The rising of an Empire and the future invasion of Europe!

[Doppleganger]

The discussion has proposed traditional invasion, migratory cultural invasion and the possible launch of a widespread series of terrorist attacks. Lets consider the possibility of all three hitting full-force simultaneously.

The thing that ruins the idea for me is that Islam doesn't have an overwhelming numercial advantage, and the fact that China+India vastly outnumbers them, yet are being proposed to be left sitting on the sidelines. I can't reconcile that to reality, especially India having some serious bad blood with the world of Islam.

In Kim Stanley Robinson's book, "The Years of Rice and Salt', he details a world where Christianity was all but wiped out during the Black Death of the 14th Century, and one where Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism become the major religions in the western world as well. He describes a battle where the the forces of Islam unite (whether under one Madhi or not he doesn't make this clear) and their main protagonists are the Indians and the Chinese. In his story the Indo-Chinese alliance win against the Islamic alliance and the whole world settles into an uneasy alliance.

Anyway, the whole point of saying that was to illustrate that you can't forget about those 2 nations as population-wise alone they make up nearly half the world's population. In any scenario where a Madhi invades Western Europe you'd also need to account for what those nations would do.

 

[gladius]

Ok Gladius, I'll tell you why I think it's deeply flawed. I didn't really want to get into this and derail your thread but you appear to want an answer. BTW, I wasn't being condescending but if you believe I was then I can't help that. Is 'deeply or grossly flawed' a byword for condescending now? It wasn't the last time I checked.

Ok. The Soviet Union did not use any overwhelming numerical advantage to defeat Germany. They had a numerical superiority yes but that wasn't the reason why they won. Also, the Germans did not really have a technological edge over the Soviet Union. Ignore the Wonder Weapons as they were never a factor on the Ostfront. In most cases during the first year of Babarossa the Red Army had superior tanks. There was nothing to match the KV-1 and the T-34 was superior to all German tanks except perhaps the Panzer IV with the long-barrelled KwK 75mm gun. Even then my money would be on the T-34. Only when the Tiger and later on the Panther appeared did the Wehrmacht have anything to take on a T-34 and be confident of success.

This is where your argument is deeply flawed. You ignore the real reasons why Germany lost. You stated that the the Germans crushed several Soviet Armies and it only took the Red Army to crush one German Army for the tide to be turned. In truth there was no sudden turning of the tide. The Soviets gradually came out on top after a series of bad strategic mistakes by the Germans, and by the pressure being applied to them from other fronts. For example, whilst the German 6th Armee and part of 4th Panzerarmee were trapped and destroyed at Stalingrad the Soviets were busy losing half a million men and 1700 tanks further north in the Rzhev salient in the ill-fated Operation Mars.

If you really want to point at a decisive moment it's at Kursk and not Stalingrad. This battle is important not because it failed and not because of German losses (they were actually 20% of Soviet casualties) but because it happened in the first place. The Germans had a chance to completely collapse the entire Soviet South and Southwestern Fronts. IMO if OKH had used Manstein's 'backhand' plan instead the entire outcome of WW2 might have been different.

The Germans lost because of bad strategic mistakes, logistics (this was huge), the Allied Lend-Lease effort (this was critical), failure to exploit local population unhappiness (in the Ukraine for example), the massive industrial capacity of the Allies (in particular the US), fighting a 3 front war, failure to fight to their own strengths (i.e. mobility and tactical superiority), failure to adapt their own industry to a war footing quickly enough, frittering away of vital resources on Wonder Weapons, the frittering away of vital resources on the 'final solution'. Also, the impact of how the Red Army was able to recover and fight back cannot be understated. Although they never came even close to matching the tactical ability and professionalism of the Wehrmacht they were mightily effective in using Blitzkrieg for their own means.

Finally you give me an answer, with good reason to boot. I agree with most of your reasonings too. I know Germany lost alot due to strategical blunders, Hitler being one of the biggest factors in their defeat. And yes Germany would have won had they done the right thing.

But what I was trying to point out in simplest terms is that a country with superior manpower can overcome an enemy with somekind of either technological and or tactical advantage.

Yes I know the Russian had better tanks in the begining, but they never matched the sophistication of the way the Germans used their tanks and combined arms as a whole, in this German technology was far superior. Like I pointed out the Russians didn't even have radios in their tanks and planes and had to use hand signals. The technology doesn't have to be individual weapons per say, I was merely trying to make an analogy here.

Yes I agree Kursk is the decisive moment, but did not Stalingrad help to get to that point.

And yes also I agree with you the Germans lost because of all the points you said at the end. You gave very good reasons and I agree with them. If you look at this detail for detail I'd to say you're right. However my point was not to illustrate the fine points of all this, it was simply to give an example of how manpower can come into play. Perhaps we misunderstood each other when it came to this.

Also, the impact of how the Red Army was able to recover and fight back cannot be understated. Although they never came even close to matching the tactical ability and professionalism of the Wehrmacht they were mightily effective in using Blitzkrieg for their own means.

This is what I am trying to say, that a force with an overwhelming numerical superiority can absorb the losses even after tremendous blows are done to it by the enemy.

The Germans lost 3.5 million soldiers to the Russians 19 million, that's a huge lopsided toll, yet they still kept coming. This was my point.

If a future conflict were to occur with the Islamic empire against Europe this numerical advantadge will come into play.

I know right now there is a huge technological gap, but do you really think they're going to be dumb enough to go with only what they got now. If they do then they're idiots, all the better for us.

This is why I don't think Europe will have an easy time at this as some people are saying. Yes they will kill tremendous amounts of Islamics, but this ability to absorb the losses will certainly prove a factor if the conflict were to occur.

p.s.
Very good post on your part.

Peharps godofthunder is right in that the Korea conflict is a better example.

 

[godofthunder9010]

One point for consideration is logistics. The force has to get to its destination. To directly attack most of Europe, that would mean crossing the Mediterranean if you want to attack Europe directly. A crossing through Istambul or Gibraltar would be killed before it was given a chance to happen. Since Europe has an overwhelming Naval advantage, that limits the invasion to airborne attack, which is unlikely to be very successful on its own.

There are two nations that are pretty well guaranteed to be the first hit thanks to the lack of natural boundaries. Israel and Russia. Anyone can see that Israel is in a very big mess in the scenario. But its interesting to consider that Russia stands directly in the way of any proposed land invasion. Russia is the one selling them most of their military equipment, so how would this play out?

 

[SHERMAN]

This is getting off-toppic and out of hand.

 

[Doppleganger]

This is what I am trying to say, that a force with an overwhelming numerical superiority can absorb the losses even after tremendous blows are done to it by the enemy.

The Germans lost 3.5 million soldiers to the Russians 19 million, that's a huge lopsided toll, yet they still kept coming. This was my point.

If a future conflict were to occur with the Islamic empire against Europe this numerical advantadge will come into play.

I know right now there is a huge technological gap, but do you really think they're going to be dumb enough to go with only what they got now. If they do then they're idiots, all the better for us.

This is why I don't think Europe will have an easy time at this as some people are saying. Yes they will kill tremendous amounts of Islamics, but this ability to absorb the losses will certainly prove a factor if the conflict were to occur.

p.s.
Very good post on your part.

Peharps godofthunder is right in that the Korea conflict is a better example.

I'll give you that then Gladius. On a very general level you're correct and it's true that the Soviets did have quite a bit more manpower.

God has a good point regarding logistics. How would you see Islamic Armies being supplied or their lines of communication protected, assuming they were to attack, perhaps through Iraq into Turkey, or even from Turkey itself seeing as it's a muslim nation. In your scenario would the Islamic Armies would also have a large naval presence, air support and the ability to supply them over ever lengthening lines of communication?

What about tactical nuclear strikes? Do you think either side would use them? Do you envisage sleeper cells in major western capitals perhaps exploding 'dirty' bombs en masse? What about the local muslim populations in each country? Do you see them rising up and joining with the invasion forces?

 

[godofthunder9010]

This is getting off-toppic and out of hand.

Perhaps, but specifically what do you mean? Off topic, or just too much discussion? Something else?

 

[SHERMAN]

Ok, are you suggestung that the Iraqis, Iranis, Turks and a few others play nice with each other?! Thats not going to hapen anytime soon...The Shia and Suna are still at odds with each other. Many muslim nations are always on tthe brink of conflict with eachother...

Edit:I meant off-toppic....The rest wasent as bad...

 

[Doppleganger]

Ok, are you suggestung that the Iraqis, Iranis, Turks and a few others play nice with each other?! Thats not going to hapen anytime soon...The Shia and Suna are still at odds with each other. Many muslim nations are always on tthe brink of conflict with eachother...

I agree. I just don't see all the Muslim sects (who really don't like each other very much) joining together anytime soon.

 

[gladius]

One point for consideration is logistics. The force has to get to its destination. To directly attack most of Europe, that would mean crossing the Mediterranean if you want to attack Europe directly. A crossing through Istambul or Gibraltar would be killed before it was given a chance to happen. Since Europe has an overwhelming Naval advantage, that limits the invasion to airborne attack, which is unlikely to be very successful on its own.

I actually think they have a chance to cross both in two pronged pincer movent. They should be able to cross at least one if they coordinate the attacks at the same time.

If the fight were in open ocean they wouldn't have a chance at all, but with the fighting very close to land they can bring enough land forces to bear against the naval forces. One way is to bring mass quantities of artillery and surface to ship missles on their shores to to engange the enemy ships

There are two nations that are pretty well guaranteed to be the first hit thanks to the lack of natural boundaries. Israel and Russia. Anyone can see that Israel is in a very big mess in the scenario. But its interesting to consider that Russia stands directly in the way of any proposed land invasion. Russia is the one selling them most of their military equipment, so how would this play out?

Israel will be hit for sure given how much they hate the Jews.

Personally, I don't they will hit Russia, but that's just my guess. Since it probably a wise choice not to fight to many enemies at once, plus theres nothing really there worth taking. They may simply work a deal with Russia, cash for weapons and since Russia is straped for cash they may take it, or something like this to appeal to Russias prestige seeing that a war in Europe may actually increase their influnce later. But this is just my guess. At least this is what I would do if I was them.

I think they will simply go up through the balkans taking the same route they took centuries before to march toward Vienna, and . The same goes for Spain.

The thing that ruins the idea for me is that Islam doesn't have an overwhelming numercial advantage, and the fact that China+India vastly outnumbers them, yet are being proposed to be left sitting on the sidelines. I can't reconcile that to reality, especially India having some serious bad blood with the world of Islam.

I actually think the war will start over in India, once done the Islamics will move on to Europe.

China may side with the Islamics in order to get cash and also oil which they are starting to need in large quantities. And they may also want the war to occur to weaken the West therby increasing their influnce and also take over Taiwan once the West is busy fighting a major war.

 

[SHERMAN]

We are in fantasy land now...The Indians are not exactly meak...The entire Muslim world united against Israel before and did not prevail. The Europians, altough somewhat dorment right now, are serious about their wars two...Espcially the Brits and Germans...

 

[godofthunder9010]

One point for consideration is logistics. The force has to get to its destination. To directly attack most of Europe, that would mean crossing the Mediterranean if you want to attack Europe directly. A crossing through Istambul or Gibraltar would be killed before it was given a chance to happen. Since Europe has an overwhelming Naval advantage, that limits the invasion to airborne attack, which is unlikely to be very successful on its own.

I actually think they have a chance to cross both in two pronged pincer movent. They should be able to cross at least one if they coordinate the attacks at the same time... I think they will simply go up through the balkans taking the same route they took centuries before to march toward Vienna, and . The same goes for Spain.

Both points are logistical choke points and both have a narrow Ocean waterway as a stopgap. That makes funnelling mass armies through a major problem unless completely unopposed (highly unlikely). The straight of Gibraltar is an attack point where European naval supperiority can play a much bigger role, but once all bridges from Turkey to European Turkey are destroyed, it adds a significant problem for the propsed invasion.

I actually think the war will start over in India, once done the Islamics will move on to Europe.

That would be a sever underestimation of India.

China may side with the Islamics in order to get cash and also oil which they are starting to need in large quantities. And they may also want the war to occur to weaken the West therby increasing their influnce and also take over Taiwan once the West is busy fighting a major war.

I don't think China would be too keen on trusting a religious fundamentalist empire with aspirations of global conquest. Todays China would take Europe's side or no side at all.

 

[SHERMAN]

I don't think China would be too keen on trusting a religious fundamentalist empire with aspirations of global conquest. Todays China would take Europe's side or no side at all.

Id like to second that. China has Muslim orgs working against its gov right now, and sees the muslims as possible adversaries.

 

[godofthunder9010]

The entire Muslim world united against Israel before and did not prevail.

The fact is, until the theoretical United Islam has sufficient punch to defeat Israel, then an invasion of Europe is unfathomable. Israel has not only survived, it has consistently humiliated the Muslim forces in some very one-sided Israeli victories. Yom-Kippor war was something of an exception, but Israel did not lose any ground in that one either.

Would the Islamic Superstate leave a hostile opponent on their doorstep while they run off to invade Europe?

 

[gladius]

Ok, are you suggestung that the Iraqis, Iranis, Turks and a few others play nice with each other?! Thats not going to hapen anytime soon...The Shia and Suna are still at odds with each other. Many muslim nations are always on tthe brink of conflict with eachother...

I agree. I just don't see all the Muslim sects (who really don't like each other very much) joining together anytime soon.

I agree with you both, they are not going to join anytime soon, and them joining by themselves is totaly unlikely.

But like I have been saying what is going to change all this is the Mahdi factor. He is the only one who will be able to do this. Without him things will remain the same.

That's why I have been saying this is so dangerous because it is decided by the actions of one man. If it where up to a conglamoration of peoples and nations, then it will be very hard if not impossible to make happen.

We are in fantasy land now...The Indians are not exactly meak...The entire Muslim world united against Israel before and did not prevail. The Europians, altough somewhat dorment right now, are serious about their wars two...Espcially the Brits and Germans...

Yes the Indians aren't pushovers.

Like I said again the events concerning the Mahdi changes everything. Once he unites his empire of 1.5 billion Islamics, he will gear it for war (since he has a mandate to do so). As I explained in the original post, from this empire he will mobilize a large army upwards of around 200 million geared towards taking Europe. India is were this army will most likely be baptized by fire.

Once this army is ready to go it will find an excuse to strike. India with an army of only around 3 to 4 million, will find itself totaly overwhelmed. Not only that, its weapons will most likely only equal or even inferior to that of the Islamics. Once they try to mobilize the the rest of their population to counter this, they will most likely be overun and it will be too late.

Even right now Isreal is still a power and most likely can win against the Arabs, however the future with the Mahdi involved may be a different story altogether.

God has a good point regarding logistics. How would you see Islamic Armies being supplied or their lines of communication protected, assuming they were to attack, perhaps through Iraq into Turkey, or even from Turkey itself seeing as it's a muslim nation. In your scenario would the Islamic Armies would also have a large naval presence, air support and the ability to supply them over ever lengthening lines of communication?

As far as airpower goes this is the place where the West will be the strongest. They can forget about going toe to toe, plane fo plane in this area. They will most likely save their airforce for defending logistical choke points.

Since they cannot match the West airforce for airforce, the second best thing to do is rely on overwhelmingly massive quantities of anti-aircraft weapons, I'm talking a grevious amount. They will never stop all the airstikes, but that's not the idea the idea is simply to win a war of attrition. The basic idea is to have have such a number of sams protecting key places that it will cost the Allies everytime they make a hit.

As far as they navy is concerened they can have a viable navy to chalenge the Europeans. In a open ocean fight they have no chance, but remember they will be fighting in the Mediterranean, which isn't so wide open and not as rough.

The key for them here, is again to use mass quantities of overwhelming numbers. The way to do this is to simply make small inexpesive boats or take ones already in existence and simply bolt on the necesary equipment such as a surface to ship missle ( like the exocet or silkworm ). They don't need to be really rugged since they won't be opperating in open ocean, also they won't need large crews anywhere from 5 to 20 will do. Not to mention they don't need to even have an engine, they can be sail powered.

So as long as it floats slap on a missle on there and send them off, try to overwhelm the European ships with mass quantities of these, granted massive amouts of these will be sunk, but the idea again is to attrition out the enemy. If they are able to do it long enough they may be able to wrest control of the Med, now that's scarry.

What about tactical nuclear strikes? Do you think either side would use them?

I don't think either side will use nukes. Nuking by the Europeans will probably be retaliated with a backpack nuke in some Western city, and I'm sure the Islamics know if they use one first it wouldn't be too hard for the West to retaliate. Besides as long as the Europeans know they have at least a slim chance of still winning, I don't think they will resort to the nuclear solution.

Do you envisage sleeper cells in major western capitals perhaps exploding 'dirty' bombs en masse? What about the local muslim populations in each country? Do you see them rising up and joining with the invasion forces?

Yes sleeper cells in a coordinated effort, yes.

With the local populace I think there will be alot who will join or try to cause disruption localy in order to divert resources from the front. I don't know how many will actually answer this call, but I personaly think about half or more of them will do it. But even as litttle as 10% would be alot since 10% of of say 5 milllion is 500,000.

The most danger however will not be from those two above. The most danger will come from native born white Europeans who have converted to Islam who hold key positions in the goverment and military. If they decide to answer Mahdi's call for the final Jihad, who knows what damage they can do, anywhere from mixing up orders, to sabotage, to sending the enemy key battle plans.

 

[Doppleganger]

We are in fantasy land now...The Indians are not exactly meak...The entire Muslim world united against Israel before and did not prevail. The Europians, altough somewhat dorment right now, are serious about their wars two...Espcially the Brits and Germans...

Yes the Indians aren't pushovers.

Like I said again the events concerning the Mahdi changes everything. Once he unites his empire of 1.5 billion Islamics, he will gear it for war (since he has a mandate to do so). As I explained in the original post, from this empire he will mobilize a large army upwards of around 200 million geared towards taking Europe. India is were this army will most likely be baptized by fire.

Once this army is ready to go it will find an excuse to strike. India with an army of only around 3 to 4 million, will find itself totaly overwhelmed. Not only that, its weapons will most likely only equal or even inferior to that of the Islamics. Once they try to mobilize the the rest of their population to counter this, they will most likely be overun and it will be too late.

Even right now Isreal is still a power and most likely can win against the Arabs, however the future with the Mahdi involved may be a different story altogether.

God has a good point regarding logistics. How would you see Islamic Armies being supplied or their lines of communication protected, assuming they were to attack, perhaps through Iraq into Turkey, or even from Turkey itself seeing as it's a muslim nation. In your scenario would the Islamic Armies would also have a large naval presence, air support and the ability to supply them over ever lengthening lines of communication?

As far as airpower goes this is the place where the West will be the strongest. They can forget about going toe to toe, plane fo plane in this area. They will most likely save their airforce for defending logistical choke points.

Since they cannot match the West airforce for airforce, the second best thing to do is rely on overwhelmingly massive quantities of anti-aircraft weapons, I'm talking a grevious amount. They will never stop all the airstikes, but that's not the idea the idea is simply to win a war of attrition. The basic idea is to have have such a number of sams protecting key places that it will cost the Allies everytime they make a hit.

As far as they navy is concerened they can have a viable navy to chalenge the Europeans. In a open ocean fight they have no chance, but remember they will be fighting in the Mediterranean, which isn't so wide open and not as rough.

The key for them here, is again to use mass quantities of overwhelming numbers. The way to do this is to simply make small inexpesive boats or take ones already in existence and simply bolt on the necesary equipment such as a surface to ship missle ( like the exocet or silkworm ). They don't need to be really rugged since they won't be opperating in open ocean, also they won't need large crews anywhere from 5 to 20 will do. Not to mention they don't need to even have an engine, they can be sail powered.

So as long as it floats slap on a missle on there and send them off, try to overwhelm the European ships with mass quantities of these, granted massive amouts of these will be sunk, but the idea again is to attrition out the enemy. If they are able to do it long enough they may be able to wrest control of the Med, now that's scarry.

What about tactical nuclear strikes? Do you think either side would use them?

I don't think either side will use nukes. Nuking by the Europeans will probably be retaliated with a backpack nuke in some Western city, and I'm sure the Islamics know if they use one first it wouldn't be too hard for the West to retaliate. Besides as long as the Europeans know they have at least a slim chance of still winning, I don't think they will resort to the nuclear solution.

Couple of things I wanna throw out to you Gladius. First of all in the event of war the Indians will mobilize their reserves and begin conscription which means an army MUCH bigger than the 3 or 4 million men you postulate. You're saying that the Islamic army will be bloodied in India so I guess you're saying that it will kick off in Kashmir and likely involved a thrust from Pakistan into there at the same time? India will soon be the most populous country in the world and while much of it is very poor we have another scenario where sheer force of numbers will be employed against perhaps a superior equipped force.

India also possess nukes and they may decide to use them sooner than the West would, particularly if they feel that their very country and religion are at stake.

Israel's military is at least the equal to any Western European military (with the possible exception of the UK and Germany) and far better than most of them. They also possess nukes and faced with a massive packed army flowing down from Iraq/Syria/Iran don't you think they would be sorely tempted to employ them? It would be such a tempting target.

I think you're being a little dismissive of what Air Supremacy would mean for the Europeans and their allies. If we accept that the European allies have control of the seas then you are looking at the Islamic armies being supplied through narrow land corridors which will become ever longer and longer. I can imagine vast fleets of B-52s and B-1B bombers bombing the living shit outa these supply lines.

Presumably the Islamic superstate would have spent a few years preparing for this war otherwise they'd never have the grievous amounts of weapons in place. How would they keep all this activity hidden from the Western powers? What about oil reserves for example. In my eyes it would be easy for a side with total Air Supremacy to bomb any Islamic oil facilities/pipelines from the face of the earth, regardless of how many SAM/AA defences you'd have.

What do you think the US will be doing when all this is going on? The NATO treaty (if still in existence) would mean that the US would be duty bound to come to the assistance of any NATO member attacked by a foreign power. Furthermore, do you think the US would allow such a massive Islamic state to form and arm itself without taking some kind of proactive action?

The Chinese too would be concerned about any huge Islamic army fighting near their sphere of influence. Like the others say China is becoming more and more capitalized (and therefore westernized) every year and they'd align themselves with the West if they were forced to choose sides. So you have the prospect of the Islamic Superstate not only warring against the most technologically advanced and best supplied/equipped/trained/led alliance on earth, but also warring against the 2 most populous nations on earth. The Chinese alone have reservists that number 115 MILLION men. That's a 3 front war that they cannot win IMO.

 

[SHERMAN]

I do agree with Gladius that if this Muslim Mhadi/Massiah comes we are all doomed....

 

[gladius]

Question to the readers of this thread

I know alot of you reading this have questions. I was thinking of answering them all, but I'm starting to get swamped and get a backlog. I want to, but it does take alot of effort to answer everything, and sometimes I don't have time.

So instead of replying to everybody, I will instead ask a question.

This may actually answer the question in your minds whether this scenario is possible or not.



The scenario

Imagine for a second that YOU are the Mahdi.

You have just come into power as absolute supreme god-like head of a united Muslim empire of around 1.5 billion people.

Within this empire you also control most of the worlds oil supply, and riches and money that go with it.

Most of the people in your empire are totaly fanatic and would be glad to die for you, so in time of war you can count on them to do anything you want without too much motivation. From this you know you are able to build an incredibly large army, the numbers of which the world has never seen before.

You also have the same influence with the large chunks of Muslims living in foreign countries, they too would be glad to die for you, you just have to give the order.

Anything within this empire is yours to command, to organize, to destroy, or to reform, within this empire you literaly have the power of life and death at your whim.

In other words you have absolute and total control of incredibly vast amounts of resources in manpower and riches, available for you to do as you wish.


The Mandate

Now that you have become that Mahdi which means you already have fulfilled the preliminary prophecies of Mahdiship, you must now fulfill the rest of the prophecies in order for the people to believe you are the true Mahdi, or else you are in trouble.

Now the prophecies mandate an invasion of Europe, you have no choice but to do this, once you got the ball rolling, you were locked in to fulfill this to the end. You may also believe you are the true Mahdi and therefore can not lose.

But it will not be easy, you know what you will be up against. You know your technology is not on par with the Europeans and you know America will get into it too.


The Question

Now given the resources you have, the oil, the money, the manpower, the fanaticism, and also the challenges that you face.

Given all this, can you come up with a plan to invade Europe with at least some decent if not good chance of success?


...Afterthought

You may not be a Hannibal or Napoleon, but do you yourself see a way to make it happen? What if you posed this same question to Hannibal or Napoleon, what do you think they would say? So is it really possible?

My own personal answer to this question, yes, I think I could, if not, I could place people under me who can come up with better ideas. I don't profess to be a genius, nor am I supersmart, but I can come up with ways to make this somewhat successful, given the resources backing me. Keeping in mind diplomacy is also a tool and oil could be leverage which can be used as well in order not to fight too many enemies at once.

I don't necesarely think the Mahdi is going to win, what I'm saying is, its possible given the scenario, a succesful incursion into Europe may occur. I think the West will win eventually, but not after tremdous damage and loss of life has occured, probably in a scale not yet seen before. I don't this will be cakewalk for the West, some may see a quick and total victory, I personaly don't think this will be the case.

The reason I have been posting this, is that right now, at least hundreds of millions of Muslims can't wait for the Mahdi to show up, in fact its one of their prayers to hasten the Mahdi's return. The West has absolutely no clue about this stuff. If we know the danger of this then we can find ways to stop it, or at least counter it once it gets rolling. If not, we may be taken by surprise and the worst case scenario may indeed happen.

 

[godofthunder9010]

I do agree with Gladius that if this Muslim Mhadi/Massiah comes we are all doomed....

I hope you mean Israel. I don't know that the Mahdi's appearance today would completely shatter anything else, but Israel is in a messy position for sure. Israel would give them hell for quite awhile and then likely be completely overwhelmed, especially if the Mahdi is a reasonably brilliant military leader.

But on other fronts, if we're pitting all of Islam against India AND China ... well its not going to work, plain and simple. They are already too well equipped and their numerical superiority over an Islamic Superstate would be more than just a bloodying of the nose. The Islamists would be completely crushed and humiliated. India and China have a lot better possilities at making their own military equipment independently than this Islamic Superstate could muster. The potential for their econmic production is terrifying and the world of Islam has almost nothing with which to match it.

Also consider that with naval and air superiority against them, enormous Muslim countries like Indonesia are going to find it very hard to contribute to the cause.

I must say that the discussion has been very insteresting. Much of what I've added are things that I had not thought about previously. I've learned a great deal just by having to visualize the scenario in depth.

Still, I must maintain one thing. If you have a Mahdi come to power who can drag Islam into the 21st century ... and then manage to surpass the West technologically and militarily, then your looking at a much more dangerous scenario. Considering where things are at right now, that would take substantial time and work. If I had a united Islam under my power, that would be my first priority. Secondly, I'd throw a lot into coming across as a mouse diplomatically until I'm fully ready to be the lion.

 

[SHERMAN]

Like I said....IF He comes we are all dead...Seeing as he is the true saveiour of the Islamic world sent by Allah to conqure the world...I am not much worried about that option.

 

[Red_Army]

This thread is ridiculous. So what if the Muslim have a population of 1.5 billion. China has over 1.3 billion people, they are also capable of having an army of 200,000,000.

Mod Edit:No one forces you to participate.