Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are so many conflicts going on in the world right now...Iran/Israel conflict, India/Pakistan conflict, communist China growing fast, Putin's Russia is very unpredictable, North Korea crisis, Afghan war, Eurozone crisis, Mexican Drug War... that it seems like a world war is just around the corner. So what do you think it would be like?
There are so many conflicts going on in the world right now...Iran/Israel conflict, India/Pakistan conflict, communist China growing fast, Putin's Russia is very unpredictable, North Korea crisis, Afghan war, Eurozone crisis, Mexican Drug War... that it seems like a world war is just around the corner. So what do you think it would be like?
I don't buy your logic. You say that a "world war is just around the corner" simply because there are a number of local conflicts brewing? There are always local conflicts brewing. Although the most recent world war ended 68 years ago, the memory of it is fresh enough in the minds of world leaders to remind them that any victory is likely to be a phyrric one. World War II was a phyrric victory for everyone involved except the United States and Canada, and even those two nations suffered a lot of combat deaths. The U.S. public would never put up with death on that scale nowdays.
If it goes nuclear, the first part will be on tv, it will be over in about ninety minutes, and afterward a bunch of leather clad types in armed dune buggies and motorcycles will battle each other in the desert over water and gasoline.
And as Tom Lehrer noted, if any good songs are going to come out of World War Three, we had better start writing them now.
Last edited by Grandstander; 07-21-2013 at 05:27 PM..
There are so many conflicts going on in the world right now...Iran/Israel conflict, India/Pakistan conflict, communist China growing fast, Putin's Russia is very unpredictable, North Korea crisis, Afghan war, Eurozone crisis, Mexican Drug War... that it seems like a world war is just around the corner. So what do you think it would be like?
'just around the corner'? Um... no.
Iran/Israel conflict
Really? Israel has been involved in numerous full-blown wars, and you think the world is about to plunge into warfare because some country that doesn't even border Israel might get nukes in a few years?
India/Pakistan conflict
So you think India and Pakistan are at unusually strained relations now? Compared to what, precisely, since Partition?
communist China growing fast
First, China is 'communist' in name only. Second, increasing affluence and economic integration in China make it less likely to have any interest in a destruction war, much less a global one.
Putin's Russia is very unpredictable
Actually, Russia is quite predictable. And its military remains a pale shadow of the Soviet military at its high point. Outside of its sphere of immediate interest (some, but not all, of the states of the former Soviet Union - ex., Georgia) Russia has shown neither interest nor capability of doing anything.
North Korea crisis
What crisis? The usual sabre-rattling from North Korea? As opposed to what for the last 60 years?
Afghan war
When hasn't there been some sort of insurgency ongoing in Afghanistan?
Eurozone crisis
Uh huh. What do you think, Greece is going to try and distract people from the bad economy by invading Bulgaria? Hello?
Mexican Drug War
Which has what relevance to a global conflict, precisely?
Here in the real world, things are actually unusually quiet. By the standards of virtually any time in modern history (or, frankly, ever) the number of international conflicts (real conflicts, not the usual posturing and exchange of verbal unpleasantries) and domestic strife is very low.
I don't think it's likely that there will ever be another "world war" in the sense that some of the more impressionable members here envision it. World Wars I and II were a struggle between the true parliamentary-pluralist values that began to emerge among the more-advanced societies about three centuries ago, and the power-obsessed totalitarian cultures which were fueled by too much centralization of both industry and communication.
Ironically, some of the loudest critics at this site direct their spite at free enterprise and the Judeo-Christian ethic which, to date have provided the environment in which that value system has been able to flower (although hopefully, a few Asian nations will meet the general standard of one hundred years of a continuous peaceful transition of power in a few more years).
At present, the greatest threats to global stability and peace are the rogue nations -- poor, and poorly-educated masses led by ideologues, both fanatically religious or completely amoral, these fools usually fight among themselves and kill mostly their own subjects in the process, but all bets are off if one of them finds a way to slip a weapon of mass destruction into a place with a large population of innocent civilians.
Nor do I see China (or India) emerging as a threat; they are so large, so diverse, and still vulnerable, to some degree, to severe economic disruption, as to be considered "not completely governable". Neither one has been very extensively engaged in a war on soil other than their own, and general human progress offers other alternatives.
I can only re-quote Herman Wouk in War an Rememberance: "Either war is finished, or we are."
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 07-21-2013 at 08:38 PM..
I just don't think it's in the cards. There's a difference between the screeching one hears on the television and what makes remote sense from a geopolitical standpoint.
China? China has a successful mercantile economy. You think they're going to screw that up with a world war? Mind you, they will run out of road in the next ten years, but it's going to be really difficult to make the case that invading Siberia or Taiwan is a good idea.
North Korea? North Korea cannot wiggle its ears without the permission of its Chinese handlers.
Iran/Israel? Bluster. Iran knows that going nuclear would be suicidal. And they totally lack the economic capacity to fight a conventional war longer than a few months with a strong power.
India/Pakistan? Probably the most likely major war, but still unlikely.
Russia? Russia is wealthier than it has been in its entire history. At the same time, it's important to realize that the Russian population is only 140 million. And, what's more, Russia Proper has actually been in steady population decline since 1990. As it stands today, it's only a little more populous than Japan.
India? Never been an aggressive power.
Central America? Nope.
The truth of the matter is that things are actually looking up in a lot of ways. The world's poverty rate has been slashed in half over the past two decades. Trade continues to hum along. Birth rates have plummeted around the world, halting runaway overpopulation in the latter half of the century.
All of what the OP lists are regional conflicts, even N. Korea. China? I think no one here can fathom the amount of commerce that occurs between the U.S. and China, or the amount of expat Chinese that are working here, and American's working in China. I go there twice a year for my business, and a war is the least of my concerns, in fact the very concept of it is laughable. The economy is global now, with each's major powers economy intertwined with the other, has been for over two decades or so, it's ironic that it probably that, and not the threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction, that makes the thought of a global conflict between the major powers almost unfathomable. Another thing you must realize is, nuclear weapons aside, the power of a single US aircraft carrier fleet to obliterate the armed forces of most nations. We don't even have to be in the same time zone to do it. Insurgencies aside, no country is a match for us in a conventional war.
The world will continue with it's regional conflicts and wars by proxy (with one power supporting one side and the other the other side - Iran excels in this). China will continue with it's economic espionage to gain the economic upper hand. Wars in the middle east will continue, N. Korea will continue to threaten every time they need a container of rice. But no world war.
I don't buy your logic. You say that a "world war is just around the corner" simply because there are a number of local conflicts brewing? There are always local conflicts brewing. Although the most recent world war ended 68 years ago, the memory of it is fresh enough in the minds of world leaders to remind them that any victory is likely to be a phyrric one. World War II was a phyrric victory for everyone involved except the United States and Canada, and even those two nations suffered a lot of combat deaths. The U.S. public would never put up with death on that scale nowdays.
There is extensive cyber research going on in the military, from cyber suits which soldiers would wear to outright robot soldiers. I think one of the reasons is they know that 68 years and less with all the other small forays isn't enough to wipe out that memory. But if you have drones and robots on the front line, then maybe they'd be okay with it. Problem is, the other side would too and they'd both know to really hurt the enemy you go past the front line to the support areas and do your hurting there. Moral and willingness to fight count as much as firepower.
I don't see a full out nuke war like we all learned to fear and expect in the 60's since the memory of that fear is still too predominant, but small target, strategic attacks are likely. A smart enemy would identify the places which if lost or contaminated would do the most damage. They need not be military, but infrastructure as well. Then sit back and watch the confusion. It would be more a war of attrition rather than WW2 as supplies needed to keep the modern war machine ran out and food became scarce and medicine as well, as our world today is not local but international and that supply line would be the first to go. This would apply to almost everyone.
I think it would lead to the fracture of larger places, perhaps even the US, since as personal needs were sorely compromized, the enemy might become the place not sending water down the river or the neighbor with food or medicine over the distant enemy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
