

[Clavicula_Nox]

I've got the growing suspicion that the way for stability isn't bickering mono-ethinc mini states. Look at the centuries of bloodly squabbles among the small states of Europe. For stability they'd need something BIG and inclusive, like a new Ottoman empire. Or if you prefer like the U.S. or EU or India or Soviet Russia. A centrally-governed confederacy stretching from the Iranian border to... Gibraltar? I can imagine a wealthy charismatic leader attempting to form a new Ottoman Empire about 2025 - and I can imagine everyone else freaking out ENTIRELY!

I don't think stability is natural, also. I think conflict is the natural human state.

But, you are right, the way for temporary stability is what you say it is, and it is what has been going on since these countries gained independence.

[Vark]

I remember a speaker from the MOD's Future Wars dept giving a lecture about predicting future conflics and strategic implementation. The gist of it was the shooting will start when countries have their water, food or fuel threatened, either to defend it or to claim someone elses, plu cest change! The thing that made me sit up were the stats on the water reserves in the Golan heights, who ever controls that controls the fate of Israel, I knew about the Water wars of the 70's but had not appreciated the vital nature of the heights.

Nuclear weapons are the wild card, though they are linked to states desire to control/aquire resources, Bobbit's "Shield of Achilles" looks at some of the resultant conflicts when traditional states engage with trans-national groups.

As for the Falklands, a refight with Type 45's not 22's providing fleet cover would be a very short affair for the Argentinians and there is a permanent RAF base there, not just a few Royal Marines and a recalled survey vessel.