9 ms·
The thing about war is that at some point, the conditions line up where it becomes seen as a solution (if not the only solution), and its not easy to see the po
by tomohawk 8y ago
The thing about war is that at some point, the conditions line up where it becomes seen as a solution (if not the only solution), and its not easy to see the point at which that will occur ahead of time.
Will China's big sea grab start a war? So far, they've been able to smother any of their neighbor's push back, and have just ignored any international rulings against them.
What about when they invade Taiwan, which they've said they will do? What about when they take over some of Japan's islands, which they said they would do?
They seem to be going down this path where they think if they just push a calculated amount each time, it won't cause a big problem. It's exactly that kind of thinking that is the problem, though.
And China's not the only aggressive, belligerent country out there. There's also Russia (Crimea/Ukraine, Syria) and Iran (Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon), for example. At what point do their aggressions spill over into a larger conflict?
- chokolad 8y agoCan you please elaborate on Russia's aggression in Syria? Did they annex something there? Tried to depose a government maybe ?
- ImprovedSilence 8y ago>> Tried to depose a government maybe I think quite the opposite, I believe they wanted the current leadership to stay, consequences and means of enforcement and human rights be damned. (it's also contrary to the US's wishes, for right or wrong). They want the status quo, cuz it's their only navy base on the Mediterranean. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_involvement_in_the_Syr...
- NotAmazin 8y agoYou forgot to mention Israel's aggression on adjacent countries Lebanon and Palestine. Would Israel's constant belligerence start a war?
- azernik 8y agoI think Israel (and, unlike GP, also Iran) are too small-time to start real global war. They're more the potential Bosnias or Serbias - small, belligerent countries that could drag their patrons into conflict.
- nerpderp83 8y agoIsrael has "the bomb", they definitely could start a global war.
- raprp 8y agoAccording to Colin Powell they have 200 of them. More than enough to bring the Fallout series to life.
- foobarian 8y agoWhat series of bombings might start a global war? I doubt bombing Iran would be enough.
- caf 8y agoThe nuclear bombing of Iran by a state would almost certainly be enough to precipitate the complete collapse of the NPT, which is already wobbly (the latest Review Conference ended in acrimony). Subsequent nuclear weapons projects in erstwhile NPT NNWS could easily trigger a few regional wars, and from there the escalation to a global conflict is certainly possible.
- brandonmenc 8y agoOr, Israel having nukes has made their neighbors wary of another attempt at annihilating them, which could trigger a large war.
- ImprovedSilence 8y agoyeah.... but isn't that how big wars get started... coughBosniacoughwar that ended 100ys ago almost to the day...
- wpietri 8y agoAnd I'd add that it need only be a solution to the person who can start the war. Authoritarian leaders find fights with external enemies extremely useful to quash dissent. Given the global drift toward authoritarianism and nationalism, and especially given how the world's largest military is in the hands of an authoritarian, I think the risk for war is disturbingly high.
- tomohawk 8y agoWas Obama an authoritarian? What about Bush? What about Clinton (Bill)? The previous few presidents got the US involved in lots of stupid wars. This president has expressly said he doesn't want to do that and has avoided it.
- ejstronge 8y ago> Was Obama an authoritarian? What about Bush? What about Clinton (Bill)? > The previous few presidents got the US involved in lots of stupid wars. This president has expressly said he doesn't want to do that and has avoided it. I'm not sure how you can find fault with Obama and Clinton but absolve Trump. What do you make of his continuation of the many wars we are involved in? Or his bombings in Syria?
- raprp 8y agoWith John Bolton around don't keep your hopes up. Iran's humanitarian invasion is just around the corner.
- kasey_junk 8y agohttps://www.google.com/amp/s/news.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/ywn5yy/us-military-secret-missions-africa https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.vice.com/amp/en_us/article... They are ramping up ‘engagements’ in Africa not lowering them.
- diydsp 8y ago>has avoided it. While explicit declarations of war don't exist, airstrikes and threats do. Trump has accelerated bombing rates over the Obama administration: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/09/donald-trump-is-dropping-bombs-at-unprecedented-levels/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/09/donald-trump-is-droppin... Trump has threatened Iran: https://fox8.com/2018/07/23/trump-tweets-explosive-threat-to-iran/ https://fox8.com/2018/07/23/trump-tweets-explosive-threat-to... Trump has threatened North Korea: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-un-north-korean-leader-suicide-mission-n802596 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-un-north-...
- crispinb 8y ago> At what point do their aggressions spill over into a larger conflict? When perceived benefits outweigh costs. The US's multiple invasions of, and coup plots against, other countries didn't 'spill over into a larger conflict' because the US's power & ruthlessness have been well-understood by the world. The costs of resisting US militaristic aggression have just been too high. The same has applied to Russia, and perhaps will in China's case if it makes good on its threats (though it would have to fight on multiple fronts for decades to even approach US levels of aggression).
- raprp 8y agoUSA's bombing list for the last 20 years alone speaks for itself: Sudan 1998 Afghanistan 1998 Yugoslavia 1999 Yemen 2002 Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis) Iraq 2003-2015 Afghanistan 2001-2015 Pakistan 2007-2015 Somalia 2007-8, 2011 Yemen 2009, 2011 Libya 2011, 2015 Syria 2014-2016
- vertline3 8y agoSo what it is speaking to me is It seems there is a war against Radical religious terrorists which is stateless and more regional, and stopping dictators.
- Jerry2 8y ago>and stopping dictators If the US cared about stopping "dictators", why are there so many dictators allies of the US?
- azinman2 8y agoBecause politics and circumstance.
- andrepd 8y agoWhich implies that they do not care about "dictatorships".
- azinman2 8y agoI think that there are strong tendencies and actions towards democracies where convienent and possible. Unfortunately the world is a messy place — ideological purity gets you no where.
- lucisferre 8y ago> ideological purity gets you no where. While I also disagree with the parent, these facts are not in evidence.
- qsdevacc 8y agoI find it laughable that you completely disregarded USA as one of the other "aggressive, belligerent" countries out there...
- ekianjo 8y agoActually this is debatable. The USA has the first military power in the whole world and could go and invade a bunch of countries if they wanted to and nobody would oppose them. Since they are not doing so, its hard to call them belligerent. The British Empire was way worse than the USA all things considered.
- dvtrn 8y agoSince they are not doing so, its hard to call them belligerent I wonder what kinds of things history will be saying about the United States in 200 years, a nation who probably didn't take the brutish British approach to invasion, but has tripwire forces-I mean "installations" dotted all over everyone else's back yards instead.
- raprp 8y agoConsidering how NATO, The Gulf Countries, China and Russia are behaving, seems that in 200 years we will be still learning how to build the wheel again. If were are lucky.
- factsaresacred 8y agoGratitude, I hope. Without the US, the world would be a sh*tshow. The tripwire bases prevent the likes of Russia putting its paws on Eastern Europe or China snatching more islands they claim as there own. Back when the Serbs were genociding their Muslim citizens, Europe was inept while the US saved the day, as usual. The US enjoys the status quo - most military interventions are to maintain it.
- chillwaves 8y agoThe US has no problem arming and training SA who is committing genocide in Yemen as we speak.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]