>Man oh man WWII was grossly mismanaged in the start of it... that was the historical point of WWII - it was a product of one world view and resulted in the ot

>Man oh man WWII was grossly mismanaged in the start of it... that was the historical point of WWII - it was a product of one world view and resulted in the other >Declare war there and WWII basically doesn't happen. yep. The post-WWII world would do just that. UN, NATO and Warsaw Pact. 68' Czech invasion. Vietnam war to prevent spread of communism. Iraq and Afghanistan to, supposedly, prevent spread of terrorism. While i don't agree with these wars (or especially with how they've been conducted), we can't not notice this is a system preventing another war like WWII, though not WWIII, in action. The WW-III would be a different beast. It will be product of the current world view, ie. of conflict between the view and the critical problems. The obvious conflict is between complete state sovereignty principle of international law and global, transnational, problems of human rights and environment, especially global warming. These problems can not be resolved through voluntary ratification and obeying of treaties by 180+ states. Thus global enforcement is in order.