8 ms·

Americans are still not worried enough about the risk of world war

45 points by ray__ 2y ago

gregjor 2y ago
Americans have more immediate things to worry about. The possibility of war, which is not something individual Americans have control over, doesn't make the list when prices for everything are going up and people can't find jobs, a place to live, or friends. In any case there's little point to worrying about things you can't affect or change. No amount of worry will prevent a war.
- orionblastar 2y ago
  Our economy is in a bubble like everything else. In the 1960s a Big Mac meal cost under a dollar, now in California it is $18. We are headed for a Great Depression as AI and innovation eats jobs, and people will have to learn new skills to find a job. There is an article called The Rise of the Rest: https://fareedzakaria.com/columns/2008/05/12/the-rise-of-the-rest https://fareedzakaria.com/columns/2008/05/12/the-rise-of-the... that talked about Russia getting more aggressive, and everyone else growing their economies and competing with the USA and Europe. It is a global economy and a global war. It is from this book: https://www.amazon.com/Post-American-World-Rise-Rest/dp/024195875X https://www.amazon.com/Post-American-World-Rise-Rest/dp/0241...
  - BenFranklin100 2y ago
    Innovation — that is technological progress — creates net jobs. AI is no different nor is continued automation.
    - gregjor 2y ago
      Innovation can create jobs, but at the same time it can displace people from their jobs. Innovation in manufacturing created jobs overseas in places with cheaper labor and less regulation, while eliminating jobs in the USA. AI may do the same, whether by actually replacing people with technology or simply outsourcing overseas and calling it AI like Amazon and others have done. While the "labor market" works globally, across borders, employment does not. Just like food -- American produces more food than Americans need, but people in other parts of the world (and even plenty of poor Americans) don't have enough to eat. So while it's generally true that innovation can lead to net job creation globally, it has local effects that can lead to unemployment and displacement.
      - realusername 2y ago
        The US is currently at a chronically low unemployment rate of 3.8% which means full employment. This fear of the global labor market and technological changes creating mass unemployment hasn't materialized until now so I don't see why it would at this point.
        gregjor 2y ago
        That seems like a naive reading of the employment rate. A lot of Americans have jobs that don't pay a living wage, and don't have benefits. Many people do gig work to make ends meet. A person who used to have a good-paying manufacturing job but now works as a Walmart greeter with no benefits counts as employed, but with some significant qualitative differences because the manufacturing job went to Mexico or China. People with expensive degrees working as baristas count as employed, but they probably don't think of their situation as "full employment" as fake AI companies outsource jobs to India. The global labor market enables labor arbitrage. A person in India or Vietnam gets an offshored job and goes from 0 to 2. A person in Detroit loses their good job and gets hired at Burger King, going from 8 to 4. The savings goes into the pockets of people like Jeff Bezos. My point was to distinguish between global trends and broadly true -- at scale -- claims about innovation and technology improving employment conditions and local effects caused by job displacement. Those happen together. It does little good to laid-off programmers in California to learn that their sacrifice means thousands of Indian programmers now have jobs.
        realusername 2y ago
        That's because people nowadays are working in jobs with pretty poor union support compared to the manufacturing jobs of the past so there's not much competition involved when raising salaries. As for the global trends, nothing points at job displacement until now, everything until now points to the pie getting larger, the opposite of your statement. I doubt you could fit the needs of any country on earth with just its local workforce nowadays anyways, even China itself can't. It's been a dozen technological revolutions and none of that happened already so I don't see why the next one would. Black swan events can always happen of course but I would not bet on it.
  - gregjor 2y ago
    I no longer live in the US. A Big Mac costs $4 in Thailand, but I can find better burgers for less. More and more Americans are figuring out how they get scammed and ripped off and leaving.
  - teamspirit 2y ago
    This is demonstrably untrue. The current most expensive Big Mac is $8.09 in the US [0]. [0] https://pantryandlarder.com/mccheapest https://pantryandlarder.com/mccheapest
    - add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
      That's not the price of a meal. I'm not sure if you get all the way up to $18 after making it a meal and adding tax/tip/etc but it's insane that McDonald's charges anywhere near that much for their bottom tier food.
      - brewdad 2y ago
        I was cleaning my car out yesterday and found a McDs receipt from my son. He spent $17.47 on a quarter pounder meal near Seattle last summer. He did add bacon for 1.99 plus tax, but it is possible to get up around $18 for a single meal. I'm sure the prices are higher today.
      - nozzlegear 2y ago
        I don't think McDonald's accepts tips.
    - jmpman 2y ago
      He said Big Mac Meal. Where I live, outside of California, it’s $10.49 for a medium, and $10.99 for a large according to the McDonalds app.
      - tomjakubowski 2y ago
        A big mac meal is about that price, or lower, at any McDonalds I have been to in southern California. I spot-checked a random location by me: $6.29 for the sandwich, $9.69 (before tax) for a medium meal, $11.19 for a large. That's about double what the menu price was in suburban Chicago ~20 years ago. Extrapolating from the map, I don't know where even a large big mac meal would cost $18 in CA
    - orionblastar 2y ago
  - ManuelKiessling 2y ago
    Comparing absolute numbers isn’t helpful, though — the only relevant question to ask is always this: how many hours does the average American have to work to afford X, then and now?
- bamboozled 2y ago
  In any case there's little point to worrying about things you can't affect or change. No amount of worry will prevent a war. I honestly think this is false. Americans have decided to turn their back on many issues going on outside their borders, especially Ukraine. Russia invading large areas of Europe is definitely how World War 3 will start, Putin is pushing us closer to that place each day the US stalls giving Ukraine more aid. If there was a strong deterrent, Putin would back off, but he and Xi are watching this and getting ideas about conquest. There also seems to be quite a strong alliance and cooperation between N Korea, China, Russia and Iran forming. While we're not helping our friends and allies out, the enemy seems to be growing stronger and getting more organized. Why let this threat continue to grow? I'm really, really shocked about how much the USA is aiding Russia to succeed.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    > I honestly think this is false. Americans have decided to turn their back on many issues going on outside their borders, especially Ukraine. > Why let this threat continue to grow? Why is it self-evident that giving Ukraine weapons decreases the 'threat' and risk of the last world war. I though the deal was that the American and Russian elite invades countries every now and than and the rest of us just complains. Not put our neck on the line? Noone asked me to see my kids die from radiation posioning and starvation when the US invaded Iraq. Somehow there is some phychosis ongoing where people pretend to care for Ukraine's war effort on the 'willing to die' level... Thankfully the alleged Gaza genocide made them calm down a bit though. It was like the jingoists remembered who they cheered for.
    - Supermancho 2y ago
      > Why is it self-evident that giving Ukraine weapons decreases the 'threat' and risk of the [next] world war. FTFY - https://www.youtube.com/@ZeihanonGeopolitics https://www.youtube.com/@ZeihanonGeopolitics covers this better than most. Recently, his predictions about the UK look to be trending as he predicted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjmBAhTDRXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjmBAhTDRXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFHWVAXSGYQ&pp=ygURdWsgc3RlZWwgaW5kdXN0cnk%3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFHWVAXSGYQ&pp=ygURdWsgc3RlZ... He's well regarded and makes some compelling arguments for the support of Ukraine and the overblown concern over China's future, regarding Taiwan.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  If global war comes to be, there will be plenty of jobs, and places to call home.
  - Grimblewald 2y ago
    This has been my retirement plan. Die in the inevitable large scale conflict, or live to reap the rewards of an empty world.
    - gregjor 2y ago
      Americans have the least to worry about. Just like the last two world wars, the destruction will most likely happen in Europe and Asia. America doesn't fight wars on its own soil. Widespread nuclear war could happen but that doesn't leave any winners, and it seems clear both Russia and China have actual strategic goals rather than a mad desire to destroy everything.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Americans have the least to worry about. Just like the last two world wars, the destruction will most likely happen in Europe and Asia Don't underestimate the destabilising political consequences of losing a major war.
        gregjor 2y ago
        Do you think those destabilizing political consequences would turn out worse than the political dysfunction America has already without losing a war? Since America almost certainly won't get attacked or invaded on its own soil, the US can't "lose" a war in the same sense Ukraine can, or Germany and Japan did. The US can lose face and influence, but I think we're used to that by now after Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. We "lost" all of those wars in some sense (failed to achieve stated strategic objectives) but didn't experience destabilizing political consequences.
        2y ago
elmerfud 2y ago
I agree with most of the assessments in this article. The United States engages in proxy wars around the world. The United States purposefully waits for places to become destabilized and then does not engage in a campaign of stabilization but in a campaign of neighbor destabilization. I can't speak for other US citizens about why they don't worry about the prospect of a world war but I can explain why I don't worry about that prospect. The United States military establishment learns its lessons very well. The pattern of is destabilization and stabilization that it engages in is very strategic around the world. It would be nice if everyone got along and it wasn't needed but the days of that kind of grand Utopia will not be for several lifetimes. So instead of risking countries banning together as we saw in previous world wars there is constant meddling to prevent that. When certain powers become aggressive such as Russia with Ukraine we don't have to physically engage we can simply engage with support and equipment. This kind of support allows us to effectively drain the resources of Russia and by connection China by really only spending money. The US military when it shows force it typically shows an overwhelming force. When we talk about a war with China even a direct war with China I'm not sure people comprehend the military might of the United States. China loves to put out propaganda as does Russia and so when you see something like the Chinese Navy is nearly double the size of the United States Navy it sounds impressive. But when you look at the actual tonnage in the water and the capabilities of the fleet the United States Coast guard which operates worldwide could take out the Chinese Navy. When other countries are afraid of 50-year-old jet technology that the United States developed that tells you how far advanced we are compared to anyone else. They may field a few advanced technologies but all of the things the United States Fields is advanced technology. The only cause for concern I would have in a war with another major power is not anything with conventional weaponry it would be with nuclear weaponry. Because once nuclear weapons begin to be fielded in an exchange there is no winners. A conventional war the only hope that others would have against the United States is if they could band together long enough and support each other long enough to exhaust the supply of smart weapons that were able to field. That would be an incredibly difficult thing to do for China and still remain a viable fighting force. The United States does rely much to heavily on Smart weapons and that risk is they do not get replaced as quickly as dumb weapons. There is something to be said about fielding a battleship that can just throw many tons of high explosive shells cheaply and repeatedly. The really scary thing is that the F-22 is effectively old technology and it has never been allowed to engage and intercept an enemy. Enemies flee the field of battle to protect their planes when an F-15 comes within range because it does done hundreds of interceptions and have never been shot down. I know people like to bring up the battle scenarios that we engage in with other countries and point out that they're able to defeat us in many cases in these contrived scenarios. It's important to realize that the United States intentionally handicaps themselves in these scenarios because we learn more from losing than we do from just defeating everyone. The real risk in a world war to the United States is the war of propaganda more than of military might. Because the sway of the people will hold our victory or our defeat in our hands not the capability of our military establishment. Both China and Russia know this fact which is why they would never challenge us in conventional warfare. They wage these proxy wars as well to see what the capabilities are.
dv_dt 2y ago
Americans and their leadership are far too blasé about logistical disruption. I don’t think the US would do well in a world war where global shipping were seriously and intentionally disrupted. Covid was the easier case and we did terribly. Though in terms of war, I worry more about civil war than world war.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rank0 2y ago
  Ridiculous. Which nation would be more resilient to global supply chain disruption? I am genuinely open to a suggestion because I see no serious contenders to the US in terms of technological, economic, military, and diplomatic advantage. (Obviously were talking about war here not ‘inherent goodness’)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > don’t think the US would do well in a world war where global shipping were seriously and intentionally disrupted You're describing an energy, food and minerals exporter with internally-navigable waterways and the world's largest rail network. Oh, and friendly neighbours to the north and south--both of whom we dwarf militarily--and oceans on each coast to keep the meanies away. Adapting to self (more realistically: continental) sufficiency wouldn't be fun. But I struggle to think of a country better situated for a collapse in global trade. (Caveat: agree with you on our political structure being questionable in terms of harnessing these advantages.)
- Supermancho 2y ago
  > I don’t think the US would do well in a world war where global shipping were seriously and intentionally disrupted. The US will do very well for decades, compared to most of the world. US resources, other than rare earth elements, are abundant in the US alone. The rest is available from neighbors. The US has been the one securing globalism. This is changing, intentionally.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
BenFranklin100 2y ago
The article neglects to address the fact that the US and China are both nuclear powers. It also neglects to address the war with the US and Europe is not in China’s interest as we are their largest trading partners. A more likely negative scenario is a new Cold War.
- aiauthoritydev 2y ago
  You misunderstand countries like China. Consider Russia. Was it in Russia's interest to invade Ukraine when EU is such a big trading partner and Nordstream 2 was getting operational ? Made no sense. This is because for Russia and China, the internal processes are vastly different from a country like USA or UK where we debate housing, inflation and number of genders that are there while Russia can easily draft thousands of young men and just send them to capture some shitty ukrainian town.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Was it in Russia's interest to invade Ukraine when EU is such a big trading partner and Nordstream 2 was getting operational ? Made no sense. Blunder, yes. But it remains a conventional war. From the looks of it, one which had the broad support of Moscow's elite. I strongly doubt they would similarly support nuclear armageddon.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
Found the "should" statement at the end. I think more political takes should have a "should" statement. Maybe up top, even. > All of this should scare you a bit. I don't think the world benefits much from me being scared or worried about world war. I have to tactically vote Democrat either way because the Republican party is off their rockers and maybe has been since before I was even born. Beyond that, I don't think I have much influence over global politics - I'm pretty busy with my own life. I suppose I could change my own actions - Get some PV panels and batteries and a plug-in hybrid in case war changes the economics of energy and fuel production. Or simply because I already wanted those things for fun. More Americans should vote Democrat with me.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > don't think the world benefits much from me being scared or worried about world war It's more the civic disengagement. Since the Iraq War, most electeds' call sheets say nothing about foreign policy. Voters don't call in on it, which means they don't vote in primaries based on it, which means it's a delegated issue. I haven't seen detailed study on voters' obsessions pre world wars, but at least studying the media, the headlines from the preceding eras are largely obsessed with domestic issues, with foreign wars almost treated as a sideshow.
owenpalmer 2y ago
I only fear 2 things: nuclear war and dynamically typed languages
oaf_president 2y ago
Perhaps more than the US-USSR coldwar, one should be looking at US-Japan relations before WW-II to see how things could pan out in the next 20 years. US and Japan pursued policies over time that lead to escalation rather than de-escalation.
fulafel 2y ago
Relatively or absolutely? It seems big picture worries are underrepresented generally, also the climate catastrophe to which americans have much more influence over as the most co2 intense big country economy and one of the biggest oil and gas producers.
hilbert42 2y ago
Noah Smith's outline of the tensions and conflicts of the 1930s that led to WWII and of the War itself is excellent and should be read by all. I also share his concerns about parallels between those incidents of the 1930s and present-day world tensions. History might not repeat itself but some of its notions certainly do. As a teenager who lived through the Cold War and especially the 13-day Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 I've never since been so worried about a major war outbreaking as I am now. No doubt tensions haven't yet reached those 13 worrying days but it seems we could be heading that way. I just hope to hell I'm wrong. What I find most troubling is that no matter how much new upcoming generations are taught about political tensions, risks of war outbreaking and its horrible and tragic consequences by their fathers and grandfathers they always remain unprepared and ill equipped to prevent it. As those who've lived the experience and suffered often repeat, nothing prepares one for war other than war itself. Tragically, as the old adage goes, wisdom doesn't fit well on young shoulders. It's as if our inability to convey adequately how important such notions are to upcoming generations is a flaw in the human condition.
- Zetobal 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - blub 2y ago
    It’s not his or any “generation” which is doing anything, that’s nonsensical. It’s the US, Russian, Chinese, Israeli, Iranian, etc. governments. All of which have a life of their own and can either be very limitedly or not at all democratically influenced.
    - Zetobal 2y ago
      Look at the heads of state in the examples you provided and identify the generation to which ALL of them belong.
      - barrysteve 2y ago
        The time will come when you see that you can't age-gate a war over resources. Putin can't step down from his role, the people who put him there will make sure it ends badly for him. The people in these conflicts all want to make sure their reserves stay safe, it only takes one Houthi rebel to ignite the tinderbox. No matter what age that rebel is.
effluvium 2y ago
Right out the gate on this article a heavy application of an unethical use of ethos by the author. You, you, you.... Also anger and worry only distracts. Stay focused on the task at hand. Also what's with these crazy long responses in this thread. That's why I have a quit posting for 10 years. Who is has the time to put together these mini novels. It's an election year. People are getting paid to post. People are getting paid to sway opinions.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Maybe the article’s premise is true but there are more evident issues that also aren’t talked about much. Americans are still not worried enough about the risks of government spending and debt.

45 points by ray__ 2y ago

Americans have more immediate things to worry about. The possibility of war, which is not something individual Americans have control over, doesn't make the list when prices for everything are going up and people can't find jobs, a place to live, or friends. In any case there's little point to worrying about things you can't affect or change. No amount of worry will prevent a war.

orionblastar 2y ago
Our economy is in a bubble like everything else. In the 1960s a Big Mac meal cost under a dollar, now in California it is $18. We are headed for a Great Depression as AI and innovation eats jobs, and people will have to learn new skills to find a job. There is an article called The Rise of the Rest: https://fareedzakaria.com/columns/2008/05/12/the-rise-of-the-rest https://fareedzakaria.com/columns/2008/05/12/the-rise-of-the... that talked about Russia getting more aggressive, and everyone else growing their economies and competing with the USA and Europe. It is a global economy and a global war. It is from this book: https://www.amazon.com/Post-American-World-Rise-Rest/dp/024195875X https://www.amazon.com/Post-American-World-Rise-Rest/dp/0241...
- BenFranklin100 2y ago
  Innovation — that is technological progress — creates net jobs. AI is no different nor is continued automation.
  - gregjor 2y ago
    Innovation can create jobs, but at the same time it can displace people from their jobs. Innovation in manufacturing created jobs overseas in places with cheaper labor and less regulation, while eliminating jobs in the USA. AI may do the same, whether by actually replacing people with technology or simply outsourcing overseas and calling it AI like Amazon and others have done. While the "labor market" works globally, across borders, employment does not. Just like food -- American produces more food than Americans need, but people in other parts of the world (and even plenty of poor Americans) don't have enough to eat. So while it's generally true that innovation can lead to net job creation globally, it has local effects that can lead to unemployment and displacement.
    - realusername 2y ago
      The US is currently at a chronically low unemployment rate of 3.8% which means full employment. This fear of the global labor market and technological changes creating mass unemployment hasn't materialized until now so I don't see why it would at this point.
      - gregjor 2y ago
        That seems like a naive reading of the employment rate. A lot of Americans have jobs that don't pay a living wage, and don't have benefits. Many people do gig work to make ends meet. A person who used to have a good-paying manufacturing job but now works as a Walmart greeter with no benefits counts as employed, but with some significant qualitative differences because the manufacturing job went to Mexico or China. People with expensive degrees working as baristas count as employed, but they probably don't think of their situation as "full employment" as fake AI companies outsource jobs to India. The global labor market enables labor arbitrage. A person in India or Vietnam gets an offshored job and goes from 0 to 2. A person in Detroit loses their good job and gets hired at Burger King, going from 8 to 4. The savings goes into the pockets of people like Jeff Bezos. My point was to distinguish between global trends and broadly true -- at scale -- claims about innovation and technology improving employment conditions and local effects caused by job displacement. Those happen together. It does little good to laid-off programmers in California to learn that their sacrifice means thousands of Indian programmers now have jobs.
        realusername 2y ago
        That's because people nowadays are working in jobs with pretty poor union support compared to the manufacturing jobs of the past so there's not much competition involved when raising salaries. As for the global trends, nothing points at job displacement until now, everything until now points to the pie getting larger, the opposite of your statement. I doubt you could fit the needs of any country on earth with just its local workforce nowadays anyways, even China itself can't. It's been a dozen technological revolutions and none of that happened already so I don't see why the next one would. Black swan events can always happen of course but I would not bet on it.
- gregjor 2y ago
  I no longer live in the US. A Big Mac costs $4 in Thailand, but I can find better burgers for less. More and more Americans are figuring out how they get scammed and ripped off and leaving.
- teamspirit 2y ago
  This is demonstrably untrue. The current most expensive Big Mac is $8.09 in the US [0]. [0] https://pantryandlarder.com/mccheapest https://pantryandlarder.com/mccheapest
  - add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
    That's not the price of a meal. I'm not sure if you get all the way up to $18 after making it a meal and adding tax/tip/etc but it's insane that McDonald's charges anywhere near that much for their bottom tier food.
    - brewdad 2y ago
      I was cleaning my car out yesterday and found a McDs receipt from my son. He spent $17.47 on a quarter pounder meal near Seattle last summer. He did add bacon for 1.99 plus tax, but it is possible to get up around $18 for a single meal. I'm sure the prices are higher today.
    - nozzlegear 2y ago
      I don't think McDonald's accepts tips.
  - jmpman 2y ago
    He said Big Mac Meal. Where I live, outside of California, it’s $10.49 for a medium, and $10.99 for a large according to the McDonalds app.
    - tomjakubowski 2y ago
      A big mac meal is about that price, or lower, at any McDonalds I have been to in southern California. I spot-checked a random location by me: $6.29 for the sandwich, $9.69 (before tax) for a medium meal, $11.19 for a large. That's about double what the menu price was in suburban Chicago ~20 years ago. Extrapolating from the map, I don't know where even a large big mac meal would cost $18 in CA
  - orionblastar 2y ago
- ManuelKiessling 2y ago
  Comparing absolute numbers isn’t helpful, though — the only relevant question to ask is always this: how many hours does the average American have to work to afford X, then and now?
bamboozled 2y ago
In any case there's little point to worrying about things you can't affect or change. No amount of worry will prevent a war. I honestly think this is false. Americans have decided to turn their back on many issues going on outside their borders, especially Ukraine. Russia invading large areas of Europe is definitely how World War 3 will start, Putin is pushing us closer to that place each day the US stalls giving Ukraine more aid. If there was a strong deterrent, Putin would back off, but he and Xi are watching this and getting ideas about conquest. There also seems to be quite a strong alliance and cooperation between N Korea, China, Russia and Iran forming. While we're not helping our friends and allies out, the enemy seems to be growing stronger and getting more organized. Why let this threat continue to grow? I'm really, really shocked about how much the USA is aiding Russia to succeed.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  > I honestly think this is false. Americans have decided to turn their back on many issues going on outside their borders, especially Ukraine. > Why let this threat continue to grow? Why is it self-evident that giving Ukraine weapons decreases the 'threat' and risk of the last world war. I though the deal was that the American and Russian elite invades countries every now and than and the rest of us just complains. Not put our neck on the line? Noone asked me to see my kids die from radiation posioning and starvation when the US invaded Iraq. Somehow there is some phychosis ongoing where people pretend to care for Ukraine's war effort on the 'willing to die' level... Thankfully the alleged Gaza genocide made them calm down a bit though. It was like the jingoists remembered who they cheered for.
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    > Why is it self-evident that giving Ukraine weapons decreases the 'threat' and risk of the [next] world war. FTFY - https://www.youtube.com/@ZeihanonGeopolitics https://www.youtube.com/@ZeihanonGeopolitics covers this better than most. Recently, his predictions about the UK look to be trending as he predicted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjmBAhTDRXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjmBAhTDRXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFHWVAXSGYQ&pp=ygURdWsgc3RlZWwgaW5kdXN0cnk%3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFHWVAXSGYQ&pp=ygURdWsgc3RlZ... He's well regarded and makes some compelling arguments for the support of Ukraine and the overblown concern over China's future, regarding Taiwan.
pjmlp 2y ago
If global war comes to be, there will be plenty of jobs, and places to call home.
- Grimblewald 2y ago
  This has been my retirement plan. Die in the inevitable large scale conflict, or live to reap the rewards of an empty world.
  - gregjor 2y ago
    Americans have the least to worry about. Just like the last two world wars, the destruction will most likely happen in Europe and Asia. America doesn't fight wars on its own soil. Widespread nuclear war could happen but that doesn't leave any winners, and it seems clear both Russia and China have actual strategic goals rather than a mad desire to destroy everything.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Americans have the least to worry about. Just like the last two world wars, the destruction will most likely happen in Europe and Asia Don't underestimate the destabilising political consequences of losing a major war.
      - gregjor 2y ago
        Do you think those destabilizing political consequences would turn out worse than the political dysfunction America has already without losing a war? Since America almost certainly won't get attacked or invaded on its own soil, the US can't "lose" a war in the same sense Ukraine can, or Germany and Japan did. The US can lose face and influence, but I think we're used to that by now after Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. We "lost" all of those wars in some sense (failed to achieve stated strategic objectives) but didn't experience destabilizing political consequences.
        2y ago

elmerfud 2y ago

I agree with most of the assessments in this article. The United States engages in proxy wars around the world. The United States purposefully waits for places to become destabilized and then does not engage in a campaign of stabilization but in a campaign of neighbor destabilization. I can't speak for other US citizens about why they don't worry about the prospect of a world war but I can explain why I don't worry about that prospect. The United States military establishment learns its lessons very well. The pattern of is destabilization and stabilization that it engages in is very strategic around the world. It would be nice if everyone got along and it wasn't needed but the days of that kind of grand Utopia will not be for several lifetimes. So instead of risking countries banning together as we saw in previous world wars there is constant meddling to prevent that. When certain powers become aggressive such as Russia with Ukraine we don't have to physically engage we can simply engage with support and equipment. This kind of support allows us to effectively drain the resources of Russia and by connection China by really only spending money. The US military when it shows force it typically shows an overwhelming force. When we talk about a war with China even a direct war with China I'm not sure people comprehend the military might of the United States. China loves to put out propaganda as does Russia and so when you see something like the Chinese Navy is nearly double the size of the United States Navy it sounds impressive. But when you look at the actual tonnage in the water and the capabilities of the fleet the United States Coast guard which operates worldwide could take out the Chinese Navy. When other countries are afraid of 50-year-old jet technology that the United States developed that tells you how far advanced we are compared to anyone else. They may field a few advanced technologies but all of the things the United States Fields is advanced technology. The only cause for concern I would have in a war with another major power is not anything with conventional weaponry it would be with nuclear weaponry. Because once nuclear weapons begin to be fielded in an exchange there is no winners. A conventional war the only hope that others would have against the United States is if they could band together long enough and support each other long enough to exhaust the supply of smart weapons that were able to field. That would be an incredibly difficult thing to do for China and still remain a viable fighting force. The United States does rely much to heavily on Smart weapons and that risk is they do not get replaced as quickly as dumb weapons. There is something to be said about fielding a battleship that can just throw many tons of high explosive shells cheaply and repeatedly. The really scary thing is that the F-22 is effectively old technology and it has never been allowed to engage and intercept an enemy. Enemies flee the field of battle to protect their planes when an F-15 comes within range because it does done hundreds of interceptions and have never been shot down. I know people like to bring up the battle scenarios that we engage in with other countries and point out that they're able to defeat us in many cases in these contrived scenarios. It's important to realize that the United States intentionally handicaps themselves in these scenarios because we learn more from losing than we do from just defeating everyone. The real risk in a world war to the United States is the war of propaganda more than of military might. Because the sway of the people will hold our victory or our defeat in our hands not the capability of our military establishment. Both China and Russia know this fact which is why they would never challenge us in conventional warfare. They wage these proxy wars as well to see what the capabilities are.

dv_dt 2y ago

Americans and their leadership are far too blasé about logistical disruption. I don’t think the US would do well in a world war where global shipping were seriously and intentionally disrupted. Covid was the easier case and we did terribly. Though in terms of war, I worry more about civil war than world war.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rank0 2y ago
Ridiculous. Which nation would be more resilient to global supply chain disruption? I am genuinely open to a suggestion because I see no serious contenders to the US in terms of technological, economic, military, and diplomatic advantage. (Obviously were talking about war here not ‘inherent goodness’)
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> don’t think the US would do well in a world war where global shipping were seriously and intentionally disrupted You're describing an energy, food and minerals exporter with internally-navigable waterways and the world's largest rail network. Oh, and friendly neighbours to the north and south--both of whom we dwarf militarily--and oceans on each coast to keep the meanies away. Adapting to self (more realistically: continental) sufficiency wouldn't be fun. But I struggle to think of a country better situated for a collapse in global trade. (Caveat: agree with you on our political structure being questionable in terms of harnessing these advantages.)
Supermancho 2y ago
> I don’t think the US would do well in a world war where global shipping were seriously and intentionally disrupted. The US will do very well for decades, compared to most of the world. US resources, other than rare earth elements, are abundant in the US alone. The rest is available from neighbors. The US has been the one securing globalism. This is changing, intentionally.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago

BenFranklin100 2y ago

The article neglects to address the fact that the US and China are both nuclear powers. It also neglects to address the war with the US and Europe is not in China’s interest as we are their largest trading partners. A more likely negative scenario is a new Cold War.

aiauthoritydev 2y ago
You misunderstand countries like China. Consider Russia. Was it in Russia's interest to invade Ukraine when EU is such a big trading partner and Nordstream 2 was getting operational ? Made no sense. This is because for Russia and China, the internal processes are vastly different from a country like USA or UK where we debate housing, inflation and number of genders that are there while Russia can easily draft thousands of young men and just send them to capture some shitty ukrainian town.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Was it in Russia's interest to invade Ukraine when EU is such a big trading partner and Nordstream 2 was getting operational ? Made no sense. Blunder, yes. But it remains a conventional war. From the looks of it, one which had the broad support of Moscow's elite. I strongly doubt they would similarly support nuclear armageddon.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago

Found the "should" statement at the end. I think more political takes should have a "should" statement. Maybe up top, even. > All of this should scare you a bit. I don't think the world benefits much from me being scared or worried about world war. I have to tactically vote Democrat either way because the Republican party is off their rockers and maybe has been since before I was even born. Beyond that, I don't think I have much influence over global politics - I'm pretty busy with my own life. I suppose I could change my own actions - Get some PV panels and batteries and a plug-in hybrid in case war changes the economics of energy and fuel production. Or simply because I already wanted those things for fun. More Americans should vote Democrat with me.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> don't think the world benefits much from me being scared or worried about world war It's more the civic disengagement. Since the Iraq War, most electeds' call sheets say nothing about foreign policy. Voters don't call in on it, which means they don't vote in primaries based on it, which means it's a delegated issue. I haven't seen detailed study on voters' obsessions pre world wars, but at least studying the media, the headlines from the preceding eras are largely obsessed with domestic issues, with foreign wars almost treated as a sideshow.

owenpalmer 2y ago

I only fear 2 things: nuclear war and dynamically typed languages

oaf_president 2y ago

Perhaps more than the US-USSR coldwar, one should be looking at US-Japan relations before WW-II to see how things could pan out in the next 20 years. US and Japan pursued policies over time that lead to escalation rather than de-escalation.

fulafel 2y ago

Relatively or absolutely? It seems big picture worries are underrepresented generally, also the climate catastrophe to which americans have much more influence over as the most co2 intense big country economy and one of the biggest oil and gas producers.

hilbert42 2y ago

Noah Smith's outline of the tensions and conflicts of the 1930s that led to WWII and of the War itself is excellent and should be read by all. I also share his concerns about parallels between those incidents of the 1930s and present-day world tensions. History might not repeat itself but some of its notions certainly do. As a teenager who lived through the Cold War and especially the 13-day Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 I've never since been so worried about a major war outbreaking as I am now. No doubt tensions haven't yet reached those 13 worrying days but it seems we could be heading that way. I just hope to hell I'm wrong. What I find most troubling is that no matter how much new upcoming generations are taught about political tensions, risks of war outbreaking and its horrible and tragic consequences by their fathers and grandfathers they always remain unprepared and ill equipped to prevent it. As those who've lived the experience and suffered often repeat, nothing prepares one for war other than war itself. Tragically, as the old adage goes, wisdom doesn't fit well on young shoulders. It's as if our inability to convey adequately how important such notions are to upcoming generations is a flaw in the human condition.

Zetobal 2y ago
[flagged]
- blub 2y ago
  It’s not his or any “generation” which is doing anything, that’s nonsensical. It’s the US, Russian, Chinese, Israeli, Iranian, etc. governments. All of which have a life of their own and can either be very limitedly or not at all democratically influenced.
  - Zetobal 2y ago
    Look at the heads of state in the examples you provided and identify the generation to which ALL of them belong.
    - barrysteve 2y ago
      The time will come when you see that you can't age-gate a war over resources. Putin can't step down from his role, the people who put him there will make sure it ends badly for him. The people in these conflicts all want to make sure their reserves stay safe, it only takes one Houthi rebel to ignite the tinderbox. No matter what age that rebel is.

effluvium 2y ago

Right out the gate on this article a heavy application of an unethical use of ethos by the author. You, you, you.... Also anger and worry only distracts. Stay focused on the task at hand. Also what's with these crazy long responses in this thread. That's why I have a quit posting for 10 years. Who is has the time to put together these mini novels. It's an election year. People are getting paid to post. People are getting paid to sway opinions.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Maybe the article’s premise is true but there are more evident issues that also aren’t talked about much. Americans are still not worried enough about the risks of government spending and debt.