I dont like this nwo one bit....Not one

Actually, SC, RP will unconditionally surrender and American resistance will be led by Santorum's minutemen from forests and mountains until Polish Winged Hussar Archangels come and once again save our civilization..

world wars or nuclear weapons. You can only have 1

I don't know, patiz, it could be like Charn.

George Friedman predicts a World War by about 2050 led by the then major powers of the USA / Poland versus Turkey / Japan.
His theory is that the USA will support the rise of Poland in response to a second rise of Russia; that Turkey, for geopolitical reasons will become a great power in time (it's large size, fast growing economy, and pivotal position between Europe and Asia are key factors); that China is going to stall in the near future and Japan will resume its position as the most powerful Asian country. His theory is that Turkey and Japan will ally to challenge the US hegemony, and with relative decline of the USA, they will eventually find themselves in a position to launch a real challenge, leading to WW3.
The future is almost impossible to predict but it is fun thinking about it.

The only part in his predictions that sounds sill is the rise of Poland (come again? Poland? why not Estonia? :P)

His theory is that the USA will give Poland access to top military technology, and money for economic development, and favorable trade terms. Why would the US do this? Poland is a large European country with a young growing population (unlike Germany and Russia). And that by buttressing Poland the US will prevent other powers, such (especially Russia and Germany) gaining control over Europe. It's all about maintaining the balance of power. In summary why will Poland rise? Because the USA wills it (according to Friedman).

Hell, why not make it Albania while you're at it?

The fact that you have asked that question is indicative of why you have a pretty poor diplomacy record KA. (Joke) Poland is of greater strategic importance than Alabania (among other reasons).

to be fair to KA, think it is quite ridiculous as well

It might be ridiculous. But certainly Poland is of greater strategic importance than Albania. Santa, what do you think of the idea of the USA supporting the rise of Poland? Good chess move / bad chess move. Or alternatively a move the USA simply won't make/maintain?

I think its likely unless the US makes the smart move and doesn't get involved. If it does happen I would expect it to come in the form of an alliance of eastern european countries rather than poland itself.

That said I believe The best thing the US can do for the next hundred years is to follow the model of China for the last 15 years or so, sit out of the worlds disputes and profit from the ones that arise. The powers in Europe and Asia will check one another and the presence of nuclear weapons will ensure that no power gains hegemony over Eurasia.

This is why I hate this site.

I was making a fucking joke. If you don't get it, don't bash me for your ignorance.
I am enrolled in college level studies of European culture and History, I understand the significance of Poland in comparison to Albania.

having said that i don't think its likely. The Republican Party has grown to become ridiculously hawkish and interventionist and the ghosts of the "fall of china" have reared its head every four years to drag the democrats back into the abyss. Patriotism is now synonymous with Jingoism and belief in the myth of American exceptionalism is a requirement of office. Meanwhile our culture is becoming increasingly militant and based on conflict and violence. I just don't see the US doing the smart thing and taking a step back

I was joking too KA. No offense meant, really. You have always enjoyed taking the Mickey out of others yourself. I know you are a smart kid.

Btw if anyone is interest George Friedman runs a private intelligence agency called Stratfor. He writes analyses of world geopolitical issues. You can read these at his site stratfor.com. Normally you have to pay but his site is free for the time being. Whether or not you agree with him, I think his reasoning is interesting.

" Stratfor"

Haha, they got hacked by Anonymous.

Indeed they did. Their entire database of subscribers was leaked. Major PR disaster for them. That is why they are free at the moment. I don't really understand why they were targeted though. They're an independent agency, and more akin to news media - free press attempting to provide an objective analysis of world events.

I see several areas of potential conflict, but I'm not sure which, if any, would develop into a major world conflict.

With the decline of the UK, Argentina may be tempted to - and succeed in - taking the Falklands back in the next decade or so. It's something I would certainly not rule out of the realm of possibilities.

Tons of stuff in Africa, but nothing of the major war stuff, unless perhaps it involved Nigeria, Kenya, or Tanzania. But even then, it would be a broader regional conflict, not a world war.

Moving east, there is the chance that 1)Iran will try and seize Bahrain (it has labeled it as a province in some statements) 2) Turkey and Iran will go to war over posturing and influence or 3) Israel and a newer, more Islamic Egypt or Syria will come into conflict. Still, of all these situations, I don't think any will spread beyond the region.

Nothing I can think of located in Europe or Russia.

Lots of potential of a conflict with India and Pakistan (started by the Pakistanis) with Pakistan's closer ties to India, and how India is going to start eclipsing China in the next 2 or 3 decades. Fear, sectarian, religious, and cultural divisions all make this more than likely. This is my #1 choice if there was a war. Pakistan would start it. The Osama bin Laden raid made them very, very afraid (or so my IR professor who just came back from Afghanistan says). They looked at that and said "Oh shit, what if India does that" and more importantly "Oh shit, next time that could be a raid on our nuclear launch sites" So right now, Pakistan is my biggest bet.

Farther to the east, we have China...now as much as China postures for war, I don't think they want it. Well, nobody wants war, but the Chinese are not the type to go to war lightly. If they did, my bets are that it would either be in the South China Sea against a US-led NATO coalition and several SE Asian states or it would be in the west against India. They'd let North Korea hang if Kim Jong Un started anything.

ermm, bump? I want to hear some other peoples opinions.

lol word up putin yes they did

hey KA hows the....


Anyway that Japan theory sounds bogus man. Japan the number 1 Asian economy, turning against the US? This guy's theory is.... out of touch at best - what about, you know, the decline of the west

So my own theory is one I am making now on the spot.

Note that my own "what is most likely to happen in geopolitics" theory does not include a world war, but the one that *does* include a world war goes like this:

The US continues a slow decline, dragged down by its EU allies and defense cuts. China starts to run out of steam but establishes itself (as indeed it already has) as a Tier 2 power alongside the likes of Russia and the EU.

Russia fades into obscurity - I really don't see a huge role for Russia in the future, their decline is not only in process, it is finished.

So what's the war then?

I know it's, idk, orthodox, but let's be totally honest here: it will start over a skirmish in the South China Sea or in Korea. Whoever China was bullying in that skirmish will get help from some larger power like Japan or India. In comes the US and then, you know, as it escalates, people who hate the US will move to other side. War.

The Middle East is a tinderbox too, but there aren't enough huge powers with interests nearby to set it off. The most that could happen there is a regional war based around Syria Iran or Israel that the great powers influence from the outside. But South China Sea is next to China itself, of primary interest for that country.

If history is any guide, the naval arms race that is going on in the waters of East Asia is the closest thing we have to a run-up to another conventional war. The arms found in all other parts of the world are between small players - African wars, Middle Eastern grandstanding, Latin American drug wars, none of it will touch off a world war.

If anything will it is the navies of China and the United States or their protectorates.

Boring I know but you know it's the most likely.

Poland/US vs Turkey/Japan??

Come on. lol.

" I don't really understand why they were targeted though."

It's because they work with the government in trying to go after wikileaks and other hacktivists. Its client list is a who's who of everything wrong with the world.

Really? I haven't found anything that supports the claim that Stratfor helped go after Wikileaks. It doesn't really sound in keeping with Stratfor's brief. It does seem however that it might have been some sort of misguided motivation.

HITLER69: This is an ironic post.