At the very least US and China vs Russia and North Korea. Who else will jump in?

7/30/2017 2:38:27 AM

U.S. / Japan / Germany / UK / France / Israel / Saudi Arabia / South Korea / Russia

China / NK / Iran

Russia is a swing in my opinion. Turkey goes wherever Russia goes.

[Edited on July 30, 2017 at 1:54 PM. Reason : a]

7/30/2017 1:54:07 PM

Should have thought of this earlier - the real terror happens when India/Pakistan are drawn in. India with US and Pakistan with China.

7/30/2017 3:34:06 PM

China has deep economic tendrils in developing countries in South America and Africa, they’ll be a swing

NK/russia/Iran/Assad/Turkey
VS
US/Saudi/NATO/China?

7/30/2017 4:53:02 PM

(was just reading about WWI)

The European core is extremely well united in historical terms, but old friction points are strong between that block and England as well as Russia. The southern periphery could go its own way. In practical terms, you can treat the US-UK as something that would act as a block.

The problem with selecting other players is that it's still too multi-polar. Russia and China don't have many friends, aside from those economic tendrils and the proxy state playgrounds.

I would shoot for an ETA of 2040, with a lot of shits to consolidate into blocks that would be credible waring blocks.

I'll go for:
China/S.E. Asian nations/Turkey
vs
US/UK/multi-national corporate shadow states/Japan

[Edited on July 30, 2017 at 6:27 PM. Reason : ]

7/30/2017 6:27:22 PM

LOL. OP, you think US and China would be on the same side?

7/30/2017 7:03:42 PM

I don't understand why Turkey would be against us, they are a huge ally.

7/30/2017 7:07:20 PM

^their relations with NATO are hurting right now and they've been moving closer with Russia

7/30/2017 10:05:02 PM

All of this is pretty absurd. The idea of a traditional world war is absurd. Nuclear nations won't go to direct all-out war.

A world war may already be happening but the world wars of the future will all be civil wars, proxy wars fought between developing nations, and wars against organizations and/or idealisms (war on terror). The powers that be have already consolidated global markets so there is no longer a need for world war. It would only serve as a huge disruption to profit.

You have to think more with the times and think of future wars as people vs power instead of power vs power. Things like occupy will eventually turn into insurgencies like they did in Syria and then "enemy states" will supply the weapons. This won't even look like a regular war and will likely be classified as terrorism and cyber warfare.

We haven't quite reached the threshold where personal technology can actually put up a fight but we are approaching a day where rag tag groups of revolutionaries will be able to overthrow governments (or put up a fight) AND crises will be bad enough that the local population will support/hide the revolutionaries.

Also, once socialism really starts to take off in larger markets, you will see an increase in capital-terrorism related conflict like what is going on in venezuela.

[Edited on July 30, 2017 at 11:01 PM. Reason : land grabs aren't a thing anymore. no one wants to occupy and hold other people. outdated mindsets]

7/30/2017 11:00:45 PM

I think we might be headed towards a war with more than 2 sides...more like a game of Risk where there are several armies trying to conquer everything all at once. ISIS won't allow for any Arab nation to join any non-Muslim side, and they'll see it as an opportunity to take more power while the countries which had been keeping them somewhat in check will be distracted. This leaves Israel especially vulnerable. I think US ties with Egypt and Jordan will keep at least those two from joining the caliphate, but Saudi Arabia would be split between an American-supported government and an Islamic populace.

Team 1: USA, UK, China, Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, Israel, Germany
Team 2: Russia, North Korea, Turkey
Team 3: ISIS (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq), Iran
Swing: Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, France
Staying out of it: Australia, non-Arab Africa, Latin America, Switzerland

Quote :

"LOL. OP, you think US and China would be on the same side?"

The amount of national debt each country owns of the other...neither wants the other to be on the losing side of a war. So I think they'd be on the same side. NK is a legitimate threat to China, I think they'd choose us over them.

Quote :

"world wars of the future will all be civil wars, proxy wars fought between developing nations"

To my understanding, that's what Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf 1 were. They were all versions of us fighting Russia's interests without actually going to war with Russia. But eventually the big boys are going to have to get their hands dirty.

[Edited on July 31, 2017 at 4:25 AM. Reason : -]

7/31/2017 4:24:52 AM

Quote :

"land grabs aren't a thing anymore. no one wants to occupy and hold other people. outdated mindsets"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine_(2014%E2%80%93present)

[Edited on July 31, 2017 at 10:25 AM. Reason : a]

7/31/2017 10:25:01 AM

As for land grabs, as soon as no one is looking, Taiwan is toast.

7/31/2017 10:40:30 AM

Quote :

" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation"

This is not a landgrab really. Russia took part of Russia from Ukraine without much conflict at all. The citizens wanted it. Hence no world war began over it. Ukraine didn't even go to war.

Quote :

" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes"

Most of these are joke disuputes over small islands. Most of which would never lead to war. Most of the ones that could lead to war would never lead to world war. The ones involving India are pretty seriousbut thats about it. If you think the world is going to another war over a few sq km, you are crazy. Hell, Denmark and Canada fighting over Hans Island is on your list.

Quote :

"The Danes couldn’t let that stand. The country’s minister of Greenland affairs soon arrived on the island to replace the offending Canadian symbols with a Danish flag and a bottle of Danish schnapps, along with a note saying “Welcome to the Danish island.”"

shit got real

Quote :

"Team 3: ISIS (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq), Iran"

Ok Clearly, you don't understand ISIS and Iran.

Quote :

" But eventually the big boys are going to have to get their hands dirty."

Why would they have to and why would they want to?

Also, China isn't going to let North Korea fall as long as South Korea is aligned with the US. They especially would not actively fight them. In the event of a war, they would simply arm the North covertly while continuing to trade with the US. This is another reason why world war just isn't going to happen in the traditional way you are thinking

7/31/2017 10:36:18 PM

Your first statement regarding Russia/Ukraine renders you completely unqualified to discuss this topic.

7/31/2017 11:56:50 PM

The Poles are basically German! The Sudentan land is ethnic Germans!

8/1/2017 7:04:02 AM

^^
If you can't justify why you hold a certain view, then you probably shouldn't feel so strongly about that view. "my government and media told me so!" isn't good enough of a justification for a world view. That is how you end up brainwashed.

The last two posts indicate that you guys have aren't even aware of the history or demographics
- that Crimea voted 97% to rejoin Russia through a referendum
-that it was only given to Ukraine in 1954 which means almost everyone there was either born Russian or has a parent/grandparent who was born Russian.
-That the Soviet supreme court ruled it belonged to Russia in 93

and if all of this is wrong, where is the world war?

8/1/2017 8:27:34 AM

I'm acutely aware of history and demographics which is why I explicitly included the Sudetenland in my dumb joke.

Is the standard for adhering to international borders now "didn't cause a world war?" We should annex Ontario if it is. Trudeau wouldn't step to big Don.

8/1/2017 8:45:29 AM

^^https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine

Quote :

"The internationally recognised Ukrainian People's Republic emerged from its own civil war. The Ukrainian–Soviet War followed, in which the bolsheviks Red Army established control in late 1919.[6] The Ukrainian Bolsheviks, who had defeated the national government in Kiev, created the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which on 30 December 1922 became one of the founding republics of the Soviet Union. Initial Soviet policy on Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture made Ukrainian the official language of administration and schools. Policy in the 1930s turned to russification. In 1932 and 1933, millions of people, mostly peasants, in Ukraine starved to death in a devastating famine, known as Holodomor. It is estimated that 6 to 8 million people died from hunger in the Soviet Union during this period, of whom 4 to 5 million were Ukrainians.[7] Nikita Khrushchev was appointed the head of the Ukrainian Communist Party in 1938. After the 1939 invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, the Ukrainian SSR's territory was enlarged westward. Ukraine was occupied by Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944. During World War II the Ukrainian Insurgent Army fought for Ukrainian independence against both Germany and the Soviet Union. In 1945, the Ukrainian SSR became one of the founding members of the United Nations.[8] After Stalin's death, as head of the Communist Party of Soviet Union, Khrushchev enabled a Ukrainian revival. Nevertheless, there were further political repressions against poets, historians and other intellectuals, like in all other parts of the USSR. In 1954, the republic expanded to the south with the transfer of the Crimea. Ukraine became independent again when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. This started a period of transition to a market economy, in which Ukraine suffered an eight-year recession.[9] Since then, however, the economy has experienced a high increase in GDP growth. Ukraine was caught up in the worldwide economic crisis in 2008 and the economy plunged. GDP fell 20% from spring 2008 to spring 2009, then leveled off.[10]"

Land grabs out the ass.

Quote :

"An invasion by Russia in Ukrainian autonomous region of Crimea resulted in the annexation of Crimea by Russia on 18 March 2014."

Oh, look, another land grab.

As for your "referendum" that occurred after Russian military were walking the streets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

Quote :

"The March 16 referendum's available choices did not include keeping the status quo of Crimea and Sevastopol as they were at the moment the referendum was held."

Quote :

"The referendum was regarded as illegitimate by most members of European Union members, the United States and Canada because of the events surrounding it[7] including the plebiscite being held while the peninsula was host to Russian soldiers. Thirteen members of the United Nations Security Council voted in favor of a resolution declaring the referendum invalid, but Russia vetoed it and China abstained.[8][9] A United Nations General Assembly resolution was later adopted, by a vote of 100 in favor vs. 11 against with 58 abstentions, which declared the referendum invalid and affirmed Ukraine's territorial integrity.[7] The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People called for a boycott of the referendum.[10][11] Russia officially recognized the results of the Crimean referendum and states that unilateral Kosovo declaration of independence has set a precedent, which allows secession of Crimea from Ukraine.[12] Such parallels, however, are disputed by legal scholars.[13][14][15] The official result from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a 96.77 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout.[a][1] The Mejlis Deputy Chairman Akhtem Chiygoz felt that the actual turnout could not have exceeded 30–40 percent, arguing that to be the normal turnout for votes in the region.[16]"

That's all from a 30 second Wikipedia search.

Quote :

"Is the standard for adhering to international borders now "didn't cause a world war?" We should annex Ontario if it is. Trudeau wouldn't step to big Don."

Exactly.

[Edited on August 1, 2017 at 9:53 AM. Reason : a]

8/1/2017 9:53:07 AM

I'm going to get killed for saying it, but Earl may be more right about Crimea than you'd think.

The CNN narrative and what actually went down are vastly different stories. It really depends on who you ask, but I know some Ukrainians who have rolled my eyes at me when I've brought up Crimea as an example of Russian "aggression" and they have told me that there's a lot more to the story than what Americans have heard on the news.

[Edited on August 1, 2017 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2017 12:51:04 PM

if a country moves military force into another country's territory, and annexes that territory, it is an aggressive land grab regardless of how people feel about it.

the people should decide themselves to leave and join the other country, and if their original country does not allow a process to do that then it may be a justified land grab and act of aggression but it is still a land grab and act of aggression

8/1/2017 12:57:06 PM

I mean calling it a "land grab" is fine, but not everyone was mad about it, or even cared. Some people were actually happy about it.

We've grabbed plenty of lands ourselves and nobody complains about it much in Hawaii or the Virgin Islands these days, do they ? Calling it "aggressive" is a separate issue.

8/1/2017 1:25:54 PM

^^Not to be a dick, but this is my primary area of extracurricular reading. Also, my ex-girlfriend is from Ukraine. Crimea was part of Ukraine, end of story. It would be like Cuba taking over Florida in that sense just because there's a huge Cuban population.

To get more detailed, Ukraine breaks down along the Dnieper River. Eastern Ukraine is primarily Russian speaking and arguably pro-Russia from a political standpoint. Western Ukraine is primarily Ukrainian speaking and aligned with Europe/U.S. The western population speaks both Russian and Ukrainian. The eastern population does not speak both.

In this sense, it's like how in the US, the rural areas break Republican and the urban areas break Democratic. We are still one country.

Russia invaded Crimea and they also have inserted thousands of soldiers in Eastern Ukraine. More than 10,000 have died already as a result of fighting that continues to this day. It's the same play Russia made in Georgia - they claimed ethnic Russians wanted them there. They invaded, started passing out Russian passports and have not left since.

This is a very good breakdown to be honest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZrNhmdHzY4

Back to the point - Russia has put troops in two locations that belong to Ukraine. That is a land grab. That is a violation of territorial integrity. There are a ton of people in Texas who would love for Texas to leave the United States. That doesn't mean that if Mexico came in and helped them, it wouldn't be a violation of the territorial integrity of the United States.

^Point absolutely noted. But I'm not getting into whether historical actions were proper or not. I'm simply saying, as defined in today's world, Russia invaded Ukraine. It's irrelevant as to whether some of the population wanted it or not.

[Edited on August 1, 2017 at 1:27 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on August 1, 2017 at 1:28 PM. Reason : a]

8/1/2017 1:26:47 PM

Quote :

"I know some Ukrainians who have rolled my eyes at me when I've brought up Crimea as an example of Russian "aggression" and they have told me that there's a lot more to the story than what Americans have heard on the news."

Quote :

"Also, my ex-girlfriend is from Ukraine."

My wife's entire family are all from the Soviet Union in what would now be called Ukraine. All of them got out to either USA, Germany, or Israel, because no matter who was in control of their region it was a terrible place to be. They refer to Ukraine as the bad guys, and to Russia as the worse guys. They all still prefer to speak Russian over any other language though.

[Edited on August 1, 2017 at 3:44 PM. Reason : -]

8/1/2017 3:41:51 PM

Glad they got out. What part of Ukraine?

Hard for them to get anyone good in power when you have the FSB doing everything they can to fuck Ukraine up, haha. A lot of the good ones are being killed in Eastern Ukraine right now too, thanks to Russia.

[Edited on August 1, 2017 at 3:55 PM. Reason : a]

8/1/2017 3:55:06 PM

Used to be called something else but now it's called Kharkiv, very close to the Russian border.

8/1/2017 4:02:50 PM

Ah, okay, that makes sense. My ex is from Kosiv, just north of Romania.

8/1/2017 4:24:05 PM

Quote :

" We've grabbed plenty of lands ourselves and nobody complains about it much in Hawaii or the Virgin Islands these days, do they ? Calling it "aggressive" is a separate issue."

it was both a land grab and aggressive

8/1/2017 4:40:47 PM

I still strongly disagree with this idea that Turkey would be against us. To me, the NATO argument is the same as saying that they won't stand with the western world because they have been resistant to switching from the lira to the euro. They really like America and are fiercely loyal as a culture. I met people all over the country young and old that spoke English and gave me the royal treatment as an American, even while traveling during the George dubya era. No one I met spoke Russian (and I spoke a little Russian at that point). The only thing wrong with Turkey is Erdogan, whose days are numbered, and I think they are smart enough to know that the same is true for us and Trump. Icing on the cake is the fact that Armenia and Russia are allies, and there is no way in hell Turkey will stand on a side with Armenia.

8/1/2017 9:12:55 PM

How many people working for the Turkish government did you hang out with? Pay any attention to how they have been operating lately?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447009/turkey-russia-alliance-develops-erdogan-spurns-west

[Edited on August 1, 2017 at 9:49 PM. Reason : a]

8/1/2017 9:40:29 PM

Oh boy. I disagree with almost all the predictions and tulsigarb's naysaying.

Quote :

"At the very least US and China vs Russia and North Korea"

I guess it's not totally inconceivable, but I'd like you to show your work on this one. Maybe we can envision Russia and DPRK both becoming embittered towards China - Russia because of its growing influence in their eastern provinces, North Korea because of it steadily withdrawing support. But I'm dubious of the circumstances that put their goals in alignment to the extent of alliance and cooperative war.

Quote :

"U.S. / Japan / Germany / UK / France / Israel / Saudi Arabia / South Korea / Russia China / NK / Iran"

More plausible, I think, but I definitely don't buy Russia as a potential U.S. ally in this; and if I'm wrong, I don't believe Germany and France would join a conflict without a major European aggressor (like Russia). Matter of fact, I don't have much faith in NATO in a conflict without a major European aggressor. We activated it for Afghanistan and the result has been 16 years of the geopolitical equivalent of a festering anal sore. The Europeans will only get involved if the continental balance of power is at risk.

Quote :

"China has deep economic tendrils in developing countries in South America and Africa, they’ll be a swing"

The African countries are militarily irrelevant, with the possible exceptions of Egypt and South Africa. That said, one of the more plausible "World War 3" scenarios involves prolonged and expanded proxy wars on that continent.

No country in South America would align with China in a shooting war.

Quote :

"China/S.E. Asian nations/Turkey vs US/UK/multi-national corporate shadow states/Japan"

If Southeast Asia gets involved, it will be to shoot at the Chinese, not with them.

Quote :

"Team 1: USA, UK, China, Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, Israel, Germany Team 2: Russia, North Korea, Turkey Team 3: ISIS (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq), Iran Swing: Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, France Staying out of it: Australia, non-Arab Africa, Latin America, Switzerland"

Iran and ISIS hate each other. If Iran gets involved, Saudi Arabia/Egypt/Jordan aren't a swing, they're whatever side is shooting at Iranians. Israel won't randomly join this sort of conflict if it isn't expressly targeted; from their perspective, far better to let the Iranians and Arabs kill each other. Pakistan wouldn't side with China and India will pick the side that opposes both. Vietnam would want to shoot Chinese.

Quote :

"I still strongly disagree with this idea that Turkey would be against us."

Erdogan is in charge and appears to have a solid base of support; he's still there, the coup is crushed. How are his days numbered?
While they might not hate us specifically, they're quite bitter to the Europeans who won't let them into their EU club.

8/1/2017 10:52:39 PM

Quote :

"More plausible, I think, but I definitely don't buy Russia as a potential U.S. ally in this"

Yea, that's why I put them as a swing. The reason I did that is that depending on how deep it goes with China, I could see the US sacrificing some things to gain Russia's help against the Chinese. Ukraine could likely be one such sacrifice depending on how strong the Chinese prove themselves to be in combat, though if we have enough of SE Asia involved, that may be enough to negate.

Quote :

"The Europeans will only get involved if the continental balance of power is at risk."

I would think a WW would constitute that, particularly if Russia is on the opposing side.

Quote :

"While they might not hate us specifically, they're quite bitter to the Europeans who won't let them into their EU club."

Yep.

[Edited on August 1, 2017 at 11:13 PM. Reason : a]

8/1/2017 11:13:01 PM

^you said you disagreed with me then repeated some of the things I said

Quote :

"Is the standard for adhering to international borders now "didn't cause a world war?""

That is the standard for this thread. Please remember my main point. My main point is that none of this will cause a world war. The land grabs you are talking about are the types that will cause skirmishes and border wars but not world war. I'm not saying there won't be anymore wars (there will be border, cold, proxy, regional, "on terror"). I'm saying there won't be a direct world war.

Quote :

"That's all from a 30 second Wikipedia search."

maybe thats your problem

Quote :

"and if their original country does not allow a process to do that then it may be a justified land grab and act of aggression but it is still a land grab and act of aggression"

The context of the discussion was not initially about the wisdom, ethics, or morality of it, just if it would lead to world war or not. You guys have great points about everything else in reference to Crimea, but thats not what we were originally talking about.

Quote :

" There are a ton of people in Texas who would love for Texas to leave the United States. That doesn't mean that if Mexico came in and helped them, it wouldn't be a violation of the territorial integrity of the United States."

This and all of the other analogies are bad for many reasons

1. Crimea was just recently part of Russia from 1783-1954. But the transfer from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 didn't mean much until Ukranian independence in 1991. We are talking about 26 years ago.
2. Its not "some people" or a "ton of people" its 97%. Also, most of the people are ethnically Russian, not simply Russsian speakers. Crimea is not "eastern Ukraine", Its always been "Crimea"

If you respect democracy, theres really no way around this one. Historically and recently
-"Supreme court" of USSR ruled to give it back to russia but collapse prevented enforcement
-Crimea had a refferendum in 91 to become soveriegn
-Ukraine granted it then limited their autonomous status in 95

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of_the_Republic_of_Crimea
March 11, 2014 Crimea declared independence

Quote :

"The agreement is based on the free and voluntary expression of will by the peoples of Crimea at a nationwide referendum, held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol on March 16, 2014, during which the people of Crimea made the decision to reunite with Russia."

Its not an invasion if an independent nation formally "accedes" into another country.

8/1/2017 11:28:05 PM

The credibility of anything stated by people in Crimea was gone the second Russian troops took over. The "97%" quote is estimated to be closer to 30-40% max rather than the inflated numbers coming from a Russian controlled region. The vote ignored options that contradicted secession/annexation, such as remaining part of Ukraine. That is not a referendum, that is a mock vote set up in the exact same light as when a dictator holds elections and somehow gets 90+% of the vote with no opponents. Russian troops are also in Eastern Ukraine.

Hawaii was the last state to officially join the U.S., in 1959. Does that mean it wouldn't be a big deal if China came over and took it from us to "protect ethnic Chinese citizens?"

In other words, it doesn't matter whether Crimea was part of Ukraine 20 years ago or 200 years ago. International law recognized Crimea as part of Ukraine. That is as ironclad as it gets. Russia committed an act of war, irrespective of the fact that some alleged portion of the population wanted to go with Russia.

The USSR couldn't give anything back to Russia - that would be tautological.

Quote :

"In 1783, Crimea became a part of Russian Empire as the result of Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774). "

Land grab.

Quote :

"Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, Crimea became an autonomous republic within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in the USSR, though later, during World War II, it was downgraded to the Crimean Oblast. In 1954, the Crimean Oblast was transferred to Ukrainian SSR from Russian SFSR by Nikita Khrushchev/[3]"

That right there is Russia ceasing it's claim to Crimea.

Quote :

"Following collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was formed as an independent state in 1991. Most of the peninsula was reorganized as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, while the city of Sevastopol retained its special status within Ukraine. In 1997 Ukraine and Russia signed the Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet that partitioned the former Soviet Black Sea Fleet, setting terms that allowed Russia to continue basing its fleet in Crimea. Sevastopol remained the location of the Ukrainian Naval Forces, while Russian's Black Sea Fleet headquarters was also headquartered in the city. Ukraine extended Russia's lease of the naval facilities under the 2010 Kharkiv Pact in exchange for discounted natural gas. Following the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, unmarked Russian regular military forces together with local separatists took control of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol. The Russian-controlled authorities held a referendum on Crimea joining Russia, after which the territory was formally annexed by the Russian Federation as two federal subjects, Republic of Crimea and federal city Sevastopol respectively. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine deemed the referendum unconstitutional[4][5] and Ukraine continues to assert its rights over the peninsula[5] with most UN member countries continuing to regard Crimea as Ukrainian territory."

Land grab.

Regarding these declarations of independence, these referendums and these massively unrealistic and high percentages of votes, how do you suppose those went down? Russia has had its tentacles inside that country since inception. They cut off power, they cut off oil/gas, they stir up revolts, they assassinate people, control politicians and they wage war, which until recently, was primarily economic in nature. There is no way for that nation to have a shot at being sovereign with that going on.

We're going off on too much of a tangent, though. All of this is really beside the point - Crimea was legally part of Ukraine. And if you want to ignore Crimea, Eastern Ukraine is legally part of Ukraine. This was a border dispute/land grab/whatever else you'd like to call it. And in fact, we can run with the theory that 97% of the people wanted it. Then what you really have is a territory dispute between three entities. Either way, it's a territorial dispute/land grab situation, which is how this came up in this topic. And the only reason Russia is there is for geopolitical security. Has absolutely nothing to do with them caring about ethnic Russians. Just ask the homosexuals in Chechnya how much the Russian government cares about ethnic Russians.

In that respect, I'd argue it's not too different than our bullshit endeavor into Iraq.

[Edited on August 2, 2017 at 12:02 AM. Reason : a]

8/1/2017 11:40:42 PM

Quote :

"you said you disagreed with me then repeated some of the things I said"

I disagree with your assertions that "the idea of a traditional world war is absurd" and "land grabs aren't a thing anymore."

Traditional land-grab wars were the subject of my senior thesis, lo these many years ago, with Dr. Boettcher. I selected the topic because I thought his national security class had ignored this historically important cause of conflict in favor of more "modern" ones. What I found was that there were plenty of simmering territorial conflicts and the potential for more. Countries seize territory through military conflict for several reasons: to bring members of their predominant ethnic group into the fold, to gain strategic advantage over enemies, and to secure control over key resources being the top three as I recall it.

Usually, too, it's a combination of factors: Russia took Crimea because there's a relatively high number of Russian speakers there and because it gave them effective control over the Black Sea. China is aggressively expanding into the South China Sea to secure potential offshore reserves and for a variety of strategic reasons, like forward airstrips and greater flexibility in submarine deployment. And overlaid on top of all of this is the fundamental condition for all actions in international relations: countries do things they think they can get away with. There's large Russian populations in some of the Baltic states, too, and strategic advantage in taking them, but they're in NATO and Ukraine isn't.

There are a handful of serious disputes with major territorial components that could spark large or even global wars, mostly in Asia:

India vs. China
India vs. Pakistan
Korea vs. Korea
China vs. Taiwan

Then there's some regions where the conflict is between countries that might not be able to make a major war among themselves, but they could still snowball. Austria vs. Serbia was hardly the fight of the century, until it dragged everybody else in:

China vs. Southeast Asian neighbors
Pretty much all of Central Africa vs. itself

Then there's those deep enmities that don't necessarily have a territorial component but might develop one as sides jockey for strategic advantage:

Saudi Arabia vs. Iran
Russia vs. USA vs. China in any combination you like

And there are dozens of other strictly territorial disputes that are too minor to start a shooting war by themselves, but might become focal points if there is some other shock to relations between the countries involved. All told, it's a decent list of places where it's completely plausible that there could be a war where one side "wants to occupy and hold other people."

---

Now, having listed all those, I suppose it's time for me to pick my WWIII sides. First, I'll rule out flashpoints. India vs. Pakistan is always a likely bet, but I don't think anybody outside will get involved, particularly on India's side. India has always done a shit job of international relations, to where now it is surrounded by enemies but has no really good friends. China might come in against them, but I don't see Russia (traditionally the closest thing they have to an ally) coming to the rescue unless they've got a bad enough independent beef with China. So you end up with Pakistan/China vs. India. Not exactly a world war, although the total populations involve would actually be larger than the world population in 1945.

A conflict on the Korean peninsula could conceivably bring the world's biggest powers into conflict. I just don't think it will. All China really cares about is avoiding a unified, pro-US Korea. South Korea doesn't really seek unification, which would burden them with tens of millions of poor, brainwashed people to feed, an angry Chinese neighbor, and a bunch of broken down commie infrastructure. All they want is safety from jabbering nuclear lunatics on their northern border. All the United States wants is to not have to fight a goddamn land war in Asia. None of these interests is mutually exclusive. I believe China would be amenable to regime change, as long as the regime favors them. In fact, they would gain in this situation, because the current leadership is hardly cooperative. So a war may happen, but I bet against it going global.

The Taiwan situation has been stable for long enough that I think it would take a pretty serious and unforeseeable shock to turn that into something.

My money is on Iran v. Saudi, but I will have to reflect on how the sides fill out.

8/2/2017 9:09:46 AM

^I don't think the war will start with India/Pakistan. I think it starts with either Iran or NK (the ones who have the least amount of patience, sanity, and stability within their leadership) vs USA (which kind of falls into the same category). India, like you said, has little when it comes to allies. So once there's a war to be fought, I think they will see it as a chance to be part of a larger club.

Maybe China finds a way to stay out of it but cashes in on trade to both/all sides. When the smoke clears, the other major powers will all be hurting, and everyone is left owing them something.

8/3/2017 5:16:33 PM

I'd argue the war starts with less than a regional power like Iran. I think it starts when a small country on the receiving end of the super/regional power fucking ends up losing its shit and either does something stupid or a sect of their country does. I thought the assassination in Turkey of the Russian diplomat was a perfect example.

Look at the American response to the 9/11 attacks. Now imagine how a power would respond to something similar in scale or perhaps larger.

I'd say Ukraine and Syria are strong starting points but the more serious one I think is the South China Sea. China is eventually going to push too far with its expansion and someone is not going to take it.

I will say, if there is any preemptive action by Israel on Iran then I could absolutely see Iran being the starting point.

[Edited on August 3, 2017 at 5:53 PM. Reason : a]

8/3/2017 5:51:25 PM

Everyone seems to be talking about poassible chances for regional wars which are pretty credible but no one has cited mechanism for world war. You are just wildly assuming any regional war will automatically bubble into a world war because that is what happened two times last century. Its a wild assumption. "this is kinda like how ww2 started" is not a credible mechanism for today's world. Its quite lazy actually.

Quote :

" Then what you really have is a territory dispute between three entities. Either way, it's a territorial dispute/land grab situation, which is how this came up in this topic. And the only reason Russia is there is for geopolitical security."

This is a very specific regional "land grab" that is debatable. We were talking about world war and this is not the type of land grab I was referring to when I said there will be no more land grabs. I was talking about land grabs that could start a world war and not simply a regional war.

Quote :

"In that respect, I'd argue it's not too different than our bullshit endeavor into Iraq."

Completely different. Not the same in any way. First, we can look at how many people died as a measure of public opinion. About 2 or 3 civilians died in Crimea and I'm pretty sure the entire death toll was less than 10. The lack of shooting shows the lack of anger.

Quote :

"I think it starts with either Iran or NK (the ones who have the least amount of patience, sanity, and stability within their leadership"

Which american news network told you this? They repeat it all the time but there is no actionable evidence other than "but they executed that one guy" (which must mean they are ready to start ww3). If they had so little patience, it seems they would have started a war by now right? Its been 38 and 64 years respectively without these inpatient, insane, unstable leaders starting a war. What gives?

Quote :

" So once there's a war to be fought, I think they will see it as a chance to be part of a larger club. "

LOL so India is just waiting for a war to join for no reason other than to make friends?

Quote :

"Look at the American response to the 9/11 attacks. Now imagine how a power would respond to something similar in scale or perhaps larger."

Yes please look at the response. The large country kicks the shit out of whichever little country they please and no one else does anything to them besides maybe contribute to the shitkicking. Afghanistan involved the world but was not a world war.

Syria involves the world but is not a world war. Its a proxy/cold war hybrid at best.

Quote :

"but the more serious one I think is the South China Sea. China is eventually going to push too far with its expansion and someone is not going to take it. "

if thats the case, then China beats the shit out of vietnam of phillipines and that is the end. Thats just a war not a world war.


I think I have a very different definition of "world war" and you guys are calling any war that involves more than 2 countries a world war.

8/3/2017 8:05:04 PM

So just to be clear, you have to view Crimea in connection with Eastern Ukraine, you can't view either in isolation. So when you say only 2 or 3 civilians died, you are still ignoring a couple things: Eastern Ukraine, and also this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

So, not sure where you're getting this idea that only a couple civilians died. Far more did. And then there are actual soldiers that are dying as well (over 10,000 at the moment).

How well read are you on this type of stuff? Not trying to start a fight but you come across as incredibly uninformed at depth. Not saying that's a bad thing in general, takes a lot of effort to become educated deeply on these issues, but it makes me question why you choose to debate here.

Example - your response regarding "the large country kicks the shit out of..." is ignoring entirely the point I was trying to make. 9/11 happens and the United States invades two countries that we know don't stand a chance against us but, more importantly, we know do not have valid allies and two countries that did not have other super powers heavily invested in. Ukraine does. Japan does. Vietnam does. South Korea does.

So things will play out quite a bit differently because of that.

China "beating the shit" out of Vietnam and the Phillipines is a far different story and is almost guaranteed to pull in the U.S, Japan, and potentially India in along with South Korea/North Korea.

Btw, the alliances may not break out how I think you are assuming: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-vietnam-russia-exclusive-idUSKBN0M71NA20150311

As for definition of world war, the thread here itself is talking about what the breakdown would be if there was a world war. Beyond that, we are discussing situations that may lead to one. Go back and look at how WW1 and WW2 started. They started small and blew up. Same as how the third one likely will. For all we know, the small shit has been underway for a while now.

[Edited on August 3, 2017 at 11:13 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on August 3, 2017 at 11:30 PM. Reason : a]

8/3/2017 11:12:46 PM

Quote :

"While they might not hate us specifically, they're quite bitter to the Europeans who won't let them into their EU club."

Quite the contrary, Turkey has turned down the EU and has had no interest since the Greece bailout and all the other bailouts that followed.

8/3/2017 11:20:40 PM

Quote :

"So just to be clear, you have to view Crimea in connection with Eastern Ukraine, you can't view either in isolation. So when you say only 2 or 3 civilians died, you are still ignoring a couple things: Eastern Ukraine, and also this"

I don't because they are two different places. Crimea is Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is Eastern Ukraine. The two have long been politically isolated. Crimea is actually a separate legal entity. Its almost always been different, even when it was "part of Ukraine". This bit is really important for recent context

Quote :

"In January 1991, a referendum was held in the Crimean Oblast, and voters approved restoring the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. However, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union less than a year later, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was formed as a constituent entity of independent Ukraine,[34][35] with a slight majority of Crimean voters approving Ukrainian independence in a December referendum.[36] On 5 May 1992, the Crimean legislature declared conditional independence,[37] but a referendum to confirm the decision was never held amid opposition from Kiev.[35][38] The Verkhovna Rada voted to grant Crimea "extensive home rule" during the dispute."

Eastern Ukraine is much more of a violation but even in the context of WW2 (and I hate comparing uncomparable eras), Britain's pact with Poland was only to protect their sovereignty and not necessarily to protect their border which means, if the nazis were to have taken part of Poland (the german part) without invading the whole thing, the British would not be obliged to protect them. Treaties don't mean anything anyway though. They can be broken.

Quote :

"So, not sure where you're getting this idea that only a couple civilians died. Far more did. And then there are actual soldiers that are dying as well (over 10,000 at the moment)."

You can't expand the region I was talking about and then revoke the statistic. Eastern Ukraine is part of Ukraine which is why people are shooting about it. Crimea didn't identify as Ukrainian which is why very few people had a problem with it becoming Russia. It was already Russian.

Quote :

"How well read are you on this type of stuff? Not trying to start a fight but you come across as incredibly uninformed at depth. Not saying that's a bad thing in general, takes a lot of effort to become educated deeply on these issues, but it makes me question why you choose to debate here."

Someone doesn't have to be uneducated just to have a different view point than you. I can't read Russian so obviously, my depth of knowledge is limited by that but that doesn't stop me from talking to people who are well-read. Theres also a difference between being indoctrinated to a certain world view and being "well-read" on a subject. The result is kinda the opposite, really.

Quote :

"invades two countries that we know don't stand a chance against us but, more importantly, we know do not have valid allies and two countries that did not have other super powers heavily invested in."

This logic will prevail

Quote :

"Ukraine does."

So where are they now? Where is the world war? if the Ukrainian "land grab" is as aggressive as you say it is? Sanctions and nothing more...

Quote :

"China "beating the shit" out of Vietnam and the Philippines is a far different story and is almost guaranteed to pull in the U.S, Japan, and potentially India in along with South Korea/North Korea."

Not really. You are stuck in a mindset of how the world worked 60+ years ago. What do you think Vietnam or Philipines would do to China if they got "pushed over the edge" about China taking some little Islands. They would probably, at most, sink some Chinese ships or shoot down some planes. China would respond decisively and the allies would urge everyone to chill out and that would be it. The US isn't going to war with China because the Philipines lost oil rights to some tiny, empty island. Get real.

Quote :

"Go back and look at how WW1 and WW2 started. They started small and blew up. Same as how the third one likely will. For all we know, the small shit has been underway for a while now."

This is your problem. After reading about WW1 and WW2, you think you can just apply the way things worked back then to the way they work today but its apples and oranges. No matter how much you read about even the cold war, you won't be able to apply those things to today. The world is very different.

By your logic, if Turkey shot down a Russian plane, and then shot at a parachuting pilot it would surely create war with Russia and draw NATO in creating ww3.

Cooler heads prevail nowadays because of some key differences.
1. Nuclear weapons
2. Globalization (economic nuclear weapons)

These are both overwhelmingly successful deterrents for large-scale conflicts. Wars aren't happening between countries that play a big role in both. The threat of WW3 was so great during the Soviet era because they represented an entirely different global economy "first world vs second world" Theres pretty much one world today except a handful of isolated nations with no real allies (ie NK). The economic interdependence between the US and China is probably a greater deterrent than the threat of thermonuclear war.

Theres also the fact that China doesn't secretly want to invade and occupy the entirety of Southeast Asia because they don't need to. Occupation is already happening in an economic sense. Russia wants to increase "influence" and I assure you they are not planning a suprise invasion of Poland and Western Ukraine overnight

[Edited on August 4, 2017 at 12:33 AM. Reason : kelly ann conway]

8/4/2017 12:26:39 AM

Quote :

"I don't because they are two different places. Crimea is Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is Eastern Ukraine. The two have long been politically isolated. Crimea is actually a separate legal entity."

Pennsylvania is a separate legal entity from Texas. Puerto Rico is a separate legal entity from Nebraska. Any of those get invaded and it's an attack on the United States. London is a separate legal entity from the City of London. An attack on either of those is an attack on England.

Quote :

"Britain's pact with Poland was only to protect their sovereignty and not necessarily to protect their border "

I have to be honest - statements like this are why I asked how well-read you were on this type of stuff.

Quote :

"You can't expand the region I was talking about and then revoke the statistic."

I can, because they are part of the same country. They were part of the same action. It is the same issue. They are not separate.

Quote :

"Theres also a difference between being indoctrinated to a certain world view and being "well-read" on a subject."

I could not agree more.

Quote :

"So where are they now? Where is the world war?"

So I'll take the blame for not expanding on this particular point, although a later statement of mine hits it tangentially. Remember, it took years for both prior world wars to begin after a lot of appeasement. Same thing is happening here. People doing everything they can to avert or delay war. And on the opposite side, people pushing as far as they can without triggering one.

Quote :

"You are stuck in a mindset of how the world worked 60+ years ago."

Geopolitics is not any different today than it was back then. Nation states vying for limited (perceived) resources, survival and control. The tools by which they do this change, sure. The motivations are not any different and its the motivations that lead to actions which lead to consequences.

Quote :

"Not really. You are stuck in a mindset of how the world worked 60+ years ago. What do you think Vietnam or Philipines would do to China if they got "pushed over the edge" about China taking some little Islands. They would probably, at most, sink some Chinese ships or shoot down some planes. China would respond decisively and the allies would urge everyone to chill out and that would be it. The US isn't going to war with China because the Philipines lost oil rights to some tiny, empty island. Get real. "

The world has always worked the same way as it does not. See previous point on motivations. It's not about taking some little islands, it's about national security in general. The Chinese are expanding for the same reasons Russia has historically sought expansion - 1) to create security zones and 2) to exploit resources. At some point, something will give. When Russia invaded Afghanistan, we were there to supply weaponry and training to indigenous people. The same exact thing would happen with the Phillipines or possibly Vietnam, but certainly South Korea or Japan. At that point it is a 50/50 shot as to what happens next. The U.S. may not go to war because the Phillipines lost oil rights but the U.S. would most likely go to war if the balance of power changes and that balance of power would likely swing in that circumstance.

Quote :

"This is your problem. After reading about WW1 and WW2, you think you can just apply the way things worked back then to the way they work today but its apples and oranges. "

Except you can. You couldn't lay down statistics and have a .99 R^2 but you cannot dismiss the general underpinnings.

Quote :

"By your logic, if Turkey shot down a Russian plane, and then shot at a parachuting pilot it would surely create war with Russia and draw NATO in creating ww3. "

No.

Quote :

"Cooler heads prevail nowadays because of some key differences. 1. Nuclear weapons 2. Globalization (economic nuclear weapons)"

1. Every single weapon that has ever been invented in the history of mankind has eventually been used in conflict. If you are willing to bet that nuclear weapons are not ever going to be used (and I'm talking about modern ones, not the ones we already used in World War 2) then I would love to take the other side on that one. Name your odds. I'm not saying nuclear war will happen in our lifetime, but it will absolutely happen at some point.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ISEC_a_00284?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New+Campaign&utm_term=*Situation+Report&

I wonder how that study plays out elsewhere.

It does absolutely contribute to cooler heads prevailing. That's kind of the whole point behind keeping them out of the hands of people who do not have cool temperaments - Iran/NK.

2. And what do you see occurring worldwide right now? The rise of nationalist/anti establishment movements. So, don't be fooled - the globalist status quo is not in some ironclad position and can fall a hell of a lot quicker than you're suggesting.

Quote :

"Theres also the fact that China doesn't secretly want to invade and occupy the entirety of Southeast Asia because they don't need to."

On the surface, I actually agree with you here. But there are a lot of indicators that you and I are both wrong. And as I've stated on here before, without being able to know for certain, we have to assume the worst.

Quote :

"Russia wants to increase "influence" and I assure you they are not planning a suprise invasion of Poland and Western Ukraine overnight"

You mean like how they weren't planning a surprise invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine or Georgia or Syria?

[Edited on August 4, 2017 at 8:51 AM. Reason : a]

8/4/2017 8:40:49 AM

Quote :

"Pennsylvania is a separate legal entity from Texas. Puerto Rico is a separate legal entity from Nebraska. Any of those get invaded and it's an attack on the United States. London is a separate legal entity from the City of London. An attack on either of those is an attack on England."

You clearly don't get it if you think Crimea: Ukraine as London: England. You fundamentally don't understand what Crimea is. If you refuse to read the part of my posts about the history of Crimea, at least ask yourself why so few people are being killed/protesting over what happened in Crimea vs what is going on in Eastern Ukraine.

Quote :

"Same thing is happening here. People doing everything they can to avert or delay war. And on the opposite side, people pushing as far as they can without triggering one."

but what makes you so sure someone will cross the line? this is what has been happening since the end of ww2 and no one has yet.

Quote :

" Geopolitics is not any different today than it was back then."

Quote :

"The world has always worked the same way as it does no"

The wisdom behind these two quotes is the source of most of our differences. I don't think you could be more wrong but would agree with everything you are saying if I felt this way.

Quote :

"You mean like how they weren't planning a surprise invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine or Georgia or Syria?"

Crimea joined Russia before they were "invaded" so no it wasn't a surprise. Eastern Ukraine fits your description but is more of a proxy war with Russian "soldiers" more like "privateers". You have a point on Georgia.

The Syria comment is unbelievably misinformed though. Whatever you are reading is obviously exceptionally anti-Russia to the point of being dishonest. No one can honestly characterize Russia's actions as an "invasion" of Syria. They were invited and are acting in cooperation with the Syrian government. Perhaps the US has "invaded" but Russia is there to restore regime stability and aid in the war on terror.

8/5/2017 12:33:32 AM

Quote :

"Quite the contrary, Turkey has turned down the EU and has had no interest since the Greece bailout and all the other bailouts that followed."

It strains credulity to think that there are people who actually believe this. Turkish interest has been declining as Turkey realized (1) that they would have to do a bunch of shit they don't want to do in order to even qualify for EU membership and (2) that even if they did that the EU wouldn't want them in anyway. Though you have to admire the dogged tenacity with which the Turks stick to "blame the Greeks" in every conceivable context in which they cannot blame Kurds or Armenians.

Quote :

"I think it starts with either Iran or NK (the ones who have the least amount of patience, sanity, and stability within their leadership)"

Iran is stable and patient and, I believe, sane. The "wipe Israel off the face of the map" shit isn't, you know, great, but it's a rational move to keep people focused on an external enemy - just as it's rational that they've always kept the rhetoric just a couple of notches down from anything that would actually start a shooting war.

Honestly, in terms of wars starting with Iran, I see Saudi as the more likely aggressor. I think they're feeling a little panicky, and they also think they have us firmly on their side. Or possibly the fact that they haven't already acted more aggressively indicates that they aren't so sure of that.

North Korea is more of a wild card, just because the inner workings of their government are so murky to us on the outside. My suspicion is that Kim Jong-un is not patient, stable, or maybe even sane. Possibly those around nhim are.

8/5/2017 9:43:22 AM

Quote :

"The wisdom behind these two quotes is the source of most of our differences. I don't think you could be more wrong but would agree with everything you are saying if I felt this way. "

I think we are at an impasse then, good sir.

Quote :

"No one can honestly characterize Russia's actions as an "invasion" of Syria."

No, that's fair, I was moving a little too quickly in trying to list countries in which Russia is fighting.

8/5/2017 12:19:22 PM

Probably Muslims vs Non-Muslims and North Korea vs everyone.

8/5/2017 7:35:09 PM

^LOL


http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2017/08/us-military-eyes-new-mini-nukes-21st-century-deterrence/139997/

[Edited on August 6, 2017 at 3:32 AM. Reason : a]

8/6/2017 3:14:22 AM

Quote :

"A world war may already be happening but the world wars of the future will all be civil wars, proxy wars fought between developing nations, and wars against organizations and/or idealisms (war on terror). The powers that be have already consolidated global markets so there is no longer a need for world war. It would only serve as a huge disruption to profit. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

Quote :

"Angell argued that war between industrial countries was futile because conquest did not pay. J.D.B. Miller writes: "The 'Great Illusion' was that nations gained by armed confrontation, militarism, war, or conquest.""

^ written in 1909

In many ways, the international order we face today is most similar to WWI. WWII started with memories of the prior war still fresh in people's minds. I mean, for fuck's sake, Germany's surrender in WWI was a formative event for Hitler that set the course for the rest of hist life.

In contrast, entry into WWI was stepping into a great fog that people did not understand after a century of international stability. Modern arguments about globalization are a repeat of Normal Angell, just in 2017. After 1909, those arguments proved to be wrong on a monumental scale.

The multi-polar nature of the world with a single hegemony seems to trend us toward stability, but keep in mind a combination of factors that could change this in coming decades. China is our true natural enemy, in much the same way that the rise of Athens challenged Sparta before the Peloponnesian War. Friction between a rising power and an established power is a classic story.

Right now, we might be unknowingly exasperating the situation. The US feels like it can afford to make enemies of whoever it wants, but one day, this could push those nations into anti-US alliance building centered around (you guessed it) China.

Although Russia is a historical enemy of China, this sentimentality will not weather the calcification of a shared common enemy.

We should not be worried about diverse competing international interests. We should be worried when the nexuses of power start to fracture along roughly 50/50 lines, particularly if new battlefield technologies start to become viable in parallel to this development. That was WWI. For the new technologies, I would point toward missile defense and drone-based economic warfare.

It doesn't matter that your F-35 air-to-air missile can shoot down any opposition fighter if that missile costs more than the opposition fighter itself. This is an innovation that fighter drones could very soon offer, and one that certain political realities could create the environment to employ.

[Edited on August 6, 2017 at 10:25 AM. Reason : ]

8/6/2017 10:23:31 AM

Market economies have only an illusion of benefit from war. However, Command Economies certainly can benefit from war by reducing the importance of trade with the non-planned world. It was my understanding that this was a significant driver of all three Axis powers in WW2. Market consumers have a nasty habit of confounding your central plans by deciding that what you're trying to export aren't worth buying, which makes it difficult to get the currency needed to import what you need for "the plan." If you invade and occupy those consumers, you can force them to accept what you plan, and can also force them to produce what your plan calls for them to produce.

8/8/2017 12:24:10 AM

Quote :

"Nuclear nations won't go to direct all-out war."

I disagree with this assertion. Nuclear powers have been testing the boundaries of how close they can get to direct confrontation ever since there were two such powers to fight. Every iteration of conflict (be it through proxy war, crisis, what have you) that concludes without escalating to a nuclear exchange can only serve to make the parties bolder. Eventually someone will overstep.

It is my contention that two rational, nuclear-armed foes will try harder than others to avoid direct conflict, but their success is not guaranteed into perpetuity. Further I contend that two nuclear powers can engage in conventional warfare, even protracted conventional warfare, without resorting to the Bomb, but only until one of the parties finds themselves generally or their nuclear option particularly to be under imminent existential threat.

India and Pakistan prove the possibility -- they've gotten into a shooting war since they both got the Bomb, they didn't use it, and in fact Pakistan's nuclear doctrine ("We won't use it unless we can't stop an invasion through conventional means") is pretty much exactly what I just laid out.

Nuclear weapons do make wars between their possessors less likely (or more accurately, less frequent) than they would be otherwise, but they do not prevent them altogether. Such a war taking place, I believe nuclear weapons will make "unconditional surrender" situations less likely; a belligerent will be less willing to completely overtake its opponent, since to do so will prompt them to unleash their nuclear option and thereby turn a strategic-but-incomplete victory into something more like a mutual defeat.

Quote :

"If you think the world is going to another war over a few sq km, you are crazy."

But that's the thing. Nobody knowingly starts a world war over anything, big or small. Franz Josef didn't say, "I'm going to start a world war of Ferdinand." Hitler didn't say, "I really want that Danzig corridor, let's get this world war started!" Both of them wanted small things and so started what they thought of as proportionally small wars. They didn't think it would escalate.

You may say that the world today is different from 1916 and 1939, which is true, and we can't use those wars as perfect guides. But these circumstances speak to fundamental concepts in international relations.

Let's take a step back from world wars and look at war in general. We can say that really all wars result from miscalculation by one or both parties with regards to their relative abilities and resolve. No country fights a war it doesn't think it can win, or at least fight to an acceptable outcome. Since a war can only happen if both sides participate, one of them must be mistaken.

Nations' capacity to misread one another's capacity and resolve is bad enough on a one-on-one basis, which is why history had so many wars. When you start pulling in chains of countries through alliances and international organizations, things get even hazier. Franz Josef accurately predicted that even the doddering Austro-Hungarian empire could take on Serbia. But he did not foresee that Russia meant business, or that France would honor its alliance with Russia, or that Italy would fail to honor its alliances with Vienna and Berlin. And so on and so forth.

So no, China isn't going to say, "Alright, fuck this! We don't just want Chucklefuck Island, we need it. We are willing to stake the survival of our nation, our people, and indeed all life on Earth to get that island. Let's start a world war." They'll say, "We want to take Chucklefuck Island from the Philippines. Duterte's a nutjob and his people fighting an insurgency and drug dealers, so they can't stop us, and the United States is all fucked up on that Fentanyl we sent them so they're not going to do anything about it. So we're just going to take that island."

But they'll have failed to realize that Donald Trump is mad because a columnist with an Asian-sounding name was mean to him in the NY Times, and so to buoy his sagging poll numbers he commits our Pacific Naval Forces to the defense of Chucklefuck Island, and then somebody accidentally shoots down a plane and we're off to the races.

8/8/2017 3:15:08 PM

^

8/8/2017 6:45:01 PM