A world war is a particular war characterized by nations from around the world fighting each other. A world war is on a much broader scale than the regional conflict brewing in the Middle East. At first I was skeptical about the capacity of the current clash in the Middle East to reach that level of hostility, but upon further examination, it is approaching the realm of the possible.
The Players:
Israel:
Since its rebirth in 1948, Israel has been a nation of soldiers. All Jewish men and women over the age of 18 are required to serve three and two years respectively in the Israel Defense Force. After this term of service, the men remain in the reserves until the age of 40. From new advanced shoulder weapons like the Corner Shot to advanced tanks and warplanes, Israel is a country ready for war.
Lebanon:
This country contains the Hezbollah. It is a republic with the three highest government offices reserved for different religions. The President must be a Maronite Catholic Christian. The Prime Minister must be a Sunni Muslim. The Speaker of the Parliament must be a Shi'a Muslim (Via Wikipedia). So far, the conflict seems to be primarily limited to the Lebanese militia Hezbollah.
Hezbollah:
This militant political party was "inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution." Essentially, they are set on turning Lebanon into an Islamic state, Iran-style. Inspired, financed, trained, and supplied by Iran and Syria, this militant organization does not distinguish between American and Israeli. Their primary goal seems to be terror. One of their more successful attacks took place in 1983 when a suicide bomber murdered 241 US Marines stationed in Beirut. For the moment they have evolved from suicide bombers to rocket launchers.
Iran:
Last October Iran's president called for Israel to "be wiped off the map". Now, the closest they have managed to get is to remove the nation from their maps of the world. Some people are arguing for containment, Cold-War style. However, that probably will not work too well in the long run – we will still need to buy oil from them after all.
Syria:
A parliamentary republic, this nation has diplomatic and military ties to Lebanon, Iran, and Russia.
Russia:
Russia has always had its hand in the Middle East. However, their role is becoming more worrisome than ever before. It is not the nuclear technology they have been selling to Iran or the SAM-18 missile system they sold to Syria earlier this year, it's the military alliances they have been forging. The whole of the Muslim world is now thoroughly entangled with the former Soviets.
The Technology:
Hezbollah:
For the most part, the weapons possessed by the Hezbollah are learned about when they strike Israeli cities. According to the Asharq Alawsat over 3,000 Hezbollah guerillas have trained in Iran and are armed with over 11,500 missiles from the same country. So far:
- Katyusha - Short range rockets. They have a limit of about 12 miles and were developed by the Russians during the World War II. Over 120 of these have been launched into Israel thus far.
- Ra'ad - This Iranian made missile system is more power and better ranged than the Katyusha. It can carry a warhead of up to 100 kilograms (220 lbs) to a target over 200 miles away. (Via Defense Tech)
- Zelzal-2 - Also supplied by Iran, this type of rocket lacks a guidance system but can carry 600 kilograms (1,322 lbs) of explosives 125 miles. (Via Global Security)
- Fajr-5 - Another Iran made surface-to-surface artillery rocket system has a very limited range of 60-70 kilometers
This image by Kathryn Cramer shows the effective striking range of Hezbollah missiles and a list of the rockets and their ranges. As it turns out, the majority of weapons that Hezbollah has come from Iran, which in turn came from Russia, China, and North Korea. Here is a list of the rockets and missles that Iran has obtained or developed.
Israel:
For a detailed listing of Israel's weapons, check out the Wikipedia article.
Defense Tech has a fantastic article on how Israel may defend itself from the seemingly continuous rocket attacks from Hezbollah. The article outlines two different types of technology for shielding the country from the airborne death. One option is using a laser to fry the incoming projectiles. The alternative seems to pack a bit more punch: it involves an automated Gatling gun firing 4,500 rounds per minute at the enemy missiles.
This latter system, Phalanx developed by Raytheon, was originally designed for the Navy for ship defense. At the present moment, it seems the most practical, however there are definite safety concerns resulting from thousands of bullets being fired into the air. The laser option has the potential to be much more precise; however it has safety concerns of its own. Current laser technology relies on highly toxic reactants to produce a beam powerful enough to smite a rocket.
Closing:
This is one of the first conflicts in recent history that the United States is not directly involved in (yet). Not marginalizing the cost of human life, it provides an interesting look at the military technology of the Hezbollah, Israel, and their allies. This war also demonstrates how little has changed in the last few centuries. We may have developed new and interesting ways of killing each other, but many of the same tactics are still in use. Blockades are still used, bridges are still destroyed. Little in the overall strategy has changed apart from standing in ranks shoulder to shoulder. While the generals may be wiser with the lives of their men, many of the same actions are still necessary.
Israel has tried the diplomatic route and that has failed repeatedly. The only thing that can stand up to force is more force. At this point in time, it seems as though the Hezbollah made the wrong move in provoking Israel's wrath. An anonymous quotation pronounces:
"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."
I do not pretend that Israel has not been the provocateur from time to time, but they have never been as openly aggressive as their enemies. They have used the force necessary to defend their sanctity as a sovereign nation. That is the main difference between being aggressive and being reactive. Israel, like the United States is rarely the one to start wars, but they make a point of finishing them.
Thus far, the political arena seems to be leaning on the side of Israel. Bush voiced his support early on. Now, even Hillary Clinton, says that "we will stand with Israel because Israel is standing for American values as well as Israeli ones." We'll see how it all plays out and what it means for the world, other than higher gas prices. Thus far, John Stewart still has the best coverage of this conflict.
