5 ms·

> Also: we're not on the cusp of WW3. How could you know that? Are you a time traveller? It is unlikely in any specific year, but over 100 years a 1% chance is

by roenxi 2y ago

> Also: we're not on the cusp of WW3. How could you know that? Are you a time traveller? It is unlikely in any specific year, but over 100 years a 1% chance is likely to happen and the risks seem elevated right now. There isn't anything in particular stopping WW3 and there are lots of ways it could happen (open war with Russia, China or Iran spring to mind, civil war in the US spiralling globally is thinkable, the EU is re-arming and something absurd might happen there for a 3rd time). The US doesn't have the economic sway it used to either, it appears unable to just dictate military terms to its competitors right now which has been a major factor for the last 70 years. Even a good argument isn't comforting. There were really good arguments why WW1 and WW2 wouldn't break out. In the case of WW2 for example, it was pretty foreseeable what could happen - devastation of Europe, probable defeat of the Germans by a large coalition and a roughly century-long occupation. No real upside for them. Happened anyway. And famously before WWI there was that book that correctly argued that the economic interconnections between European powers was so great that war could only bring economic ruin - which also happened to be right in hindsight, WWI set up some of the most catastrophic economic conditions ever seen and was also the death knell of Europe's long term economic dominance.

Animats 2y ago
> Also: we're not on the cusp of WW3. >> How could you know that? We're rather close. All it would take is a major blowup in the Ukraine war. The war has stepped up a notch in the last two days. Ukraine has been attacking Moscow with drones.[1] What if they stop hitting apartment buildings and level the Kremlin? Or Russia steps up attacks on Latvia, a member of NATO.[2] [1] https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/europe/ukraine-drone-strikes-moscow-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/europe/ukraine-drone-strikes-... [2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-drone-crashes-in-latvia-president-calls-on-nato-to-respond/ar-AA1qejVP https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-drone-crashes-i...
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Ukraine has been attacking Moscow with drones. That's not new, see this from a year ago: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65475333 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65475333
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Russia, controller of the worlds largest arsenal of nuclear missiles, currently has foreign troops on its land that are attacking it. The US is publicly signalling that this might not be going far enough to pressure the Russian homeland [0]. This attitude floors me. I can't figure out if people legitimately believe that we can just ignore the nuclear war risk because they can't conceptualise how bad it'll be [1] or if the plan is to purposefully explore for a limit where Russia snaps. I suspect we've literally never seen such reckless escalation against a nuclear power. [0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-uk-discuss-lifting-missile-data-restrictions-for-ukraine/ar-AA1qtleQ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-uk-discuss-lifting-m... [1] EDIT - Fun fact for the day, the shockwave from Tsar Bomba circled the globe thrice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba#Test_results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba#Test_results
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      You can't ignore the nuclear threat (and the constrained escalation approach the US has taken is exactly the opposite of ignoring the nuclear threat; it is entirely because of that threat), but you also can't surrender to it unless you are prepared to surrender everything to it.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        It has become uncomfortably clear over the last 5 years how Europe triggered its world wars. But 4 posts ago Animats was drawing our attention to the fact that Moscow is being bombed. Are we supposed to give serious consideration to the idea that leaving Moscow un-bombed represents some sort of surrender to Russia? The US has launched invasions of multiple countries with less of a pretext than even the Russians and nobody pretended that bombing Washington was clever. Or even particularly justified.
        defrost 2y ago
        > and nobody pretended that bombing Washington was clever. Or even particularly justified. Save for Osama Bin Laden who not only "bombed" the Pentagon in Washington he also took out the twin towers in NYC and tried for other targets. Further back the Canadians firebombed multiple targets in Washington, including the Whitehouse, in retaliation for similar US actions in Canadian territory.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  Not going to happen. A conventional conflict between Russia and NATO would be short and would end with a Russian defeat. That is clear from the war in Ukraine. Russia would very quickly lose all the territory it has seized in Ukraine and NATO would press no further. Nuclear conflict? Everyone loses.
nsonha 2y ago
War with China is far, far from a reality, I really doubt anyone's intelligence if they claim so, maybe read less of your government's propaganda.
- koonsolo 2y ago
  How high do you think are the chances of China taking Taiwan by force? And how would US or NATO respond to that?
  - nsonha 2y ago
    They should fuck off to their part of the world. I am not Chinese but everyone in this region has gotten enough of you idiots fucking us up over colonialism dont you think? China has no incentive to disrupt the status quo, they have already invaded Taiwan culturely and economically. It's only the western simpletons brainwashed by the military industrial complex who think that people somehow want war or that "those Asians" want war (I guess because we are stupid?)
    - LunaSea 2y ago
      Most of China's neighbours seem to also have a problem with the way it behaves around it borders and sees. But maybe you would consider them simpletons as well or is that too transparent and close to the colonialism you supposedly despise?
      - nsonha 2y ago
        I am Vietnamese. Of course I cannot speak for everyone, but I think, in general, I can call westerners simpleton in this matter.
        rad_gruchalski 2y ago
        Ah, Vietnamese. North or South?
tgv 2y ago
> Are you a time traveller? If only. > over 100 years a 1% chance is likely to happen This is extrapolated from two events that occurred 25 years apart? > the EU is re-arming ... First, the EU has practically brought peace in Western Europe. And it was disarming, and now sees itself forced to get back to previous levels. While rearming is technically correct, it's a sign of something outside the EU, not the EU being on the war path. > The US ... appears unable to just dictate military terms to its competitors I don't see how what that has to do with it. Are you suggesting WW3 didn't break out earlier because of the Cold War? > Even a good argument isn't comforting. True, but it doesn't somehow make the opposite true. > There were really good arguments why WW1 and WW2 wouldn't break out. And there were many people all over Europe steering towards WW1, and WW2 was famously predicted at the signing of the peace treaty. But a world war requires more than two local, unrelated conflicts, one of which is not even a real war. It requires large groups of combatants, and one group should have some strategic goal it wants to pursue at all costs. But only Russia wants that, and its goal isn't that great, and it stands alone. So I don't see how it could explode into the next world war. Anyway, let's hope for the best.
- limit499karma 2y ago
  World Wars occur when competing great powers reach an impasse over sharing the loot (aka "the world"). The correct parsing of the phrase "world war" is making war for control of the world. We are yet again at such a juncture.

by roenxi 2y ago

Animats 2y ago

> Also: we're not on the cusp of WW3. >> How could you know that? We're rather close. All it would take is a major blowup in the Ukraine war. The war has stepped up a notch in the last two days. Ukraine has been attacking Moscow with drones.[1] What if they stop hitting apartment buildings and level the Kremlin? Or Russia steps up attacks on Latvia, a member of NATO.[2] [1] https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/europe/ukraine-drone-strikes-moscow-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/europe/ukraine-drone-strikes-... [2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-drone-crashes-in-latvia-president-calls-on-nato-to-respond/ar-AA1qejVP https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-drone-crashes-i...

dragonwriter 2y ago
> Ukraine has been attacking Moscow with drones. That's not new, see this from a year ago: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65475333 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65475333
- roenxi 2y ago
  Russia, controller of the worlds largest arsenal of nuclear missiles, currently has foreign troops on its land that are attacking it. The US is publicly signalling that this might not be going far enough to pressure the Russian homeland [0]. This attitude floors me. I can't figure out if people legitimately believe that we can just ignore the nuclear war risk because they can't conceptualise how bad it'll be [1] or if the plan is to purposefully explore for a limit where Russia snaps. I suspect we've literally never seen such reckless escalation against a nuclear power. [0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-uk-discuss-lifting-missile-data-restrictions-for-ukraine/ar-AA1qtleQ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-uk-discuss-lifting-m... [1] EDIT - Fun fact for the day, the shockwave from Tsar Bomba circled the globe thrice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba#Test_results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba#Test_results
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    You can't ignore the nuclear threat (and the constrained escalation approach the US has taken is exactly the opposite of ignoring the nuclear threat; it is entirely because of that threat), but you also can't surrender to it unless you are prepared to surrender everything to it.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      It has become uncomfortably clear over the last 5 years how Europe triggered its world wars. But 4 posts ago Animats was drawing our attention to the fact that Moscow is being bombed. Are we supposed to give serious consideration to the idea that leaving Moscow un-bombed represents some sort of surrender to Russia? The US has launched invasions of multiple countries with less of a pretext than even the Russians and nobody pretended that bombing Washington was clever. Or even particularly justified.
      - defrost 2y ago
        > and nobody pretended that bombing Washington was clever. Or even particularly justified. Save for Osama Bin Laden who not only "bombed" the Pentagon in Washington he also took out the twin towers in NYC and tried for other targets. Further back the Canadians firebombed multiple targets in Washington, including the Whitehouse, in retaliation for similar US actions in Canadian territory.
cmrdporcupine 2y ago
Not going to happen. A conventional conflict between Russia and NATO would be short and would end with a Russian defeat. That is clear from the war in Ukraine. Russia would very quickly lose all the territory it has seized in Ukraine and NATO would press no further. Nuclear conflict? Everyone loses.

nsonha 2y ago

War with China is far, far from a reality, I really doubt anyone's intelligence if they claim so, maybe read less of your government's propaganda.

koonsolo 2y ago
How high do you think are the chances of China taking Taiwan by force? And how would US or NATO respond to that?
- nsonha 2y ago
  They should fuck off to their part of the world. I am not Chinese but everyone in this region has gotten enough of you idiots fucking us up over colonialism dont you think? China has no incentive to disrupt the status quo, they have already invaded Taiwan culturely and economically. It's only the western simpletons brainwashed by the military industrial complex who think that people somehow want war or that "those Asians" want war (I guess because we are stupid?)
  - LunaSea 2y ago
    Most of China's neighbours seem to also have a problem with the way it behaves around it borders and sees. But maybe you would consider them simpletons as well or is that too transparent and close to the colonialism you supposedly despise?
    - nsonha 2y ago
      I am Vietnamese. Of course I cannot speak for everyone, but I think, in general, I can call westerners simpleton in this matter.
      - rad_gruchalski 2y ago
        Ah, Vietnamese. North or South?

tgv 2y ago

> Are you a time traveller? If only. > over 100 years a 1% chance is likely to happen This is extrapolated from two events that occurred 25 years apart? > the EU is re-arming ... First, the EU has practically brought peace in Western Europe. And it was disarming, and now sees itself forced to get back to previous levels. While rearming is technically correct, it's a sign of something outside the EU, not the EU being on the war path. > The US ... appears unable to just dictate military terms to its competitors I don't see how what that has to do with it. Are you suggesting WW3 didn't break out earlier because of the Cold War? > Even a good argument isn't comforting. True, but it doesn't somehow make the opposite true. > There were really good arguments why WW1 and WW2 wouldn't break out. And there were many people all over Europe steering towards WW1, and WW2 was famously predicted at the signing of the peace treaty. But a world war requires more than two local, unrelated conflicts, one of which is not even a real war. It requires large groups of combatants, and one group should have some strategic goal it wants to pursue at all costs. But only Russia wants that, and its goal isn't that great, and it stands alone. So I don't see how it could explode into the next world war. Anyway, let's hope for the best.

limit499karma 2y ago
World Wars occur when competing great powers reach an impasse over sharing the loot (aka "the world"). The correct parsing of the phrase "world war" is making war for control of the world. We are yet again at such a juncture.