Considering how close we came to nuclear war multiple times nuclear peace may not always work.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
How likely is a new global war in the next 5-10 years?
- Thread starter Exellus
- Start date
Yeah, its like people want to believe the absolute worst things are happening. They will pretend like they don't want it of course, since it would be terrible. But any argument against the possibility is shut down and not accepted.
We're more likely to sit on our hands and argue about petty shit until the planet boils us alive.
That being out the way, I'm all in favour of the war on microtransactions.
That being out the way, I'm all in favour of the war on microtransactions.
With the impending crisis of global warming, the movement and treatment of refugees, as well as the strain of resources that a more volatile climate should cause will absolutely give rise to calls for war. Probably will happen more than ten years from now, but people are going to fight each other about global warming before they work together on trying to mitigate damage and figuring out how to live with a world we've collectively fucked.
I'm very serious. People will poke and prod but no one wants war on the scale of WW2
Yup. Instead of putting up walls and refusing boats to dock, we will see straight up murdering when refugees are coming. Hopefully I won't be alive to see the horrendous acts people will do to protect their countries. But it won't a global war. Everyone will be busy fighting for their own land to care what happens elsewhere.
We are already in World War III.
We fight the war in our underwear on Twitter. Our soldiers tweet viciously every single day.
Our war veterans are people that have deleted their Twitter account.
We fight the war in our underwear on Twitter. Our soldiers tweet viciously every single day.
Our war veterans are people that have deleted their Twitter account.
Still not getting your logic. How would that lead to war with the major powers?
This sounds more like regional skirmishes than full fledged global war.
Global war is close to impossible because it'd destroy everyone involved, not just in terms casualties but economically. You can't apply the same framework of the pre-nuclear international order on to the present day.
There are still tremendous threats to humanity but it won't come from world wars. Maybe in a few more decades when resource and food scarcity become a huge problem due to climate change, but not in 5-10 years.
There are still tremendous threats to humanity but it won't come from world wars. Maybe in a few more decades when resource and food scarcity become a huge problem due to climate change, but not in 5-10 years.
Not particularly likely. The front lines of the new great game have started to crystallise more recently. I'm getting a feeling that there's a weird consensus of sorts forming between the three great powers on flashpoints like Ukraine, Syria and the East China Sea. Battles are moving more and more towards being waged by economics and in cyberspace rather than between conventional forces.
As much as I loathe to admit this, Trump has arguably stabilised things lately. He's been spending most of his time fighting with allies he's never going to go to war with than he's fighting China and Russia. His ideology of an isolationist US being a kind of "first among equals" in a world of nation states is more in line with the ideologies of Russia and China.
The US is largely backing off. Ukraine is not recieving enough support to un-freeze the conflict in the east of the country or retake Crimea. Hungary and Poland are not recieving any pushback in their turns towards authoritarianism and away from the EU. The EU itself is not treated as quite as indespensible to the US as before. China is largely allowed to maintain control over North Korea.
They world was more unstable around 2015-2017 because it still wasn't clear if the US intended to maintain its position as the world's single superpower by any means necessary. By now, it's quite clear it isn't. We'll likely see an upswing in regional wars but no truly global war.
As much as I loathe to admit this, Trump has arguably stabilised things lately. He's been spending most of his time fighting with allies he's never going to go to war with than he's fighting China and Russia. His ideology of an isolationist US being a kind of "first among equals" in a world of nation states is more in line with the ideologies of Russia and China.
The US is largely backing off. Ukraine is not recieving enough support to un-freeze the conflict in the east of the country or retake Crimea. Hungary and Poland are not recieving any pushback in their turns towards authoritarianism and away from the EU. The EU itself is not treated as quite as indespensible to the US as before. China is largely allowed to maintain control over North Korea.
They world was more unstable around 2015-2017 because it still wasn't clear if the US intended to maintain its position as the world's single superpower by any means necessary. By now, it's quite clear it isn't. We'll likely see an upswing in regional wars but no truly global war.
It only takes one major power to stop China from building its fake territory to enter a massive war.
The war over terriority will heat up again once resources depletion starts to kick in. Any third world nation near oil or natural water best be prepared for conquest. Once things get really bad I could see trade wars and finally real wars break out between the major powers, but I think we're talking 50+ years away, not 5.
That's way too vague, and there's little reason to think it could happen within a decade. What, specifically, could spark such a conflict?
If there's another world war in our lifetimes, my guess is it will have to do either with China's human rights issues or climate change. Even then I think it's extremely unlikely. Nobody wants a world war when we've seen what nuclear weapons can do in that scenario.
Ah the defining characteristic of humankind: an unbridled optimism in the face of certain doom.
I'm not so optimistic. I give it 15-20 years until the first major conflicts due to climate change and essential resource shortages. Floods and famine will trigger mass migration, which will trigger a lot of 'justified' genocide. Which will only escalate with time, from very localized occurrences to larger scale conflicts.
It's not gonna be pretty and there's gonna be a lot of fascism to go around. I sometimes wonder how much some people's fundamental recognition of how much things are going to shit influences their flaccid reaction to the rising fascism. As if they actually see fascism as the pill they have to swallow to feel safe from the 'hordes' that they see coming.
I'm not so optimistic. I give it 15-20 years until the first major conflicts due to climate change and essential resource shortages. Floods and famine will trigger mass migration, which will trigger a lot of 'justified' genocide. Which will only escalate with time, from very localized occurrences to larger scale conflicts.
It's not gonna be pretty and there's gonna be a lot of fascism to go around. I sometimes wonder how much some people's fundamental recognition of how much things are going to shit influences their flaccid reaction to the rising fascism. As if they actually see fascism as the pill they have to swallow to feel safe from the 'hordes' that they see coming.
I mean go read some of the near misses we've had. It does because it shows how stupid people can be.
The Southern regions that are going to get hit the worst don't have the capacity to wage war with the North even today, let alone when they're in a state of collapse. There are too many natural obstacles in the way to boot. The deserts of North America and Africa to start with, then the Mediterranean, the the mountain chains of the Himalayas.
We're more likely looking at an unprecedented global genocide rather than a global war if Climate Change gets that bad. Complete with programs and genocides against minorities in Northern countries. Or something like Xinjiang or Nauru on a massive scale.
Nobody wants a war, people just want money.
All this talk about tensions is just a smoke screen for the fact that in globalisation theres no rules on how to make bank. So essentially governments have gone out and run rumpant on the international stage. Look at a China as a major example. US on the other hand have taken their eye off internationally for a split second to focus on matters domestically and allowed China to become more aggresive outside. The european countries are struggling with a labour force that simply cant match China's. And india i believe is still trailing behind due to the many years head start China has had in the path to being a developed country. Nobody is interested in a war unless they can do it without damaging international relations and international relations is too important for business. Also wars are a waste of money.
All this talk about tensions is just a smoke screen for the fact that in globalisation theres no rules on how to make bank. So essentially governments have gone out and run rumpant on the international stage. Look at a China as a major example. US on the other hand have taken their eye off internationally for a split second to focus on matters domestically and allowed China to become more aggresive outside. The european countries are struggling with a labour force that simply cant match China's. And india i believe is still trailing behind due to the many years head start China has had in the path to being a developed country. Nobody is interested in a war unless they can do it without damaging international relations and international relations is too important for business. Also wars are a waste of money.
Last edited:
This!!! people don't realize how real this is going to get and how quickly we'll get there.
Slim to none. Between increased globalization and the foundation of the UN, along with the ever present threat of nukes, global wars are behind us. And if they ain't, we'll all be dead anyhow.
Proxy wars and civil wars though are as frequent as ever, and I expect those to continue.
Proxy wars and civil wars though are as frequent as ever, and I expect those to continue.
None of the powers want a global war, as it would destroy everything they have. Proxy wars are safer and more profitable.
And that's not even mentioning the fact that other countries will be actively trying to instigate internal divisions and amplify events with the end goal of pitting sides against one another.
I think the future has a higher probability of going sideways than we'd like to admit.
Can't leave me sitting here without a link my dude. Sounds interesting.
Imo a war of a certain type will happen. And I wanna assume China is going to be involve in it. Could be against American or India or whoever.
It's not zero. If something crazy happened and Trump and/or significant numbers of GOP were facing stripping of power and / or jailtime, I could see them starting a global conflict in a temper tantrum. Not incredibly likely that even Trump would do that, but not zero.
China vs India over some extreme water thing.
China vs India over some extreme water thing.
I completely agree with this,
What do you think will happen in the event a Democratic President is elected in 2020 (unlikely but let's imagine)?
Do you think Democrats will want to re-establish themselves on the world stage, given that Trump and the Republicans have basically been hands free.
Or is Ukraine/Syria etc a lost cause and they will move on to other regions
Or maybe both sides become isolationist? Like a Bernie 2.0
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/nuclear-deterrence-myth-lethal-david-barash
Nuke stop anything, nuclear deterrence is a myth
Last edited:
A physical war: unlikely
A metaphysical cultural-corporate war: already been happening for many years.
A metaphysical cultural-corporate war: already been happening for many years.
The rich and powerful that pay and fund wars and politicians that want wars don't want a global conflict. They are fine with just little wars in countries no one really cares about. A global war would be too unpredictable and would harm their way of life. NK was a wild card that didn't really play with everyone else but they seem to be on board now. This isn't some Illuminati talk just pragmatism.
Maybe if Morsi had stayed on, since he was gonna preemptively strike I believe
Also Ethiopia is pretty unstable ATM so I don't think going forward with the dam is happening soon
The UN climate report that was released yesterday will cause sparks.
Those are the most common reasons for war since forever.
What could spark such a conflict ? My bet for where it all starts is Asia, territorial disputes on South China sea, Taiwan, Noth Korea...
I'm guessing either Bernie 2.0 (or hell 1.0, the old man might run again) or an Obama light. I'm not expecting any movement on Ukraine. Obama didn't move, a successor won't either. Too risky, little gain. I'm expecting things to stay the same for the next decade. Crimea remains Russian. Maybe we'll see a settlement where Russia "helps negotiate" an end to the war in the east in exchange for Crimea being recognised as Russian by the US. In either case Ukraine remains wounded and impossible to integrate into the EU or NATO.
Syria will probably be settled by 2020, to a degree. The active fighting is dying down as is. ISIS is basically dead and the rebels are broken, just not fully rootd out yet. Spheres of interest are being established as we speak between Assad, Russia, the US, Turkey and Iran. Syria will also remain wounded and unable to fully control its own territory. No Democratic president is going to wade in and open up that wound again.
I do expect the next Democratic president to spend a lot of time mending relations with allies hurt by Trump. NATO will be restored and the UN will be more supported. Soft power will be spent on international concerns such as climate efforts, trade and energy. But the new world order is here to stay. We're not going back to a time where the US acted as the world's police force and was expected to intervene in every conflict. Hard power will be limited to core allies like Japan, South Korea and NATO and with a greater tolerance to even those regions getting influenced by Chinese and Russian soft power.
The report didn't mention anything that hasn't been known for years. 1.5 was basically a stretch goal even in Paris, 2.0 has always been the main goal. And it's always been recognised that we're more likely to miss it than not.
Either they're psychopaths who want war, or they know that a warring species in the face of massive changes to the climate and resource issues will do what's it's done multiple times before over dumber reasons. 5-10 years? Extremely unlikely. Sometime in our future? It's possible.
The current world order has really convinced people into thinking that the worst has passed and that it can't change due to the stability it brings. Things change. And the truth is, none of our governments and people are in control of a chaotic world.
Looking at the last several decades as proof of an indefinite loop of relative security makes us feel pretty good and sound rational (especially if you live in the western world), but that's not a very rational view of things, long-term. We've already ensured it will be torn apart due to our failure with climate change.
What is the arguement against this, that I must be thirsty for WW3?