WW3 or Global conflict!

jock101

With the state of the World thesedays under the right conditions, over populated(6 billion people), high unemployment, depleted resources and religious and racial hatred on the rise. Just to name a few. You to think a massive conflict may break out in the coming decades!

Jeboa Safari

Mutually assured destruction will probably keep a large scale world war from developing

jock101

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Mutually assured destruction will probably keep a large scale world war from developing

Not if one side ie the US have or develop a technological advantage. Some form of defense shield, like the one Reagan proposed in the 80's. I dont thinks the yanks stopped working on that idea! As the Russian's worry about!

Jeboa Safari

jock101 wrote: »

Not if one side ie the US have or develop a technological advantage. Some form of defense shield, like the one Reagan proposed in the 80's. I dont thinks the yanks stopped working on that idea! As the Russian's worry about!

If America is working on something like that, you can be sure that the other powers are doing something similar or finding a way around it. Doubt they have the technology to stop thousands of nukes being launched at them from land, sea and air all over the world, aswell as the possibility of mini nukes that could be smuggled in and detonated in city centers.

KeithAFC

WW3 will involve who? There is so many conflicts around the world which would happen if it started. One being on Ireland in itself.

jock101

KeithAFC wrote: »

WW3 will involve who? There is so many conflicts around the world which would happen if it started. One being on Ireland in itself.

My bet is on the USA vs China, mainly over resources as China has very little, ie oil and metals! The Chinese are actively buying up most of Africa's and parts of South American minerals! Probably involving the EU on the US side. Who knows where the Ruskeys will be in this situation!

KeithAFC

China would not stand a chance.

jock101

KeithAFC wrote: »

China would not stand a chance.

Well as Chairman Mao said in the 70's to Nixon, paraphrasing "The Americans can nuke a Billion Chinese, But there will be another Billion left still alive to fight"

KeithAFC

jock101 wrote: »

Well as Chairman Mao said in the 70's to Nixon, paraphrasing "The Americans can nuke a Billion Chinese, But there will be another Billion left still alive to fight"

Another nuke. Job done.

Jeboa Safari

Also, if there was a threat of war, Europe would presumably re-arm to war levels and side with the US, and its hard to see anyone toppling that

Denerick

The ironic thing is that the deeper globalisation is, and the less barriers to international trade there are, the less likelihood there is that there will ever be another all encompassing global conflict. Why would China and America ever go to war against each other? They have a symbiotic relationship, they would immediately destroy each others economies. Even if America could develop a foolproof defence shield, there would be no logical reason to lay waste to economic competitors, the losses would be too vast. Military occupation would undo the gains that would supposedly be made in the case of a nuclear wasteland.

Nuclear armageddon is far more likely to come through a suitcase in a major city by a small cell of terrorists.

dsmythy

China vs Russia? Long land border. Bulging Chinese population versus depopulating Russia. A Chinese authoritarian regime vs a Russia which never feels far away from the same sort of leadership. Two countries which could require "distractions" from troubled hinterlands and sluggish economic growth. Maybe not worldwide but when one of the top two most populated countries are involved you're talking a lot of people.

ei.sdraob

Denerick wrote: »

The ironic thing is that the deeper globalisation is, and the less barriers to international trade there are, the less likelihood there is that there will ever be another all encompassing global conflict. Why would China and America ever go to war against each other? They have a symbiotic relationship, they would immediately destroy each others economies.

Last "great globalisation" event was at turn of 20th century, we know what happened since.... despite the countries involved in ww1 and ww2 trading alot with each other before these wars.

tho yes things are different now (i hope) with nuclear weapons it be moronic to go to war since nothing can be gained by attacking a nuclear armed opponent and everything can be lost

Jeboa Safari

Denerick wrote: »

The ironic thing is that the deeper globalisation is, and the less barriers to international trade there are, the less likelihood there is that there will ever be another all encompassing global conflict. Why would China and America ever go to war against each other? They have a symbiotic relationship, they would immediately destroy each others economies. Even if America could develop a foolproof defence shield, there would be no logical reason to lay waste to economic competitors, the losses would be too vast. Military occupation would undo the gains that would supposedly be made in the case of a nuclear wasteland.

Nuclear armageddon is far more likely to come through a suitcase in a major city by a small cell of terrorists.

Not necessarily, if one state sees itself as highly dependent and thinks it can reverse that decision by war in the long run, they might try it. There was a good level of trade between the powers before ww1 I believe

ei.sdraob

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

There was a good level of trade between the powers before ww1 I believe

Yeh I recommend reading Niall Ferguson's book on the topic or watching this excellent documentary based on same book

jock101

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Yeh I recommend reading Niall Ferguson's book on the topic or watching this excellent documentary based on same book

Great TV Doc, I think its up to watch on 4OD.

Scofflaw

There was a little space where this thread hung in the balance, and could have made a good Politics thread. There's still a potentially interesting discussion to be had about trade, globalisation, and the chances of war (interesting analysis of the pre-WW1 situation here) - but this thread is not really it.

moderately,
Scofflaw