-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
How likely is a new global war in the next 5-10 years?
- Thread starter Exellus
- Start date
Exactly. Look at how the racist snowflakes got triggered with the Syrian refugees trying tonget to Europe. And that was a total of what? 2 million people in total?
Now imagine (parts of) the middle east becoming inhabitable in 20 years.
We need to fix shit now and can't keep listening to total idiots who go "uh climate change is a chinese hoax ppl." on Twitter.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue and the people who listen to donors over scientists need to be hold accountable for crimes against humanity at the ICC (including said donors).
You see how easy it is to wiretap the Oval Office.
But on a more serious note, destabilization. It's not going to result in a traditional victory that results in like an occupation. But for this moment where the US is floundering it's traditional role in supporting Western and Central Europe from Russian aggression, it's probably invaluable.
As a Canadian, I worry about the day when the wars over water are fought. I have a bat with nails sticking out of it though so I am ahead of the game.
The destabilization of major western relations?
Is this is a joke question?
America is now the laughing stock of the global community, it's politically unstable and totally divided socioculturally, and there's an open spot for another country (probably China) to take their spot in this moment of weakness.
Climate change over the next 5-10 years would be minimal. Most of this stuff is going to snowball over several centuries.
I don't think there will be a major global war, I think you have more of what you have, regional 'wars' like the Ukraine.
Yup, we have to pray the US annexes us to just become part of their nation.
Idk when that would happen but a war between China and US via Alaska would suck. I just hope desalination technology takes off.
What I'm asking is how does this benefit Russia? So far Russia hasn't capitalized on anything. Just to spite Clinton? I wouldnt put it past Putin. China hasn't made any moves that suggest a change in their posture towards the West.
Large scale Desalination is already much cheaper than a major war would be. Humans just like waiting until the last second to address problems. No one wants to spend money proactively.
I very much doubt that there will be a war for water between the western powers. I do expect water to get more costly over time though. Ordinary people won't be able to afford the 45 min shower every day or watering their lawn like it's a golf course.
I guess this.
A lot more proxy wars.
The global players are far too powerful to fight each other directly.
Even countries like Iran or Pakistan are too powerful to attack them directly. In my opinion the Middle Eastern countries including Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel are always contenders for a bigger war and maybe a Chinese civil war when the Chinese people realise that not everyone will be able to get an own new car or new house. Or lot's of separate tendencies to cecede from China.
The way I see it....Putin's predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, was viewed as a national embarrassment to the Russian people after his alcoholism led him to walk around DC in his underwear looking for pizza (among other things). Putin comes in as a strongman authoritarian figure trying to "make russia great again" and one of their biggest goals was a post-cold war "fuck you" to bring down the US socially via psy-ops- the 2016 election. They succeeded.
And it's happening globally now as more and more of the West falls to neo-fascist/alt-right ideologies. The internet has been weaponized and used to destabilize democracies worldwide.
It's funny how you could look at a college class of kids and ask them when they do their assignments. That sample size would be the same view as macro scale humanity lmfao procrastinating is our nature.
Russia/China kidnapping/assassinating dissidents on foreign soil comes pretty close to capitalizing on a weakened West IMHO.
I don't think it's coming that soon but if people keep pulling for a multi-polar world then you'll get the massive wars that come with that. Nobody remembers what a real war is like anymore and that means it's more likely to happen.
While I find it highly unlikely, I won't completely reject the notion. Individuals had the same idea that because of increased globalization WW1 would never happen. However, that was a different time and complex situation. Still it shows you how quickly things can go from 0 to 100. We like to think of ourselves as rational actors, however from time and time again that is shown to be false.
None.
If a little country (with no nukes) acts up, America will just slap the terrorist/tyrant/extremist tag on them for PR and send in the drones.
If it's a country with a nuke, we'll pay/train/arm their closest neighbor or an insurrection group to do the work for us.
If a little country (with no nukes) acts up, America will just slap the terrorist/tyrant/extremist tag on them for PR and send in the drones.
If it's a country with a nuke, we'll pay/train/arm their closest neighbor or an insurrection group to do the work for us.
Widespread military warfare? Unlikely IMO.
But, I think the events of the last 2 years are setting up future strife. Particularly, Donald Trump pulling the US out of a lot of international affairs, especially when it comes to Syria and the Middle East, have made a vacuum and Russia has stepped in to take our place, but with very different priorities and positions.
But, I think the events of the last 2 years are setting up future strife. Particularly, Donald Trump pulling the US out of a lot of international affairs, especially when it comes to Syria and the Middle East, have made a vacuum and Russia has stepped in to take our place, but with very different priorities and positions.
0. Proxy wars as always and continuation of hacking and influencing. A global conflict doesn't make any sense to any of the players anymore.
That's one of them lines that always sounds better in your head mate :-D
I'll agree with the consensus that a traditional global scale "hot" war strikes me as very unlikely in the short to medium term. I'd be more concerned with a second US civil war, to be honest. However, I do acknowledge that climate change would substantially increase the probably of conflict in the medium to long term.
It's a macro international relations theory that isn't concerned with a mix up or somebody being stupid. It's about whether or not a nuclear power will make a deliberate action to cause war against another nuclear power, which it has done. I'm not arguing that somebody won't do something stupid in a moment of confusion.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/nuclear-deterrence-myth-lethal-david-barash
Nuclear deterrence is a myth.
The neoliberal international order makes this extremely unlikely.
Countries are far too economically intertwined for the major players to risk all out war. Not to mention nuclear deterrence is still an accepted institution
Countries are far too economically intertwined for the major players to risk all out war. Not to mention nuclear deterrence is still an accepted institution
You need to rethink that.
Nuclear deterrence has zero basis in reality, so you must think of it as a kind of social contract that all nuclear powers have more or less agreed to. It is a social institution like all politics.