3 ms·

I think that is pretty narrow sighted. A new major world war could be won with viruses, bacteria, drones, small robots, hacking financial systems, space lazers

I think that is pretty narrow sighted. A new major world war could be won with viruses, bacteria, drones, small robots, hacking financial systems, space lazers, genetically enhancing your population for financial domination, etc.. Air superiority is possibly a factor in some possible versions of war, but the reality is that it mostly gives us an advantage that allows us to press our will upon lesser militaries. That doesn't mean it couldn't be the dominant factor, but I imagine a major war between any super powers would be so costly to human life (since we are so good at killing now), that alternatives to traditional means of takeover would probably be preferred.

kamaal 6y ago
Or may be the next world war will be won by a country that doesn't fight it. China is building international super highways for trade, continent wide trade belts and inter-continent markets. I don't think the US is lucky enough to get a war now. Countries will just maintain some minimum deterrence in the form of missile forces. So that they don't get out right invaded or sanctioned. Beyond that it will just be trade war and which country has citizens lined up to work 20 hour shifts. What makes all this so easily possible is we are not making new leap frog success in science(physics) anymore. Eventually engineering everywhere will catch up with science. In short every one can and will have weapons to deter invasions and sanctions. The problem for west is not that a war will happen, but that it won't. Every once in a while the world arrives at a paradigm change where everything changes. And no matter how good you are at the old game, it doesn't matter because the game has changed. We are likely at that place now.
XorNot 6y ago
You're failing to define what the objectives are. Wars have objectives, that's why people fight them. The US and China have no ability to occupy each other's lands, nor interest in doing so. Neither do they benefit from out right destruction of infrastructure because that escalates to a nuclear conflict which wins no one anything. The most plausible engagement is US intervention in the strait of Taiwan to thwart a Chinese invasion and occupation. And that war is essentially conventional: it results from US fleets being out of position and internal politics making it look like a good opportunity.
- justatdotin 6y ago
  I'll have a go: obscene profits for arms traders; industrial activity for the hangers-on; corraling votes for the wartime polieticians.
  - vegetablepotpie 6y ago
    Counterpoint: you don’t need a war for the arms industry to make a profit. What you really need is the potential for a war. Whether the armaments are fired, or lay dormant in storage for several decades makes no difference to the contractor because they are sold either way. As for votes, The last US president to start a war became very unpopular because of it.
    - j4yav 6y ago
      Wouldn’t they sell quite a lot more if they were being used?
      - vegetablepotpie 6y ago
        We’re talking governments, not consumers. The government can do all kinds of crazy stuff to contractors that economic theory doesn’t account for, such as dictating the amount of profit the contractor gets to make and mandating that the weapon system be manufactured by another company because of any number of reasons. A war, or any kind of emergency, can increase the odds of the government doing crazy stuff. It’s not good for a contractor when the government decides they should make 5% profit when the stock market that year is going up by 10%. Having a large, old inventory of weapons the government maintains can be profitable for the contractor because they can sell support for those systems that no one else can. This support alone can employ hundreds of engineers and bring millions a year to a contractor. You can’t do that if the weapons are all fired. This is all in service of keeping the government happy. The government, state department specifically, can decide which countries the contractor can export the weapon systems too. The set of countries the government will allow this for will be bigger if there is no conflict the government is involved in. Defense contracting is a very counter intuitive business.

kamaal 6y ago

Or may be the next world war will be won by a country that doesn't fight it. China is building international super highways for trade, continent wide trade belts and inter-continent markets. I don't think the US is lucky enough to get a war now. Countries will just maintain some minimum deterrence in the form of missile forces. So that they don't get out right invaded or sanctioned. Beyond that it will just be trade war and which country has citizens lined up to work 20 hour shifts. What makes all this so easily possible is we are not making new leap frog success in science(physics) anymore. Eventually engineering everywhere will catch up with science. In short every one can and will have weapons to deter invasions and sanctions. The problem for west is not that a war will happen, but that it won't. Every once in a while the world arrives at a paradigm change where everything changes. And no matter how good you are at the old game, it doesn't matter because the game has changed. We are likely at that place now.

XorNot 6y ago

You're failing to define what the objectives are. Wars have objectives, that's why people fight them. The US and China have no ability to occupy each other's lands, nor interest in doing so. Neither do they benefit from out right destruction of infrastructure because that escalates to a nuclear conflict which wins no one anything. The most plausible engagement is US intervention in the strait of Taiwan to thwart a Chinese invasion and occupation. And that war is essentially conventional: it results from US fleets being out of position and internal politics making it look like a good opportunity.

justatdotin 6y ago
I'll have a go: obscene profits for arms traders; industrial activity for the hangers-on; corraling votes for the wartime polieticians.
- vegetablepotpie 6y ago
  Counterpoint: you don’t need a war for the arms industry to make a profit. What you really need is the potential for a war. Whether the armaments are fired, or lay dormant in storage for several decades makes no difference to the contractor because they are sold either way. As for votes, The last US president to start a war became very unpopular because of it.
  - j4yav 6y ago
    Wouldn’t they sell quite a lot more if they were being used?
    - vegetablepotpie 6y ago
      We’re talking governments, not consumers. The government can do all kinds of crazy stuff to contractors that economic theory doesn’t account for, such as dictating the amount of profit the contractor gets to make and mandating that the weapon system be manufactured by another company because of any number of reasons. A war, or any kind of emergency, can increase the odds of the government doing crazy stuff. It’s not good for a contractor when the government decides they should make 5% profit when the stock market that year is going up by 10%. Having a large, old inventory of weapons the government maintains can be profitable for the contractor because they can sell support for those systems that no one else can. This support alone can employ hundreds of engineers and bring millions a year to a contractor. You can’t do that if the weapons are all fired. This is all in service of keeping the government happy. The government, state department specifically, can decide which countries the contractor can export the weapon systems too. The set of countries the government will allow this for will be bigger if there is no conflict the government is involved in. Defense contracting is a very counter intuitive business.