5 ms·

True. I can't help but wonder when/if WWIII will begin or if it already has... It almost feels inevitable to be honest. Am I wrong?

by rblion 5y ago

_Understated_ 5y ago
I've long felt that WWIII will not be fought (initially, anyway) with tanks and bombs and such, but with computers. What could be more effective for your enemy than taking out all your power stations and plunging your country into total darkness and chaos? Everything would run out in short order and people would turn on each other. Saves having to mess the place up with bombs and you have plausible deniability within the international community.
sofixa 5y ago
You aren't necessarily wrong, but IMHO maybe too pessimistic. I don't see a global conflict starting anytime soon due to MAD. Baring another Trump-like person with zero regard for international norms, relations and basically anything, most world leaders at the highest level aren't complete idiots and understand the risks involved. There are and will still be many localised conflicts, even some which might impact lots of people ( e.g. if the US does end up attacking Iran, it will be a bloodbath with consequences through Europe, Asia and Africa at the very least). Ukraine-Russia, and everyone around ( Belarus, Baltics, Poland) will probably turn out to be an even nastier affair. Israel's apartheid will probably also result in another war. But a global war is highly unlikely, at least until climate change and other ongoing environmental disasters wipe out too much resources and people ( e.g. poor communities relying on fishing for sustenance being decimated by dropping fish populations and/or deforestation draining major rivers and lakes).
- roamerz 5y ago
  I would counter that a Trump like person would lead to less chance of war. Countries tend to toe the line better if there is a measuarble chance at retaliation. A Biden like person who's demonstrated incompetance (Afghanistan pullout) and placation (weak stance on China relations) would lead to contries rolling the dice on whether we would retaliate or not. We'll see what happens with China and Taiwan or Russia and Ukraine. I would also counter that the response to alleged climate change could also spark conflicts which could lead to more encompassing war for example some greenie gets elected to power in Russia and decimates their ability to export energy (similar to current U.S. situation). That would leave many angry people in the cold in the E.U. and lead to unrest and potentially war. That's kind of out there but still within the realm.
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    1) The afghanistan pullout is the country keeping a promise that Trump failed to keep that was made long before either Trump or Biden, and it would have been a quagmire to whoever had the guts to actually follow through on it 2) People keep repeating this weak-on-China meme but Biden seems a lot more hawkish on them than people seem to be giving him credit for
    - roamerz 5y ago
      I don’t disagree with keeping the promise at all. Where he completely demonstrated his competence was in the implementation. I am an IT guy and I would have done a much better job. We’ll see on China. Proof is in action not talk.
      - peter422 5y ago
        You’d have done a better job? How so? You have expertise in strategic retreats after 20 years of war?
        miked85 5y ago
        I don't think it takes a military strategic expert to say get civilians out first, then the military and equipment. If you can't take the equipment, destroy it.
        throwaway946513 5y ago
        As far as I can remember - one thing that our military personnel are taught, especially in the field, is how to render equipment inoperable. Which in fact is one of the things we've done with left over equipment there. Source: family of veterans.
        miked85 5y ago
        The Taliban paraded driving US military vehicles through the streets, so I don't think we did that. I am sure it is normal procedure to disable equipment in this situation, but nothing about that exit was normal.
seanw444 5y ago
WWIII already began. Using carefully-cut video clips, intentionally misleading articles, and social media platforms increasingly encouraging unrest to pad their bottom line, decreasing their users' attention span, and spying into their users' devices, the factions only need to fight for public opinion in this day in age. You can convince someone to surrender to you out of spite for their own country, long before you have to point a gun at them nowadays.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  This gave me chills. Sometimes California feels more pro-China than pro-US. “But man, China is so impressive. They’re so good at governance.” - verbatim quote from a professor I met at UC Berkeley.

True. I can't help but wonder when/if WWIII will begin or if it already has... It almost feels inevitable to be honest. Am I wrong?

by rblion 5y ago

True. I can't help but wonder when/if WWIII will begin or if it already has... It almost feels inevitable to be honest. Am I wrong?

_Understated_ 5y ago

I've long felt that WWIII will not be fought (initially, anyway) with tanks and bombs and such, but with computers. What could be more effective for your enemy than taking out all your power stations and plunging your country into total darkness and chaos? Everything would run out in short order and people would turn on each other. Saves having to mess the place up with bombs and you have plausible deniability within the international community.

sofixa 5y ago

You aren't necessarily wrong, but IMHO maybe too pessimistic. I don't see a global conflict starting anytime soon due to MAD. Baring another Trump-like person with zero regard for international norms, relations and basically anything, most world leaders at the highest level aren't complete idiots and understand the risks involved. There are and will still be many localised conflicts, even some which might impact lots of people ( e.g. if the US does end up attacking Iran, it will be a bloodbath with consequences through Europe, Asia and Africa at the very least). Ukraine-Russia, and everyone around ( Belarus, Baltics, Poland) will probably turn out to be an even nastier affair. Israel's apartheid will probably also result in another war. But a global war is highly unlikely, at least until climate change and other ongoing environmental disasters wipe out too much resources and people ( e.g. poor communities relying on fishing for sustenance being decimated by dropping fish populations and/or deforestation draining major rivers and lakes).

roamerz 5y ago
I would counter that a Trump like person would lead to less chance of war. Countries tend to toe the line better if there is a measuarble chance at retaliation. A Biden like person who's demonstrated incompetance (Afghanistan pullout) and placation (weak stance on China relations) would lead to contries rolling the dice on whether we would retaliate or not. We'll see what happens with China and Taiwan or Russia and Ukraine. I would also counter that the response to alleged climate change could also spark conflicts which could lead to more encompassing war for example some greenie gets elected to power in Russia and decimates their ability to export energy (similar to current U.S. situation). That would leave many angry people in the cold in the E.U. and lead to unrest and potentially war. That's kind of out there but still within the realm.
- tomc1985 5y ago
  1) The afghanistan pullout is the country keeping a promise that Trump failed to keep that was made long before either Trump or Biden, and it would have been a quagmire to whoever had the guts to actually follow through on it 2) People keep repeating this weak-on-China meme but Biden seems a lot more hawkish on them than people seem to be giving him credit for
  - roamerz 5y ago
    I don’t disagree with keeping the promise at all. Where he completely demonstrated his competence was in the implementation. I am an IT guy and I would have done a much better job. We’ll see on China. Proof is in action not talk.
    - peter422 5y ago
      You’d have done a better job? How so? You have expertise in strategic retreats after 20 years of war?
      - miked85 5y ago
        I don't think it takes a military strategic expert to say get civilians out first, then the military and equipment. If you can't take the equipment, destroy it.
        throwaway946513 5y ago
        As far as I can remember - one thing that our military personnel are taught, especially in the field, is how to render equipment inoperable. Which in fact is one of the things we've done with left over equipment there. Source: family of veterans.
        miked85 5y ago
        The Taliban paraded driving US military vehicles through the streets, so I don't think we did that. I am sure it is normal procedure to disable equipment in this situation, but nothing about that exit was normal.

seanw444 5y ago

WWIII already began. Using carefully-cut video clips, intentionally misleading articles, and social media platforms increasingly encouraging unrest to pad their bottom line, decreasing their users' attention span, and spying into their users' devices, the factions only need to fight for public opinion in this day in age. You can convince someone to surrender to you out of spite for their own country, long before you have to point a gun at them nowadays.

systemvoltage 5y ago
This gave me chills. Sometimes California feels more pro-China than pro-US. “But man, China is so impressive. They’re so good at governance.” - verbatim quote from a professor I met at UC Berkeley.