3 ms·
> I think the world will be more stable when there are few major players around with not a single one having complete control / dominance. Until one thinks the
by throw0101a 4y ago
> I think the world will be more stable when there are few major players around with not a single one having complete control / dominance.
Until one thinks they can get an edge over another one by jumping them:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_wars
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_history_by_continent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_history_by_c...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_history_by_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_history_by_p...
- FpUser 4y agoMajor players going to war with each other means mutually assured destruction. I do not think they will.
- throwaway6734 4y agoYes but proxy wars are going to be brutal.
- FpUser 4y agoI do not want to argue too much here. Here is my point of view - I believe that a single country controlling the world will end up with dictatorship on a world scale. It will not prevent wars either. If instead we have few majors they might actually get to their senses and establish some workable order. You have your own take on a subject and we do not have to agree