World War III: will there ever be one?

Slartibartfast wrote: JJLehto wrote: Of course theory means nothing since according to another, a war with the US and China is inevitable but I don't buy that one either. Since China has such a huge chunk of our debt and our independent manufacturing capabilities have been pretty much compromised and they want us to continue buy all the stuff they make, the dynamic isn't there.  We may spend more on the military than several of our potential rivals, but that's all been run up on credit.

Well yeah, that's why I don't buy it  amongst other reasons as well, but I wont go into it now because I'm kinda tired and also dont feel like poli sci nerding this place up!


But also depends on your semantics and definitions. I've heard the 7 years war described as a "world war" which I could understand, and there was of course the Cold War which some also call one, so maybe we've had 4!
If you believe the "War on Terror" is one as well then we're in our 5th. But that's silly since it's hardly a global effort, nor on a global scale really.
We can't call everything world wars now people


Edited by JJLehto - September 19 2011 at 09:05

Slartibartfast wrote: JJLehto wrote: Of course theory means nothing since according to another, a war with the US and China is inevitable but I don't buy that one either. Since China has such a huge chunk of our debt and our independent manufacturing capabilities have been pretty much compromised and they want us to continue buy all the stuff they make, the dynamic isn't there.  We may spend more on the military than several of our potential rivals, but that's all been run up on credit.

Indeed, although China doesn't own quite as large a chunk of US debt as is sometimes thought. They have also been in the process of dumping some of it already. They have also invested some of it in hard assets, like land and property in Africa. The Chinese are already drilling for mineral resources in Africa and western Australia. This is one of the reasons, in my opinion, why NATO is working to establish a permenant military presence in North Africa.

Lets remember though, that the Chinese economy, while it's GDP is growing by around 9% + a year, is not immune to global economic downturn. If the west slips into a deep depression, and can't afford to buy China's crap products, then their exports will fall sharply, and in a short space of time. If the crisis in the Eurozone precedes another major banking crisis, then that could mean a collapse of our monetary system; worldwide. In short no customers = no vendors. A complete re-setting of the global monetary system will be required; a kind of 'year zero' approach.

JJLehto wrote: Of course theory means nothing since according to another, a war with the US and China is inevitable but I don't buy that one either.

Since China has such a huge chunk of our debt and our independent manufacturing capabilities have been pretty much compromised and they want us to continue buy all the stuff they make, the dynamic isn't there.  We may spend more on the military than several of our potential rivals, but that's all been run up on credit.

i hope the world is spared for Timothy Mcveigh and Anders Behring Breivik copycats

Well agreed it would most likely not be a Europe/US centered one because, well that's ridiculous in today's world.
Given how integrated the world is #3 may truly be a world war..maybe no "center" at all. I could see that as well since traditional wars havn't been fought since..Korea?

Since there is only yes and no I'll say no, but really there's of course a chance but I highly doubt it.

2 theories exist about what will happen in the post cold war world: Fukuyama & Huntington and I'm much more inclined to believe the first. Of course theory means nothing since according to another, a war with the US and China is inevitable but I don't buy that one either. end poli sci rambling



Edited by JJLehto - September 18 2011 at 21:02

Henry Plainview wrote: yanch wrote: Probably yes. Unfortunately, as long as ideology is so divisive around the world and there is the insistence that one ideology is "better" than others, the potential for a massive war is possible.  I have trouble believing that you honestly believe all ideas are equal.

James wrote: I wasn't referring to anything specific.We're experiencing a new kind of war though but we're just not told about it.

I think this is the most accurate description so far.

Firstly lets look at a definition of world war:

From Wikipedia (I know, not gospel!):

"A world war is a war affecting the majority of the world's most powerful and populous nations. World wars span multiple countries on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theaters"

If we take this literally, you could argue that world war is already underway. The 'war on terror' has seen attacks in the UK, US, EU, Bali, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Israel/Gaza and possibly soon Syria and Iran too. The Russians and the Chinese are already implicated by the technical and economic assistance to Irans nuclear program, believed by the west to be a weapons program, and of course both countries reticence to support the west at the UN, when dealing with the likes of Iran.

As I said earlier though, I don't think we'll see the kind of conflicts that defined the last two world wars. This new type of war, will entail the collapsing of currencies and the subsequent ram raiding and impoverishment of nations by the IMF, who buy up public infrastructure of countries to whom they have issued loans, and channel the wealth up the pyramid to the global elites. All the while, the Muslim extremist, and the "right wing nut job" will be waiting in the wings, to be wheeled out every time the people need reminding why they must give up their liberties. The new type of war is not nation against nation. It's a battle of perspectives, and the two sides are not defined by the left wing/right wing paradigm.

The war is between the people of the world and their ruling masters.

I find another "World War" like the two previous ones to be unlikely but, as the world topples into Great Depression II, more widespread military conflicts between nations seems likely.  The United States' unnecissary military and monetary presence in so many nations understandably ratchets up tensions but engaging in a traditional war with the US for almost any country would be suicidal.

One could only hope and pray that the third major whorled cornflak't e-laminates us awl from this more tall coy-ole.

 

CPicard wrote: James wrote: We're already experiencing it. The Pepsi/Coca-Cola war doesn't count.

I think he is referring to Microsoft vs Apple.