You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Reckon we really are close? I dont think we are that close just yet but I can definitely see it happening in my lifetime. Probably India/****stan. China, USA and Russia have too much to lose, but India and ****stan genuinely seem to hate each other and we have came close a few times in recent years to another conventional war between them. The amount of nuclear weapons they posses is significant, however some would argue that's as good of a deterrent as you can get.
It's OK, we've got the might of 27 other countries in a union to back us up.
People have been saying this for years. Funny how it never happens, isn't it?
JP
err, wait a minute...
People have been saying this for years. Funny how it never happens, isn’t it?
That's why the next one will be WW3, because there haven't been any before.
The French have more nuclear weapons than the UK
Given how arsey they get about cheese, fishing quotas etc..... Let's hope a foreign power doesn't question their vast array of shoulder shrugging techniques
🤔
People have been saying this for years. Funny how it never happens, isn’t it?
That’s why the next one will be WW3, because there haven’t been any before.
I was referring to the OP's reference to India and ****stan, obviously, but don't let that get in the way of some moronic points scoring.
JP
Wait till climate change properly kicks in and entire nations start running out of food and water. Dunno about world war, but certainly lots of individual ones...
Wait till climate change properly kicks in and entire nations start running out of food and water.
I think this is probably the most likely kick-off for a global conflict i.e. resource wars. Large parts of the planet slowly becoming uninhabitable and the resultant flow of refugees will add to the issue at the micro level.
Look at the history of civilisations. They all collapse eventually but the tragic thing about modern humans is that we have the technology and the knowledge to create utopia, but our brains are still partly hardwired like aggressive, territorial monkeys.
I wonder what will inherit the planet after we've wiped ourselves out?
Wait till climate change properly kicks in and entire nations start running out of food and water.
Arguably the tinder for the spark for the war in Syria was tensions created by the migration of hungry people from the countryside to cities after crop failures.
This century will be mankinds defining century I think.
Perfect storm brewing, climate change, nuclear proliferation, a rising China and an America desperately trying to hold on to power.
If there is a "flash over" it's likely to come from the most innocuous incident initially.
Either way, if we make it through this century we might have a fighting chance. If only because Mars might be a viable life boat if it really does go south on Earth.
I think this is probably the most likely kick-off for a global conflict i.e. resource wars
Yeah like there's ever been a rational reason before lol
Even if India & ****stan went nuclear (unlikely) I can't see it broadening into a World War.
With modern weapons it's difficult to see anything developing into a proper WW3 scenario (apart from battlefield tactical nukes no way is any significantly nuclear-armed country going to launch strategic nukes as MAD still applies).
I think at most if a war started with Iran you'd have the US striking Russian assets in the region and vice versa but then backing down before attacking each other directly
We are no closer or further away from WW3 now than we have been at any other point in the last 80 years.
We are no closer or further away from WW3 now than we have been at any other point in the last 80 years.
Cuban missile crisis?
Cuban missile crisis?
don't think so literal
Since the end of the second WW the lack of Interstate war between rich industrial nations has been unprecedented in history. If you look at just Franco-German history as an example, they've been at almost constant intergenerational conflict with each other since the early 17th C, and that's pretty much stopped in the last 70 years, a pattern that's repeated throughout the world. Despite the huge proliferation and capability of modern weaponry, the world has never been as peaceful as it is now.
Probably India/****stan
As above, it's been said lots and they've been much closer before.
Some years ago, asked about the possibility of nuclear war with ****stan, a senior Indian official (sorry I can't remember who) said India would win, pressed further the thinking, clearly accepted at high level, was that only the USA posesed enough weapons and the delivery capability to destroy India, war with ****stan couldn't see more than 70% of the Indian population wiped out. That was deemed acceptable and a victory...
Since the end of the second WW the lack of Interstate war between rich industrial nations has been unprecedented in history
Except maybe the nearly 100 Years before ww1?
I think this is probably the most likely kick-off for a global conflict i.e. resource wars
Read Kaplan's the coming anarchy, largely the debunking of it relies on the rest of the world not being west Africa, in 50 years time I'm not so sure that will be true.
Also worth a read is "the doomsday machine" by Daniel Ellsberg, quote alarming just how close we came [are] to nuclear war by accident really.
Except maybe the nearly 100 Years before ww1?
Erm... What? You can't seriously suggest that rich European nations didn't have any wars from 1814-ish until 1914.
Erm… What? You can’t seriously suggest that rich European nations didn’t have any wars from 1814-ish until 1914.
1815 after the Vienna Congress to 1914 and the outbreak of ww1
It's not me suggesting it, they even had parties planned for 1915
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Britannica
alarming just how close we came [are] to nuclear war by accident really.
Yes, Iran has just shown the world how much damage simple incompetence can cause.
Chris Packham was on The One Show last night talking very eloquently about this. He reckons the Human race has never failed yet to resolve any existential crisis so he's optimistic that we will also solve climate change, overpopulation and all the othert issues. Interestingly he cited Nigeria as an example of uncontrolled population growth with families of 12 to 15 common while most other countries' populations have stabilised or are reducing. I think he said something like 75% of Nigerians were under 16.
Ah right, that old nonsense, convenient that it ignores Franco Prussian wars, the Crimean, Mexican wars of independence, Franco Russian wars, the fag end of the Napoleonic wars, Greek wars of independence, Anglo Chinese wars, American civil war Boer wars.... Etc etc on and on 🤣
I think nuclear weapons have prevented another world war, and will continue to do so until there is another evolution in weapons of mass destruction. Nukes are too dirty, nobody wins a nuke war as it drags the global elites into the mire. So we kind of have this stalemate situation until the elites work out how to wage global warefare without killing themselves or their habitat in the process.
Future wars will be over resources - I think it's difficult to argue against that. But the 'weapons' will be information, economic, biological, or autonomous/AI technology.
Another pet theory I have is human conflict is inevitable, we evolved to be fearful of 'others', to protect our tribe, but as with many other primal instincts they're unsuited to a modern world where there are many hundreds of perceived threats that tweak our primal fears, worse still they're drip fed to us through social and other online media.
So the tension mounts continuously until there is a massive blood letting of the 'enemy'- but we're stuck in a stalemate. I have grown up noticing that tension grow the further we move from mass conflict, it's everywhere around us - just growing hate, anxiety, intolerance, protectionism.
The end is nigh etc. 🙂
convenient that it ignores...
Or say, the suez, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, yugoslavia, iran/Iraq, iraq 1 & 2... All the post colonial conflict in Africa, india/****stan, ****stan Bangladesh and so on
Your own suggestion is no more valid Nick
It's like reading the Daily Express
We are no closer or further away from WW3 now than we have been at any other point in the last 80 years
You appear to have no knowledge or reading what so ever about the evolution of nuclear weapons, readiness, posturing and war fighting response and incidents over the last 70 years. At all. None.
What cause the last major dust up in Europe? (Not counting Vlad the emailer setting fire to his front porch)?
I'll leave this bit about national "sovereignty" and "independence" here
Many wars started by internationalist, perchance? You know, a long list of those that would like to see the world (Europe) without borders startin' a ruckus, eh?
No.
When we see the first cracks appear between France and Germany you got 20 years maximum, before your sons and daughters are called up to be turned into radioactive cannon fodder. Always has happened. Always will.
The comment up there ---^ about Syria should carry the most weight, but framing that pan country s41t show as a climate change war would put the s41ters up mom and pop and we cant be having that, can we?
Not yet, anyway.
climate change war would put the s41ters up mom and pop
Salters up mom and pop?
I wonder what will inherit the planet after we’ve wiped ourselves out?
You appear to have no knowledge or reading what so ever about the evolution of nuclear weapons, readiness, posturing and war fighting response and incidents over the last 70 years. At all. None.
You are quite right, I am no expert on military action. Its a general observation and comment that would appear to require further explanation. I will try my best to do that for you now.
From the end of WW2 to the current day we have had periods where we have come very close, and periods where it seemed very unlikely. Sometimes its a slow build up in tensions between nations with prolonged periods of hostility. Sometimes there have been fast flare ups that seemingly come from nowhere. None of which to date have ended in a world war. So my point is that just because tensions are rising doesn't mean its inevitably going to end in a war, in fact its the opposite. So, the current position is no more likely to end in a WW than at any other time in the last 80 years.
I'm currently reading Prisoners of Geography which covers world goepolitics by geographical region. It covers a lot of the strengths and weaknesses (both economically and militarily) of each region and explains whether each region is likely to push for a conflict.
Its really interesting and I'm fairly assured that neither Russia or China are likely to start anything in the foreseeable future. But tehy're the only two regions I've read so far so can't comment on the India/****stan or Middle East situations.
Interestingly it covers the relative strengths/weaknesses of armies/navies but doesn't mention nuclear. Maybe this is because it's realistically never going to be used because of the futility of it.
Future wars will be over resources – I think it’s difficult to argue against that. But the ‘weapons’ will be information, economic, biological, or autonomous/AI technology.
^^ this. China are kinda shitting themselves at the thought of losing their supplies of raw materials - no materials, no production, economy struggles. Hence why they are trying to push into the South China Sea - to control the shipping lanes.
Your own suggestion is no more valid Nick
On the contrary, you've neatly proved my point. I said there has been no conflict post WW2 between the rich industrial countries, all the conflicts you've mentioned are where one or both of the protagonists was undeveloped for example the Vietnam or Afghanistan wars.
When was the last time the USA fought Germany or Mexico? Or the UK and Germany? Or France and Russia
My Iranian colleague says most of ISIS were farmers who were starving due to Turkish dams
An Indian colleague says China is restricting water flow by building lots of dams too
So I buy the next war coming due to water
I thought we were in trouble when Turkey shot down the Russian fighter jet tbh
So I buy the next war coming due to water
It’s like a plot from a Bond movie.
I’m currently reading Prisoners of Geography which covers world goepolitics by geographical region. It covers a lot of the strengths and weaknesses (both economically and militarily) of each region and explains whether each region is likely to push for a conflict.
Its really interesting and I’m fairly assured that neither Russia or China are likely to start anything in the foreseeable future.
Excellent book that @sharkbait , the whole thing is fascinating. As mentioned above, there's not really any benefit to starting a huge war, especially involving nukes as there really aren't any winners.
The world at the moment is a mess of interests, proxies, overall aims, civilians, and the sort of half-hearted alliances you get in the Middle East where A & B hate each other but will temporarily form an alliance to defeat C who they both hate even more. Then in the power vacuum that follows, D & E pop up and the whole fight starts again.
There aren't really two definitive sides like the Cold War so any war would get incredibly messy very quickly. Everyone (sort of) knows and accepts this within certain bounds of "skirmishes".
WW2 between the rich industrial countries, all the conflicts you’ve mentioned are where one or both of the protagonists was undeveloped for example the Vietnam or Afghanistan wars.
Soooo Korea then, china and soviet Union /pretty much everywhere else?
Afghanistan/Vietnam. You are aware of how the cold war worked? Yes, no mass mobilisation of us troops in uniform in Afghanistan, Chinese or russian in uniform in Vietnam but if you think either of those was anything other than an major Eastern power vs major Western Power thing I'd like to know how.
An Indian colleague says China is restricting water flow by building lots of dams too
As Trump reportedly told Modi, it's not like India has a border with China though...
So I buy the next war coming due to water
Seems so. For example, most of China's population and food production is within its 'heartland' area which is fed by rivers that originate in Tibet - so the Chinese have no control over their water supply hence why they've been moving people into Tibet to gradually take control.
It’s like a plot from a Bond movie
The best one, Quantum of Solace.
Reckon mass migration will be the cause of the next big one, probably a combination of access to water and/or dramatic climate change.
As for industrialized first world countries not fighting each other, I seem to recall a saying about countries with McDonald franchises never going to war with each other, is that still correct?
Several people have mentioned MAD as a reason WW3 won't be nuclear. However, I'm becoming less and less comforted by that. As I understand it to get a true nuclear winter and global fallout requires lots of megatonne or bigger warheads to get the particles high enough. In the last few decades, warheads have got smaller as they are more accurate, most are 'only' low hundreds of kilotonnes now. There's also less of them. The overall result is a full-scale war is more survivable than it's been at any time since the '50s. Which in turn makes MAD less of a deterrent and war more likely.
Along with that is the failing of various treaties in recent years, the development of new delivery systems like Putin's nuclear-powered cruise missile, etc.
I think there's a very real chance I'll witness a nuclear attack somewhere in my lifetime. Which isn't a cheery thought.
I would like to think that the next generation of leaders - i.e. our kids - are a lot more switched on than we are.
Look at the history of civilisations. They all collapse eventually but the tragic thing about modern humans is that we have the technology and the knowledge to create utopia, but our brains are still partly hardwired like aggressive, territorial monkeys.
The bronze age collapse. As you have mentioned, we have the technology, but are too conflicted to use it everyone's advantage. While it takes many components to create the perfect storm, two primary ingredients are capitalism, and our ability to vote the wrong leaders into power off the back of wanting simple answers to complicated questions.
I would like to think that the next generation of leaders – i.e. our kids – are a lot more switched on than we are.
You would think that, but every generation has those within it who seek power for nefarious reasons, all voted in by let's say "misled" people who as I've said above, want simple answers to complicated questions.
It’s like a plot from a Bond movie
The best one, Quantum of Solace.
Missed a trick not calling that one Skyfall didn't they
Very true. I just hope that there are more Obama's and zero Trumps in the next generation.
International finance and globalization should make WW3 less likely surely?Would the wealthy, powerful Russians and Chinese really allow their governments to blow up their expensive Western property portfolios and devastate the value of their other overseas investments?
As above. The world is more globalised now then ever. The largest economies are all tied very much together.
Would the wealthy, powerful Russians and Chinese really allow their governments to blow up their expensive Western property portfolios and devastate the value of their other overseas investments?
They've been tied for a very long time, marrying rich folks to enemies is a time honoured way of creating peace (saxe coburg and gottha sound familiar?) big wars are rarely started by people playing the same game as everybody else. It's the gavrilo princip and hitlers of this world who are the risk.
Ww3 when it happens will start out of a group of poor angry hungry people who pull down the rich, just like Germany in the 30s or the rise of isil. The next person to rise to prominence like al-baghdadi in the middle east might decide taking a proper pop at Israel is worth the risk, and then we're all screwed because the one thing you can be sure about is the moment anyone launches a nuke everyone does.
Ww3 when it happens will start out of a group of poor angry hungry people who pull down the rich
Ah! When we vote for a labour government.
Ah! When we vote for a labour government.
We'll be fine, corbyn is a pacifist.
Ww3 when it happens will start out of a group of poor angry hungry people who pull down the rich, just like Germany in the 30s or the rise of isil. The next person to rise to prominence like al-baghdadi in the middle east might decide taking a proper pop at Israel is worth the risk, and then we’re all screwed because the one thing you can be sure about is the moment anyone launches a nuke everyone does.
That is just a proxy war though. It would rely on some group/faction etc - maybe terrorists or maybe a wannabe independent state with some sort of tenuous claim to some disputed territory somehow managing to acquire the weapons, means of delivery and the knowledge to do so. That's a lot more complicated than just buying a shedload of AKs and RPGs. Generally, most countries have the storage and launch of their nuclear weapons under quite close control - it's not really the sort of thing you just stick on Terrorist Ebay. Unlike AKs and RPGs.
In a situation like Syria, Yemen and so on you do end up with what is essentially a war between the Russians and Americans with one side supporting (say) the Government while the other side support the rebels by selling arms to them although you also end up in situations where American-made kit then gets used against the very people it was originally meant to support via other trade routes. But ultimately while they might be quite destructive on the ground, it's a relatively local conflict to take (or keep) control of an area of a country so no-one wants to go nuclear with it cos you just end up wrecking the very land you're trying to seize (or keep).
Much more simple to use chemical or biological weapons. Slightly more localised, more difficult to detect and doesn't make the land uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years.... Cheaper too. That's the big threat.
don't think there will be an all out nuclear war , we moved on from that , its all cyber/space now , u can do more damaged shutting down infrastructure permanently . if anything it will be a terriot nuclear attack ,thats just my opinion from working at skynet !
Slightly more localised, more difficult to detect and doesn’t make the land uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years
Maybe not that long anthrax is about 50 years, but I can't see Vozrozhdeniya Island generating many hits on zoopla any time soon.
One thing I've learnt over the years is that humans are completely useless at predicting the future. Almost everything that even the most learned people have tried to predict about the future has been wrong.
Regarding climate change and related conflicts, here's an article from the Guardian in 2004, where the Pentagon tells us that London will be experiencing Siberian winters by 2020 and there'll be 'Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. '
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserverheobserve r">Linkie
It's worth asking yourself who benefits from division and fear in society.
JP