4 ms·

This sure feels like yet another sign that major global powers are all gearing up for war. This could be as benign as a government ensuring that the 100 jobs a

• rappatic 2y ago
  Off-topic as far as the article above goes, but do you think it's more likely for global(-ish?) war to erupt because of Europe/Middle East compared to Taiwan? A lot of the discussion around global war pre-2022 was for the late 2020s when China attempts to invade Taiwan. I personally doubt the major global powers will allow the conflicts in Israel and Ukraine to escalate to Western countries actually engaging in combat (but they do seem to want to personally defend Taiwan).
  • sudjdkdn 2y ago
    The most likely reason for war is to move the competition with China onto a military footing rather than an economic one. The US would win the first, and that result would help the second. If you’re seeing western powers gear up for war, it might be to secure their economic future rather than a just intervention
    • FpUser 2y ago
      So they would start a war and kill people for economy's sake? In this case what make them any different from any other war criminals?
      • knodi 2y ago
        Ya just don’t buy EU or UK would start ww3. There are much smarter and better economics and influence strategies to play out that are much less bloody to its own population.
        • h18483djdj 2y ago
          It may not make WW status and they might not be directly involved in fighting it
      • h18483djdj 2y ago
        I think that’s the point. I’m old enough to remember Bush and Blair wanting UN support for Iraq but ditched the idea when they wouldn’t get it. And young enough that my parent’s generation have never seen a war and so don’t remember why the UN was created in the first place. We live in dangerous times with very poor leaders and politics
        • benterix 2y ago
          Yeah Bush seemed surprised nobody wants to join his war. "You forgot Poland!"
  • groby_b 2y ago
    Some major global powers (i.e. China) have a vested interest in that escalation. Having the US tied down in two other conflicts means significantly less resources. Which means Middle East and Ukraine are already part of a global-ish war. Proxy wars, so far, but in service of a larger goal. (No, I don't think China necessarily instigated, but they're sure supporting ongoing conflict) As part of that, I'd also assume that the US nudged the UK to maybe consider their supply chain in case the US can't cover Europe's ass. (They can't, not if they expect a Taiwan conflict)
    • cue_the_strings 2y ago
      I'm under the impression that time is actually working for China and that they don't really require a war; they'll catch up economically soon enough (5-10y) that a war doesn't benefit them at all, and only the US would benefit from one right now, while they still have a chance of nipping their primacy in the bud.
      • SllX 2y ago
        If Nationalism weren’t a factor, there is essentially zero reason for the PRC to ever invade Taiwan. Nationalism is a factor and the PRC is a totalitarian dictatorship. They’re going to go after what they consider their “rogue province” sooner or later, and whether it benefits them economically or not is a footnote.
        • cue_the_strings 2y ago
          Them being a totalitarian dictatorship doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid. I doubt they would risk their economy just because of Taiwan. They may go after it at some point in the future when the odds are in their favor (because they're obviously not right now), but I doubt it'll be soon.
          • groby_b 2y ago
            > Them being a totalitarian dictatorship doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid. No, but it does mean that they are significantly more prone to irrational decisions. And Xi's not exactly ultra-rational to start with.
  • csomar 2y ago
    War is momentum based. If the US gets dragged in a war with Iran and is also supplying Ukraine with weapons, China might perceive this particular moment as an advantage to start their Taiwan campaign. From there, more countries will see the chaos as an advantage to settle their border disputes. And there you have it, a global world war.
    • benterix 2y ago
      > From there, more countries will see the chaos as an advantage to settle their border disputes. I doubt it. Look at what a "border dispute" did to Russia - they became a global pariah. And modern countries cannot really function in a vacuum, even most stupid/populist leaders know it. Local wars in Africa and the Middle East will continue, that's for sure, but they don't have the potential to become global, at least not now.
  • _heimdall 2y ago
    I have been expecting that, if another world war were to kick off, theaters of war would exist both in Europe/Africa/East Asia as well as the Pacific. A big risk for Taiwan, at least in my amateur view, is China feeling emboldened both by seeing an anemic response to other major conflicts and a West that is already distracted by said major conflicts. I grew up with the story that Hong Kong was just as off limits to China as Taiwan was. No one came to Hong Kong's defence though, even the British who should be on the hook for that situation just sat by in silence while the Chinese took complete control of HK and installed their own puppet government to manage the transition.
    • whimsicalism 2y ago
      > I grew up with the story that Hong Kong was just as off limits to China as Taiwan was Not sure when you grew up but that has been obviously false for at least 40 years
      • PHGamer 2y ago
        the brits gave up hong kong in the 90s. as soon as that happened no one was expecting them to back the case. however, i suppose the brits were optimistic so they didnt have to have regret about losing a colony. i think taiwan might get some defense but only cause shit is made there and the west cant pretend the chinese wont flex their power
        • youngtaff 2y ago
          With the New Territories due to be handed back at the end of their 99yr lease, Britain decided it wasn’t viable to keep the rest of Hong Kong
• morkalork 2y ago
  The list of countries "casually arming up" and talking about bringing back conscription is a little concerning.
  • Barrin92 2y ago
    As someone who went through conscription in Germany, the last year to do so (I think), it's a huge relief to me. Almost three decades of neglect and naivete have made the world less safe, not more. Deterrence works.
    • ethbr1 2y ago
      Deterrence + democracy. Deterrence + autocracy is pretty unstable, because eventually the generalissimo gets to thinking that if he already has military capability sitting around...
    • bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
      Question from a fellow European - Germany has conscription? What?
      • guitarbill 2y ago
        Had, until July 2011. This isn't unique. Austria, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and others have something similar, varying in details. (I think it's more commonly called military service or equivalent.)
• phil21 2y ago
  Based on contract ramp-ups from folks I know in sales having record years/quarters tied to the US DoD (while the rest of the sales divisions miss their numbers by huge margins) - I think that it's a foregone conclusion the powers that be expect a major uptick in hostilities sooner than later. But that's just my opinion, man. Could also be the tail wagging the dog. Either way, I think it's pretty clear we are moving from a unipolar world to at least a "more" multipolar world in the near to midterm future. Covid laid bare how utterly fragile the current supply chains are for almost everything from raw material to base chemicals to advanced chips and beyond in the western hemisphere - so it only makes sense for this to happen regardless.
• firecall 2y ago
  Not an expert at all, but wasn't part of The Cold War playbook to outspend the USSR? Investing in capability isn't necessarily a signal that we expect to deploy that capability. But it does force the enemy to level up, then when that enemy runs out of money, they tend to implode. I literally have no idea, so more than happy to be educated!
  • _heimdall 2y ago
    Well I'm shooting from the hip here and sharing only my gut intuition, so welcome to the party! In my opinion, governments buying (or taking over) producers that are necessary for the military feels like a drastic departure to how the military industry has operated for decades. At least in the US, though I think also in Europe, governments have been happy to keep up the status quo of writing massive checks to military contractors that, at least on face value, provide military equipment and training at a massive markup. In the US that markup also tends to be shared with those in power writing the checks through "gifts", campaign donations, and high paying jobs. Military contractors generally don't seem to be hurting for capital to pay employees, especially the actually vital contractors. If the government takes them over, the most likely motivator I see is for the military to have full control over production, projects, and information security.
• makeitdouble 2y ago
  Having access to chips independently has deep economic effects as well, and that was the trigger in most countries. Defense though can be a much more easier talking point from a political and budgeting perspective, especially when trying to unlock an ungodly amount of money towards a potential risk.
• onlypassingthru 2y ago
  If you've been watching the Russian invasion closely, you'll have noticed that while it's good to have friends and allies with necessary ingredients, it's even better to be as self sufficient as possible. Relying on a foreign orange cheeto might ruin your recipe for self defense.
  • bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
    Yeah. As a European I feel humiliating how fumbling the EU has been to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and feel glad that our American friends are around to pick up the slack even though I'd be happier if we didn't need them :-/ so thank you on behalf of my moronic continent.
    • LinuxAmbulance 2y ago
      It was tough watching European countries make cut after cut to their military forces, because without a military that's able to actually defend the country, there's a lot of expectations that the US will step in and do the job. For the US, that has not been a great role to be in considering the recent past. It's been a pleasant surprise to see European countries start to take their own defense seriously in the face of the invasion of Ukraine. When other NATO members can pick up their own slack, it makes it feel much more like an alliance of equals that can make solid contributions.
• AStonesThrow 2y ago
  > This sure feels like yet another sign that major global powers are all gearing up for war. Keep an eye out for analogues to Aktion T4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4 Enacted in October 1939, and retroactive to 1 September, it was the final domestic coup-de-grace necessary to activate the Reich's war machine. Don't expect for a moment that it will be any different for the Allied powers.
• naming_the_user 2y ago
  A credible deterrent is required in order to prevent the mighty from simply taking everything. For the last few decades Western countries aside from the US have basically just sat on their laurels assuming that, well, we're in the end of history and nothing will ever go wrong again. A rude awakening. A sure fire way to ensure that there _is_ war is to sit about and sing kumbaya around the fire until the invaders turn up.