16 ms·

I recall someone (name escapes me at the moment) defining WW3 as ignition in 5 flashpoints between belligerent groupings: - Eastern Africa esp. Sudan, which we

I recall someone (name escapes me at the moment) defining WW3 as ignition in 5 flashpoints between belligerent groupings: - Eastern Africa esp. Sudan, which we all nearly universally ignore - Israel Iran - Russia and a neighbor which we know today is Ukraine - Pakistan Afghanistan India - China Taiwan Plus Plus Attributes that distinguish WW3 from previous world wars were IIRC: Contained conflagration, short targeted exchanges, probability of contamination low, material possibility of nuclear escalation. Case in point: North Korea developed nukes without being invaded, and now that they have nukes, other countries are watching and seeing that NK won't be invaded. What lesson do those other countries draw? And what of a world in which many potential belligerents hold nukes? Hiroshima weeps. I'd like to add an important attribute here: The revolution will be live-streamed, more-or-less. And essentially none of us will know the truth, even the reasons. I predict this fact will not distress many people, such is the state of humanity. So to the 7 or so decades of stability we and our ancestors enjoyed, here's looking at you, going down me. But Brettonwoods serves the present the least of any time since its creation. Case in point, w.r.t. eastern Africa, the geopolitical bounds of those ~4 countries seems likely meld to a degree. If we are indeed heading into WW3, I expect the world map to be redrawn afterwards, and the only lessons learned is how to win better in future. And if we are, while disgruntled old geriatrics go at each others throats via their youthful proxies, I greatly prefer the nukes rust in peace. Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' Aspiration, you gotta take care man, it just might kill ya.

shevy-java 7mo ago
First, I don't think this leads to WW3 although I would agree with you that there is a general global tendency towards escalation. Still, I think we can not call this WW3 and I am not 100% certain this is a build-up to WW3 either. As for North Korea: I think the situation is not solely about North Korea itself but China. China is kind of acting as protective proxy here. I don't see North Korea as primary problem to the USA, but to South Korea and Japan. Both really should get nukes. Taiwan too, though mainland China would probably invade when it thinks Taiwan is about to have nukes; then again China already committed to invasion - this is the whole point of having a dictator like Xi in charge now. The situation Russia is in is interesting, because even though they are stronger than Ukraine, Ukraine managed to stop or delay Russia, which is a huge feat, even with support. As Putin does not want to stop, and Trump is supporting him (agent Krasnov theory applies), I think this has escalation potential. Putin is killing civilians in Ukraine daily - I think he does that because he already committed to further escalation against all Europeans. So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european politicians are totally lame - see Merz "we will never have nukes". Basically he wants to be abused by Putin here.
- DivingForGold 7mo ago
  Taiwan needs nukes on low flying hypersonic cruise missles now. Seems that would halt Chinese aggression.
- anonymous_user9 7mo ago
  > So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european politicians are totally lame Are France's 240 submarines-launched thermonuclear ballistic missiles not adequate? Despite the need for security, nuclear proliferation is extremely bad. It seems ideal for France continue to maintain their nuclear weapons while the rest of Europe keeps their hands clean.
  - ethbr1 7mo ago
    Say what you want about France, but their military has generally been extremely pragmatic and forward thinking*. They've seen the writing on the wall about independent nukes for decades. * WWII front collapse being more of a political failure than a military one: politicians dictating unachievable military strategies)
- Rapzid 7mo ago
  China won't invade Taiwan because it would destroy their economy and thus their country. Would wreck the entire world economy and turn every country against them. It's nice nationalistic rhetoric, but there is literally no upside for them.
asah 7mo ago
hmmm - but is it really "world war" 3 if it's a bunch of localized conflicts? I'm a little disappointed that the internet and social media had little impact on universal disclosure about geopolitical matters. My sense is that governments updated their playbooks to both defend against them (e.g. minimize leaking) and leverage them (e.g. bury inconvenient information with propaganda). By comparison, I'm more hopeful about cellphones and bodycams generally reducing excessive police violence and discrimination (emphasis on "reduce"). prediction: the nuclear threat will look quaint compared with disposable million-drone swarms on land and in the air, targeting anything remotely interesting via onboard AI.
- throwpoaster 7mo ago
  “A bunch of localized conflicts” is what contemporaries thought WWII was before people realized the larger pattern.
AreShoesFeet000 7mo ago
The revolution will be notably public, but not live-streamed. It will come as a swift and decisive reaction to a shock-and-awe deployment that will de-stabilize the state apparatus of a big nation outside of the “west”. The movement will be initially localized but it will spread until a perimeter of containment is setup around developed nations. Much more will come after.
xg15 7mo ago
> And essentially none of us will know the truth, even the reasons. Maybe not in the details, but the general geopolitical "axes" (USA/the "West" vs China/Russia/BRICS/"Global South"/etc) have become increasingly obvious in the last years. And so far, most of the recent conflicts fit pretty neatly into that pattern. Of course there are more things running in parallel, like the general shift to the right, Trump in the US, the specific situation with Israel/Palestine, the emergence of AI, etc. But I don't see why any of this needs any other "grand secret cause" to explain the current conflicts.
- ethbr1 7mo ago
  BRICS is Russia wishing that China (much less Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates) were aligned to its interests. A more accurate description of the way the world is trending: US / UK / Europe / Japan / South Korea (still tied by defense, if push really comes to shove) vs Russia vs China vs Non-Aligned Nations (India, Indonesia, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc.) And historically (1960s), in a multi-polar world, middle powers are best served by being ambiguously aligned to force advantageous courting by major powers.
  - xg15 7mo ago
    Then have a look who is supporting whom with weapons, which militaries are running maneuvers together, who is cooperating - or not cooperating - economically, who is visiting each others' summits, etc. It's true that many countries are trying to have relationship with both sides or are trying to keep all options open - which is the most reasonable strategy, I think - but there are still two power centers emerging between which those countries are aligning themselves.
    - marcosdumay 7mo ago
      > but there are still two power centers emerging Yes. There is US and Israel in one side, and countries trying to maintain relationships with everybody on the other. The most ridiculous thing about people claiming that BRICS is a military pole is that it has both India and China right there in the name. I don't know if you noticed, but those two almost got in an open war just in the last 6 months.
JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> Attributes that distinguish WW3 from previous world wars were IIRC You're missing the commonalities, what defined world wars: the full might of industrial economies being dedicated to military campaigns. World War II's theatres' were incoherent–the Axis interests in e.g. China and the Pacific had basically zero stragegic overlap with Europe and North Africa. (The only parties having to consider a unified theatre being the USSR and USA.) But the entire economic surplus of Europe, Asia and North America was basically dedicated to (or extracted towards) making things that were reasonably expected to be destroyed within the year.
- ethbr1 7mo ago
  looks at Russia's economy
  - bobthepanda 7mo ago
    the "world" part of world war is also important. pretty much every economy involved was at least undergoing heavy handed rationing of goods, encouraging people to donate scrap metal, etc. Russians are not under food rationing yet.
    - testdelacc1 7mo ago
      Here’s hoping they feel the war in Moscow and St Petersburg this year. A bit of rationing wouldn’t hurt them. More than the war, they’ll feel the peace. More than 100% of the economic growth of the last few years has gone into war production, meaning the civilian economy has shrunk. When the weapons factories are scaled back the economy is going to hurt something fierce. Even Muscovites will notice. This is why Putin can’t stop fighting. When the fighting stops Russia will face a reckoning. Better to postpone that day hoping that Europe runs out of steam.
      - braincat31415 7mo ago
        ww2 history begs to differ. The USSR has seen massive economic growth in 1946-1950s.
bcxdxc65 7mo ago
We are not heading into WW 3. Those old rich men you worry about have to pay a much higher price in cash for their illusions of control. And that reduces what harm and how long wars can run. Keep an eye on what the markets tell everyone on Monday.
throwthrowuknow 7mo ago
Check your thinking. Korea currently has a DMZ dividing it from a war that never really ended and was fought to a stalemate. Their nuclear program didn’t result in military action because they currently have a gun to the head of every South Korean citizen and the backing of a large nuclear neighbour. Those are circumstances you can’t easily recreate elsewhere.
- doubletwoyou 7mo ago
  Adding to your point, Seoul is visible from North Korea, and vice-versa, and likely has enough conventional artillery aimed at it that even without nukes an invasion would be Very Bad for the Korean people.
  - leptons 7mo ago
    None of that would stop the current US administration from launching a sneak attack as we've seen several times in other countries. They simply do not care about consequences.
    - 627467 7mo ago
      What is the analogous example or your argument? Was iraq sitting next to a china-grade neighbor? Who's venezuela china?
      - MarsIronPI 7mo ago
        I assume you mean Iran rather than Iraq, but your point still stands.
  - jmward01 7mo ago
    North Korea is in such poor shape that they probably can't maintain much of the equipment much less keep the personnel trained and ready to use it effectively. Not a reason to go to war, but the threat to Soul and SK in general is likely massively overstated. I think the strategic rational for unification completely swapped about 20 years ago. Up until the early 2000s it was likely in South Korea's, and the US's, interest to find a way to topple NK and unify the peninsula. The two populations had blood ties and common culture. Technologically the gap was growing but still reasonable. It would have been close to an east/west Germany type of situation where unification took effort but ultimately was clearly beneficial. China (and Russia) would have been losers in that unification would have brought a western friendly government even closer to their border. Additionally, NK still had a chance of re-energizing and becoming a real threat to SK. Now however NK is in such bad shape that unification would be traumatic. South Korea would take on a problem of epic proportions, caring for and bringing a population of that size back into the broader world would be exceptionally costly and definitely not guaranteed to end well, possibly destabilizing SK in the process. Their cultures have grown apart making it hard for them to understand each other. The blood ties are not really there anymore. China and Russia would likely be the winners in that everyone sees NK as crazy and anyone helping them is hurting the world so they could get rid of that baggage. China especially would gain by having rail access to massive shipping assets to deliver goods even cheaper to the world. Finally, the US would loose a major rationale for stationing forces that close to China. They could, rightfully, say that NK isn't a threat and the massive US assets in South Korea and Japan should be drawn down.
righthand 7mo ago
“The revolution will be livestreamed” is not used correctly and not what “will be televised” means. You are using it in the opposite manner actually.
- throwpoaster 7mo ago
  Op made an evocative point but then immediately betrayed it. It is interesting to think about the difference of livestreaming versus television.
  - M95D 7mo ago
    You can stop fighting. Nobody's going to livestream anything. The truth it too important to risk making it known/visible by accident.
    - oAlbe 7mo ago
      And what's the truth?
      - fuzzfactor 7mo ago
        The Vietnam War was the first one to be "televised" on pretty much a daily basis. While more average US citizens and service members recognized the folly in greater numbers through time because of it. It was the somewhat more extreme faction of the anti-war crowd that would have been in favor of a revolution of some kind, mainly because Nixon needed to be toppled ASAP without a doubt, they were just the most disruptive when it comes to "whatever it takes." That's why the old saying was coined, "The revolution will not be televised."
        disgruntledphd2 7mo ago
        No, my friends, the revolution will be live.
        7mo ago
phendrenad2 7mo ago
I'm surprised such a superstitious reply is so highly-upvoted. There's no "WW3" any more than there is time travel or blue smirfs. It's a hypothetical, but you're talking about it like it's an inevitability. That's just not logically-sound thinking.
- throwpoaster 7mo ago
  WWII, contemporaneously, was thought of as several small regional wars: “wow, that Hitler guy has started a bunch of small limited conflicts.” It was only when one stood back to regard the whole picture that it became clear that something larger was happening. OP is making the same point.
  - decimalenough 7mo ago
    When Hitler invaded Poland, it took all of two days for basically all of Europe to realize that they were about to replay the Great War (which we now call WW1). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_Wor... Of course it took longer for it to blow up into a truly global war (Pearl Harbor etc), but a conflagration across Europe is hardly a "small regional war".
    - throwpoaster 7mo ago
      Hitler attacked several countries before attacking Poland.
    - shimman 7mo ago
      Declaring war is one thing, but if you look at how leaders actually responded it's another (notice the 8 month gap from the declaration of war, into actual fighting). They were still willing to negotiate with Hitler, because most western leadership also wanted the communists to be destroyed and thought Hitler would do just that without attacking them. They were willing to push for this literally until the tanks were invading their streets. Once Hitler invaded France the "phoney war" turned into a real war. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War
foobarian 7mo ago
> Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' Ah but this is where modern technology comes in! Social media, Tiktoks, video games, porn...
- HPsquared 7mo ago
  The great pacifier.
mandeepj 7mo ago
> 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' old men's*
- copx 7mo ago
  Alexander "the Great" (mass murderer) began his conquests at the age of 20 and had conquered the largest empire the world had ever seen at the age of 26. Hannibal was in his 20s when he lead the Carthagian campaign against Rome. Napoleon began at 26 and had conquered half of Europe at 35. War being a business of old men sending young men to die is a modern thing.
  - watwut 7mo ago
    Young men eagerly vote for old men that promiss them war. Many young men see it as a chance to prove their masculinity and worth.
    - KPGv2 7mo ago
      not the last few election cycles trump got young men's votes by, inter alia, chanting "no new wars" evne during obama's presidency, trump (and others) suggested obama would start a war to distract from dropping poll numbers young men haven't voted for dulce et decorum est in a loooong time
    - netsharc 7mo ago
      This anthropologist talked about radicalization among "lost" Muslim youth, but you can draw parallels to "lost" White youth... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlbirlSA-dc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlbirlSA-dc
- chupy 7mo ago
  You say this because young men use TikTok as a distraction?
- fuzzfactor 7mo ago
  That's very backwards when you consider one of the things keeping WW3 from starting for so long was the continued existence of WWII veterans and the citizens of the countries they came from who sacrificed everything. If we only still had a few hundred million of them still alive, it's the proven most effective thing anybody has ever had to prevent mindless war and/or nuclear war. And they would all be between 100 and 150 years old by now. Now that's elderly, and if the human race were to have been blessed with such a miracle it would be so good for them to continue teaching their lessons to those who never had the chance, and are just not mature enough to have any other clue yet.
rayiner 7mo ago
What's missing here is the complex network of alliances that led to WWI. The Iranian regime has alienated virtually everyone, including many of its Muslim neighbors. Nor is the regime part of some overarching international movement, like the communist countries were. Who is going to lift a finger to help Iran? I'm not supportive of these strikes. Iranians created this government, and if they want to topple it they'll have to be the ones to do it, without foreign intervention.
- jopsen 7mo ago
  Agreed, nobody is going to help out Iran. If anyone does it'll be China giving them missiles to hit a US boat. That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with China. As for Iranian leadership, they just need to dig deep and wait this out. I can't imagine they don't have plenty of hardened bunkers.
  - anon7725 7mo ago
    > If anyone does it'll be China giving them missiles to hit a US boat. > That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with China. The right kind of missiles hitting the right kind of boat could lead to a very grave escalation.
    - jopsen 7mo ago
      Short of hitting the US mainland. I doubt there is anything Iran can do that make the US put boots on the ground. There is no appetite for boots on the ground in the US. And no coalition behind the US.
  - twocommits 7mo ago
    [flagged]
  - PixyMisa 7mo ago
    That scenario has played out before. Eight hours later Iran's navy was at the bottom of the sea. And there is no Iranian leadership right now as far as anyone can tell.
unsupp0rted 7mo ago
Another aspect of a WW3 is that people- pretty much ALL people everywhere- who have nothing to do with the war will find their lives threatened or completely changed by it. I'm less concerned about nuclear escalation than about biological escalation. It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes: you can only blow up big chunks of it, maybe take out enough power plants and supply chains to drop us into a multi-decade or multi-century dark age, or maybe cause a nuclear winter, although the actual risk of that is unclear. Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species. We currently have no real safeguards against this. If we ever have descendants, they'll think we were insane during this time period and they'll be right.
- jjtheblunt 7mo ago
  > It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes what about bio weapons? smallpox in the americas, for an example of many at the page below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Depopulation_by_Old_World_diseases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi...
  - kgermino 7mo ago
    Isn’t that their entire point?
    - jjtheblunt 7mo ago
      yes, i think you're right that such was the point, and i misread it.
  - smegger001 7mo ago
    Smallpox, which the only remaining samples exists in a couple of secure facilities controled by superpowers for use making vaccinations in case they are wrong about their only being a few samples controled by superpowers. Everyone with an ounce of sense knows bioweapons infect both sides and nuetral parties who are no longer neutral once you infect them. It like mustard gas but worse no one other than suicidal terror groups want them and they dont have the facilities equipment samples or knowhow.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
paviva 7mo ago
His French is so simple and yet, incredibly beautiful and elegant, in a way that I am not even able to express in words. Only Voltaire compares. "tout le malheur des hommes vient d’une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos, dans une chambre." -- "All the woe of man comes from one single thing only: not knowing how to remain at rest, in a room" In the same text, he follows with: "Le roi est environné de gens qui ne pensent qu’à divertir le roi, et à l’empêcher de penser à lui. Car il est malheureux, tout roi qu’il est, s’il y pense." "The king is surrounded by people who think only of amusing the king and preventing him from thinking about himself. For he is unhappy, though he be king, if he thinks about it."
- assaddayinh 7mo ago
  [dead]
hedayet 7mo ago
Epstein files have more potent power in them than any nuclear arsenal. No way this many rich powerful people would go down without destroying at least half of the world.
- sriram_malhar 7mo ago
  It seems the admin would rather you focus on DoW or DOW. Any mention of Epstein is getting downvoted.
  - kernal 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - sriram_malhar 7mo ago
      Is this a deflection? I'd be asking this question of any admin. I cannot stand what Obama and Biden let Merrick Garland get away with.
      - InitialLastName 7mo ago
        With you on the other things (we wouldn't be in this position if the Biden admin had had any interest in enforcing laws), but, other than his purely symbolic nomination, what role did Merrick Garland have in the Obama administration that Obama could "let him get away with" anything?
neves 7mo ago
It makes sense. Now is the perfect time for China to invade Taiwan.
londons_explore 7mo ago
> North Korea developed nukes without being invaded This one always interested me. I assume they were given a lot of the tech from China, and China probably told diplomats that if NK is invaded China might get involved.
- simonh 7mo ago
  The Soviet Union helped them build some research reactors, but they got the weapon tech from Pakistan.
sethev 7mo ago
>Contained conflagration, short targeted exchanges, probability of contamination low, material possibility of nuclear escalation. That's describing something that's not a world war, though. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is already far worse than what you're describing as WW3. (setting aside nuclear escalation)
andrepd 7mo ago
Am I the only reading this comment as a incoherent vague rambling? In kinder words: what is your point/thesis exactly?
yowayb 7mo ago
There has never been a moment in the known history of humanity without war going on somewhere in the world.
ergocoder 7mo ago
I'd bet on WW3 not happening in the next 20 years. US's military power is too strong. Russia is in such a bad shape that it can't even win Ukraine. China never goes to any war; their equipments suck as we saw in the Venezuela occurrence. Nobody is going to help Iran. China and Russia only see Iran as the enemy of my enemy. Other than that, Chineses and Russians are likely disgusted by Iran's culture e.g. how they treat women. It would be like wtf why are we helping people like this? The world will continue being policed by US and Europe.
- dwd 7mo ago
  The US has shown very quickly that it is not a spent power. Compare what they have done recently in Venezuela and Iran to Russia's botching of taking Kiev and the mess ever since. But to quote Fiona Hill in regards to China, Russia and iran. -------------------- The Chinese have told the Europeans many times when they've been asked, 'Why are you continuing to support Russia? And why do you want Russia to win?' that, 'Well, if we wanted Russia to win, they would have won.' Also, if they wanted Russia to lose, Russia would probably have lost. China is, again, just gauging their support and playing all of this out, gaming it out, really, as to how it affects the United States one way or another. The same is true of North Korea and Iran, she says: support for Russia has been built on antipathy towards the United States and their own beef with the United States.
  - ergocoder 7mo ago
    > Well, if we wanted Russia to win, they would have won. Good joke.
kernal 7mo ago
How can you have WW3 when your opponent has the military power equivalent of a butter knife? Instead of wishing for a WW3, I suggest you look at all of the people celebrating in the streets of Iran and even the US.
assaddayinh 7mo ago
[dead]
dns_snek 7mo ago
> The revolution will be live-streamed I disagree with you on this. The revolution will never be live-streamed because the ability to do so is gated by the same people whom the revolution seeks to overthrow. What's being live-streamed is the evolution of the status-quo towards growing hostility, violence, wars, and indeed - fascism.

shevy-java 7mo ago

First, I don't think this leads to WW3 although I would agree with you that there is a general global tendency towards escalation. Still, I think we can not call this WW3 and I am not 100% certain this is a build-up to WW3 either. As for North Korea: I think the situation is not solely about North Korea itself but China. China is kind of acting as protective proxy here. I don't see North Korea as primary problem to the USA, but to South Korea and Japan. Both really should get nukes. Taiwan too, though mainland China would probably invade when it thinks Taiwan is about to have nukes; then again China already committed to invasion - this is the whole point of having a dictator like Xi in charge now. The situation Russia is in is interesting, because even though they are stronger than Ukraine, Ukraine managed to stop or delay Russia, which is a huge feat, even with support. As Putin does not want to stop, and Trump is supporting him (agent Krasnov theory applies), I think this has escalation potential. Putin is killing civilians in Ukraine daily - I think he does that because he already committed to further escalation against all Europeans. So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european politicians are totally lame - see Merz "we will never have nukes". Basically he wants to be abused by Putin here.

DivingForGold 7mo ago
Taiwan needs nukes on low flying hypersonic cruise missles now. Seems that would halt Chinese aggression.
anonymous_user9 7mo ago
> So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european politicians are totally lame Are France's 240 submarines-launched thermonuclear ballistic missiles not adequate? Despite the need for security, nuclear proliferation is extremely bad. It seems ideal for France continue to maintain their nuclear weapons while the rest of Europe keeps their hands clean.
- ethbr1 7mo ago
  Say what you want about France, but their military has generally been extremely pragmatic and forward thinking*. They've seen the writing on the wall about independent nukes for decades. * WWII front collapse being more of a political failure than a military one: politicians dictating unachievable military strategies)
Rapzid 7mo ago
China won't invade Taiwan because it would destroy their economy and thus their country. Would wreck the entire world economy and turn every country against them. It's nice nationalistic rhetoric, but there is literally no upside for them.

asah 7mo ago

hmmm - but is it really "world war" 3 if it's a bunch of localized conflicts? I'm a little disappointed that the internet and social media had little impact on universal disclosure about geopolitical matters. My sense is that governments updated their playbooks to both defend against them (e.g. minimize leaking) and leverage them (e.g. bury inconvenient information with propaganda). By comparison, I'm more hopeful about cellphones and bodycams generally reducing excessive police violence and discrimination (emphasis on "reduce"). prediction: the nuclear threat will look quaint compared with disposable million-drone swarms on land and in the air, targeting anything remotely interesting via onboard AI.

throwpoaster 7mo ago
“A bunch of localized conflicts” is what contemporaries thought WWII was before people realized the larger pattern.

AreShoesFeet000 7mo ago

The revolution will be notably public, but not live-streamed. It will come as a swift and decisive reaction to a shock-and-awe deployment that will de-stabilize the state apparatus of a big nation outside of the “west”. The movement will be initially localized but it will spread until a perimeter of containment is setup around developed nations. Much more will come after.

xg15 7mo ago

> And essentially none of us will know the truth, even the reasons. Maybe not in the details, but the general geopolitical "axes" (USA/the "West" vs China/Russia/BRICS/"Global South"/etc) have become increasingly obvious in the last years. And so far, most of the recent conflicts fit pretty neatly into that pattern. Of course there are more things running in parallel, like the general shift to the right, Trump in the US, the specific situation with Israel/Palestine, the emergence of AI, etc. But I don't see why any of this needs any other "grand secret cause" to explain the current conflicts.

ethbr1 7mo ago
BRICS is Russia wishing that China (much less Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates) were aligned to its interests. A more accurate description of the way the world is trending: US / UK / Europe / Japan / South Korea (still tied by defense, if push really comes to shove) vs Russia vs China vs Non-Aligned Nations (India, Indonesia, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc.) And historically (1960s), in a multi-polar world, middle powers are best served by being ambiguously aligned to force advantageous courting by major powers.
- xg15 7mo ago
  Then have a look who is supporting whom with weapons, which militaries are running maneuvers together, who is cooperating - or not cooperating - economically, who is visiting each others' summits, etc. It's true that many countries are trying to have relationship with both sides or are trying to keep all options open - which is the most reasonable strategy, I think - but there are still two power centers emerging between which those countries are aligning themselves.
  - marcosdumay 7mo ago
    > but there are still two power centers emerging Yes. There is US and Israel in one side, and countries trying to maintain relationships with everybody on the other. The most ridiculous thing about people claiming that BRICS is a military pole is that it has both India and China right there in the name. I don't know if you noticed, but those two almost got in an open war just in the last 6 months.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

> Attributes that distinguish WW3 from previous world wars were IIRC You're missing the commonalities, what defined world wars: the full might of industrial economies being dedicated to military campaigns. World War II's theatres' were incoherent–the Axis interests in e.g. China and the Pacific had basically zero stragegic overlap with Europe and North Africa. (The only parties having to consider a unified theatre being the USSR and USA.) But the entire economic surplus of Europe, Asia and North America was basically dedicated to (or extracted towards) making things that were reasonably expected to be destroyed within the year.

ethbr1 7mo ago
looks at Russia's economy
- bobthepanda 7mo ago
  the "world" part of world war is also important. pretty much every economy involved was at least undergoing heavy handed rationing of goods, encouraging people to donate scrap metal, etc. Russians are not under food rationing yet.
  - testdelacc1 7mo ago
    Here’s hoping they feel the war in Moscow and St Petersburg this year. A bit of rationing wouldn’t hurt them. More than the war, they’ll feel the peace. More than 100% of the economic growth of the last few years has gone into war production, meaning the civilian economy has shrunk. When the weapons factories are scaled back the economy is going to hurt something fierce. Even Muscovites will notice. This is why Putin can’t stop fighting. When the fighting stops Russia will face a reckoning. Better to postpone that day hoping that Europe runs out of steam.
    - braincat31415 7mo ago
      ww2 history begs to differ. The USSR has seen massive economic growth in 1946-1950s.

bcxdxc65 7mo ago

We are not heading into WW 3. Those old rich men you worry about have to pay a much higher price in cash for their illusions of control. And that reduces what harm and how long wars can run. Keep an eye on what the markets tell everyone on Monday.

throwthrowuknow 7mo ago

Check your thinking. Korea currently has a DMZ dividing it from a war that never really ended and was fought to a stalemate. Their nuclear program didn’t result in military action because they currently have a gun to the head of every South Korean citizen and the backing of a large nuclear neighbour. Those are circumstances you can’t easily recreate elsewhere.

doubletwoyou 7mo ago
Adding to your point, Seoul is visible from North Korea, and vice-versa, and likely has enough conventional artillery aimed at it that even without nukes an invasion would be Very Bad for the Korean people.
- leptons 7mo ago
  None of that would stop the current US administration from launching a sneak attack as we've seen several times in other countries. They simply do not care about consequences.
  - 627467 7mo ago
    What is the analogous example or your argument? Was iraq sitting next to a china-grade neighbor? Who's venezuela china?
    - MarsIronPI 7mo ago
      I assume you mean Iran rather than Iraq, but your point still stands.
- jmward01 7mo ago
  North Korea is in such poor shape that they probably can't maintain much of the equipment much less keep the personnel trained and ready to use it effectively. Not a reason to go to war, but the threat to Soul and SK in general is likely massively overstated. I think the strategic rational for unification completely swapped about 20 years ago. Up until the early 2000s it was likely in South Korea's, and the US's, interest to find a way to topple NK and unify the peninsula. The two populations had blood ties and common culture. Technologically the gap was growing but still reasonable. It would have been close to an east/west Germany type of situation where unification took effort but ultimately was clearly beneficial. China (and Russia) would have been losers in that unification would have brought a western friendly government even closer to their border. Additionally, NK still had a chance of re-energizing and becoming a real threat to SK. Now however NK is in such bad shape that unification would be traumatic. South Korea would take on a problem of epic proportions, caring for and bringing a population of that size back into the broader world would be exceptionally costly and definitely not guaranteed to end well, possibly destabilizing SK in the process. Their cultures have grown apart making it hard for them to understand each other. The blood ties are not really there anymore. China and Russia would likely be the winners in that everyone sees NK as crazy and anyone helping them is hurting the world so they could get rid of that baggage. China especially would gain by having rail access to massive shipping assets to deliver goods even cheaper to the world. Finally, the US would loose a major rationale for stationing forces that close to China. They could, rightfully, say that NK isn't a threat and the massive US assets in South Korea and Japan should be drawn down.

righthand 7mo ago

“The revolution will be livestreamed” is not used correctly and not what “will be televised” means. You are using it in the opposite manner actually.

throwpoaster 7mo ago
Op made an evocative point but then immediately betrayed it. It is interesting to think about the difference of livestreaming versus television.
- M95D 7mo ago
  You can stop fighting. Nobody's going to livestream anything. The truth it too important to risk making it known/visible by accident.
  - oAlbe 7mo ago
    And what's the truth?
    - fuzzfactor 7mo ago
      The Vietnam War was the first one to be "televised" on pretty much a daily basis. While more average US citizens and service members recognized the folly in greater numbers through time because of it. It was the somewhat more extreme faction of the anti-war crowd that would have been in favor of a revolution of some kind, mainly because Nixon needed to be toppled ASAP without a doubt, they were just the most disruptive when it comes to "whatever it takes." That's why the old saying was coined, "The revolution will not be televised."
      - disgruntledphd2 7mo ago
        No, my friends, the revolution will be live.
        7mo ago

phendrenad2 7mo ago

I'm surprised such a superstitious reply is so highly-upvoted. There's no "WW3" any more than there is time travel or blue smirfs. It's a hypothetical, but you're talking about it like it's an inevitability. That's just not logically-sound thinking.

throwpoaster 7mo ago
WWII, contemporaneously, was thought of as several small regional wars: “wow, that Hitler guy has started a bunch of small limited conflicts.” It was only when one stood back to regard the whole picture that it became clear that something larger was happening. OP is making the same point.
- decimalenough 7mo ago
  When Hitler invaded Poland, it took all of two days for basically all of Europe to realize that they were about to replay the Great War (which we now call WW1). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_Wor... Of course it took longer for it to blow up into a truly global war (Pearl Harbor etc), but a conflagration across Europe is hardly a "small regional war".
  - throwpoaster 7mo ago
    Hitler attacked several countries before attacking Poland.
  - shimman 7mo ago
    Declaring war is one thing, but if you look at how leaders actually responded it's another (notice the 8 month gap from the declaration of war, into actual fighting). They were still willing to negotiate with Hitler, because most western leadership also wanted the communists to be destroyed and thought Hitler would do just that without attacking them. They were willing to push for this literally until the tanks were invading their streets. Once Hitler invaded France the "phoney war" turned into a real war. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War

foobarian 7mo ago

> Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' Ah but this is where modern technology comes in! Social media, Tiktoks, video games, porn...

HPsquared 7mo ago
The great pacifier.

mandeepj 7mo ago

> 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' old men's*

copx 7mo ago
Alexander "the Great" (mass murderer) began his conquests at the age of 20 and had conquered the largest empire the world had ever seen at the age of 26. Hannibal was in his 20s when he lead the Carthagian campaign against Rome. Napoleon began at 26 and had conquered half of Europe at 35. War being a business of old men sending young men to die is a modern thing.
- watwut 7mo ago
  Young men eagerly vote for old men that promiss them war. Many young men see it as a chance to prove their masculinity and worth.
  - KPGv2 7mo ago
    not the last few election cycles trump got young men's votes by, inter alia, chanting "no new wars" evne during obama's presidency, trump (and others) suggested obama would start a war to distract from dropping poll numbers young men haven't voted for dulce et decorum est in a loooong time
  - netsharc 7mo ago
    This anthropologist talked about radicalization among "lost" Muslim youth, but you can draw parallels to "lost" White youth... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlbirlSA-dc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlbirlSA-dc
chupy 7mo ago
You say this because young men use TikTok as a distraction?
fuzzfactor 7mo ago
That's very backwards when you consider one of the things keeping WW3 from starting for so long was the continued existence of WWII veterans and the citizens of the countries they came from who sacrificed everything. If we only still had a few hundred million of them still alive, it's the proven most effective thing anybody has ever had to prevent mindless war and/or nuclear war. And they would all be between 100 and 150 years old by now. Now that's elderly, and if the human race were to have been blessed with such a miracle it would be so good for them to continue teaching their lessons to those who never had the chance, and are just not mature enough to have any other clue yet.

rayiner 7mo ago

What's missing here is the complex network of alliances that led to WWI. The Iranian regime has alienated virtually everyone, including many of its Muslim neighbors. Nor is the regime part of some overarching international movement, like the communist countries were. Who is going to lift a finger to help Iran? I'm not supportive of these strikes. Iranians created this government, and if they want to topple it they'll have to be the ones to do it, without foreign intervention.

jopsen 7mo ago
Agreed, nobody is going to help out Iran. If anyone does it'll be China giving them missiles to hit a US boat. That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with China. As for Iranian leadership, they just need to dig deep and wait this out. I can't imagine they don't have plenty of hardened bunkers.
- anon7725 7mo ago
  > If anyone does it'll be China giving them missiles to hit a US boat. > That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with China. The right kind of missiles hitting the right kind of boat could lead to a very grave escalation.
  - jopsen 7mo ago
    Short of hitting the US mainland. I doubt there is anything Iran can do that make the US put boots on the ground. There is no appetite for boots on the ground in the US. And no coalition behind the US.
- twocommits 7mo ago
  [flagged]
- PixyMisa 7mo ago
  That scenario has played out before. Eight hours later Iran's navy was at the bottom of the sea. And there is no Iranian leadership right now as far as anyone can tell.

unsupp0rted 7mo ago

Another aspect of a WW3 is that people- pretty much ALL people everywhere- who have nothing to do with the war will find their lives threatened or completely changed by it. I'm less concerned about nuclear escalation than about biological escalation. It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes: you can only blow up big chunks of it, maybe take out enough power plants and supply chains to drop us into a multi-decade or multi-century dark age, or maybe cause a nuclear winter, although the actual risk of that is unclear. Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species. We currently have no real safeguards against this. If we ever have descendants, they'll think we were insane during this time period and they'll be right.

jjtheblunt 7mo ago
> It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes what about bio weapons? smallpox in the americas, for an example of many at the page below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Depopulation_by_Old_World_diseases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi...
- kgermino 7mo ago
  Isn’t that their entire point?
  - jjtheblunt 7mo ago
    yes, i think you're right that such was the point, and i misread it.
- smegger001 7mo ago
  Smallpox, which the only remaining samples exists in a couple of secure facilities controled by superpowers for use making vaccinations in case they are wrong about their only being a few samples controled by superpowers. Everyone with an ounce of sense knows bioweapons infect both sides and nuetral parties who are no longer neutral once you infect them. It like mustard gas but worse no one other than suicidal terror groups want them and they dont have the facilities equipment samples or knowhow.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

paviva 7mo ago

His French is so simple and yet, incredibly beautiful and elegant, in a way that I am not even able to express in words. Only Voltaire compares. "tout le malheur des hommes vient d’une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos, dans une chambre." -- "All the woe of man comes from one single thing only: not knowing how to remain at rest, in a room" In the same text, he follows with: "Le roi est environné de gens qui ne pensent qu’à divertir le roi, et à l’empêcher de penser à lui. Car il est malheureux, tout roi qu’il est, s’il y pense." "The king is surrounded by people who think only of amusing the king and preventing him from thinking about himself. For he is unhappy, though he be king, if he thinks about it."

assaddayinh 7mo ago
[dead]

hedayet 7mo ago

Epstein files have more potent power in them than any nuclear arsenal. No way this many rich powerful people would go down without destroying at least half of the world.

sriram_malhar 7mo ago
It seems the admin would rather you focus on DoW or DOW. Any mention of Epstein is getting downvoted.
- kernal 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - sriram_malhar 7mo ago
    Is this a deflection? I'd be asking this question of any admin. I cannot stand what Obama and Biden let Merrick Garland get away with.
    - InitialLastName 7mo ago
      With you on the other things (we wouldn't be in this position if the Biden admin had had any interest in enforcing laws), but, other than his purely symbolic nomination, what role did Merrick Garland have in the Obama administration that Obama could "let him get away with" anything?

neves 7mo ago

It makes sense. Now is the perfect time for China to invade Taiwan.

londons_explore 7mo ago

> North Korea developed nukes without being invaded This one always interested me. I assume they were given a lot of the tech from China, and China probably told diplomats that if NK is invaded China might get involved.

simonh 7mo ago
The Soviet Union helped them build some research reactors, but they got the weapon tech from Pakistan.

sethev 7mo ago

>Contained conflagration, short targeted exchanges, probability of contamination low, material possibility of nuclear escalation. That's describing something that's not a world war, though. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is already far worse than what you're describing as WW3. (setting aside nuclear escalation)

andrepd 7mo ago

Am I the only reading this comment as a incoherent vague rambling? In kinder words: what is your point/thesis exactly?

yowayb 7mo ago

There has never been a moment in the known history of humanity without war going on somewhere in the world.

ergocoder 7mo ago

I'd bet on WW3 not happening in the next 20 years. US's military power is too strong. Russia is in such a bad shape that it can't even win Ukraine. China never goes to any war; their equipments suck as we saw in the Venezuela occurrence. Nobody is going to help Iran. China and Russia only see Iran as the enemy of my enemy. Other than that, Chineses and Russians are likely disgusted by Iran's culture e.g. how they treat women. It would be like wtf why are we helping people like this? The world will continue being policed by US and Europe.

dwd 7mo ago
The US has shown very quickly that it is not a spent power. Compare what they have done recently in Venezuela and Iran to Russia's botching of taking Kiev and the mess ever since. But to quote Fiona Hill in regards to China, Russia and iran. -------------------- The Chinese have told the Europeans many times when they've been asked, 'Why are you continuing to support Russia? And why do you want Russia to win?' that, 'Well, if we wanted Russia to win, they would have won.' Also, if they wanted Russia to lose, Russia would probably have lost. China is, again, just gauging their support and playing all of this out, gaming it out, really, as to how it affects the United States one way or another. The same is true of North Korea and Iran, she says: support for Russia has been built on antipathy towards the United States and their own beef with the United States.
- ergocoder 7mo ago
  > Well, if we wanted Russia to win, they would have won. Good joke.

kernal 7mo ago

How can you have WW3 when your opponent has the military power equivalent of a butter knife? Instead of wishing for a WW3, I suggest you look at all of the people celebrating in the streets of Iran and even the US.

assaddayinh 7mo ago

[dead]

dns_snek 7mo ago

> The revolution will be live-streamed I disagree with you on this. The revolution will never be live-streamed because the ability to do so is gated by the same people whom the revolution seeks to overthrow. What's being live-streamed is the evolution of the status-quo towards growing hostility, violence, wars, and indeed - fascism.