4 ms·

A war with large geographic scope has been independently modeled as having a high probability of occurring circa 2030 by major governments for a decade or more.

A war with large geographic scope has been independently modeled as having a high probability of occurring circa 2030 by major governments for a decade or more. As time has passed, reality has not diverged from those models, so confidence in the conclusions have grown. It is worth noting that this pre-dates current political dramas, Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, etc. The underlying strategic geopolitics driving it is much deeper than those issues. It has been accompanied by a large spike in military spending globally. The backlog of foreign military sales of US weapons just waiting for approval is ~$1T.

Jalad 3mo ago
> A war with large geographic scope has been independently modeled as having a high probability of occurring circa 2030 by major governments for a decade or more Do you have more information about this, or a source?
- ceejayoz 3mo ago
  https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/russia-nato-arms-germany-war-canada-9.7232514 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/russia-nato-arms-germany-wa... > Germany's defence minister is frank and plain-spoken, but also deliberate with his words and intention. When he talks about Russia, the future of the West and the possibility of another European war, the message however becomes stark: "Our experts say it can happen in 2029." > In remarks published Wednesday, Generalleutnant Christian Freuding, the inspector of the German Army, said the 2029 date was not a figure pulled out of thin air by his government's national security establishment, but an actual consensus view among Western allies. https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-mark-rutte-says-europe-must-prepare-for-scale-of-war-our-grandparents-endured/ https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-mark-rutte-says-europe-... > NATO Chief Mark Rutte urged member countries to do more to prepare for the possibility of large-scale war, warning that Russia may be ready to attack the alliance within five years.
  - CamperBob2 3mo ago
    Russia may be ready to attack the alliance within five years. Russia can't even take the country next door. How exactly are they going to attack NATO? With a bunch of rusty nukes that almost certainly no longer work, and that would get their (relatively few) major population centers vaporized by nukes that almost certainly work just fine?
    - AnimalMuppet 3mo ago
      "Almost certainly no longer work"? I'd be interested in seeing your basis for your "almost certainly".
      - CamperBob2 3mo ago
        Have you seen the state of the rest of their armaments? Countries that have to bum artillery and soldiers off of North Korea are not in any position to go up against NATO. If you're a Russian officer in charge of nuclear stockpile maintenance, why in the world wouldn't you pencil-whip the paperwork and steal the funding? If you're ever caught, it will be under circumstances where nobody will be in a position to do anything about it.
        ColdStream 3mo ago
        There is a good chance of this. Nukes need ongoing yearly maintenance to be operational, without that they are basically just a flying tin can. The whole movie trope of stealing an old nuke and using it doesn't apply to the real world. Also corruption is somewhat accepted in some countries as it allows those at the top to have legitimate means of disposing of traitors when needed without that hassle of drumming up fake charges.
        AnimalMuppet 3mo ago
        What ongoing yearly maintenance does a non-hydrogen nuke need?
- weberer 3mo ago
  The Atlantic Council and RAND corporation both report on this. https://www.rand.org/topics/taiwan.html https://www.rand.org/topics/taiwan.html https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/welcome-to-2035/#war https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-coun...
- jandrewrogers 3mo ago
  This has been discussed in strategic geopolitical circles for a long time. When surveying defense analysts and similar if they believe a "great powers conflict" will occur in the near future, the percentage that say yes has been rising rapidly (currently 40-50%). If you search for "probability of global war in $YEAR" you will find a lot of discussion of varying quality. The major alignment is almost always assumed to be something like Russia/China vs Europe/US/Japan. You can find circumstantial evidence for this in the change in military posture of many countries and rapid scaling of production capacity. Some random examples: French General states that they are preparing for open war in "3-4 years" in 2025: https://www.politico.eu/article/french-top-general-expects-shock-with-russia-in-3-4-years/ https://www.politico.eu/article/french-top-general-expects-s... Sweden increases defense spending by 40% starting in 2021: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/12/15/sweden-ups-defense-budget-40-due-to-regional-tensions/ https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/12/15/sweden-...
  - ColdStream 3mo ago
    Up until a about a decade back, here in Australia/New Zealand, politicians behind door always talked about the tyranny of distance. Simply due to distance we were largely kept out of or behind larger global flows. Nowadays it is seen as having the world largest moat. When things like global conflict starts, it does impact us but it is more the flow on effects rather than direct impacts. The last few minutes of this 2025 recap by 'Ordinary Things' did the best job or summarizing how the world is getting ready for war. https://youtu.be/ZEobLPh82-w?si=hrUaw-vTx4mWU6T6&t=6627 https://youtu.be/ZEobLPh82-w?si=hrUaw-vTx4mWU6T6&t=6627 I hope we avoid this but I fear we will not.
    - jandrewrogers 3mo ago
      Australia at least is taking it very seriously and aggressively upgrading their capabilities. If things go down in the Pacific no one will be safe.
petcat 3mo ago
There is a lot of nuance missing in public discourse about the US threats of leaving NATO, stopping direct arms support of Ukraine (except for intelligence), and generally scaring NATO members and Europe into funding their own defense. Every USA president since the fall of the Berlin Wall has implored NATO members take control of their own defense. The US has long since abandoned the two theater war doctrine. The US is not going to fight Russia. Doing so would just be taking the bait to split their forces when China simultaneously decides to mobilize in the South China Sea. All of USA military planning has been in preparation for that theater. Trump's belligerence has accomplished the US foreign policy goals of every administration for the last 40 years.
- nemomarx 3mo ago
  How's the Iran thing figure in, then? That's a lot of the stockpile used up before China starts.
  - petcat 3mo ago
    It's the same as Venezuela. These are strategic moves to control China's crude oil supply.
  - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
    Possibly the first strike in the war with China.
  - margalabargala 3mo ago
    The point made by the parent comment should not be taken to mean that the Trump administration strategically accomplished the aforementioned goals, just that they were, in a vacuum, accomplished. If you're saying that it seems to you that the tactical goal was accomplished at the expense of the broader historical strategy, I would respond that yes, it does seem that way.
    - nemomarx 3mo ago
      I'm also personally a little skeptical that the current administration would actually go to war with China over, say, Taiwan or control of the South Sea or so on. Maybe they are keeping that in mind, maybe they're just isolationist in general? Whether the admin would have done anything to Iran without being asked by Israel is a big open question for me here.

Jalad 3mo ago

> A war with large geographic scope has been independently modeled as having a high probability of occurring circa 2030 by major governments for a decade or more Do you have more information about this, or a source?

ceejayoz 3mo ago
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/russia-nato-arms-germany-war-canada-9.7232514 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/russia-nato-arms-germany-wa... > Germany's defence minister is frank and plain-spoken, but also deliberate with his words and intention. When he talks about Russia, the future of the West and the possibility of another European war, the message however becomes stark: "Our experts say it can happen in 2029." > In remarks published Wednesday, Generalleutnant Christian Freuding, the inspector of the German Army, said the 2029 date was not a figure pulled out of thin air by his government's national security establishment, but an actual consensus view among Western allies. https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-mark-rutte-says-europe-must-prepare-for-scale-of-war-our-grandparents-endured/ https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-mark-rutte-says-europe-... > NATO Chief Mark Rutte urged member countries to do more to prepare for the possibility of large-scale war, warning that Russia may be ready to attack the alliance within five years.
- CamperBob2 3mo ago
  Russia may be ready to attack the alliance within five years. Russia can't even take the country next door. How exactly are they going to attack NATO? With a bunch of rusty nukes that almost certainly no longer work, and that would get their (relatively few) major population centers vaporized by nukes that almost certainly work just fine?
  - AnimalMuppet 3mo ago
    "Almost certainly no longer work"? I'd be interested in seeing your basis for your "almost certainly".
    - CamperBob2 3mo ago
      Have you seen the state of the rest of their armaments? Countries that have to bum artillery and soldiers off of North Korea are not in any position to go up against NATO. If you're a Russian officer in charge of nuclear stockpile maintenance, why in the world wouldn't you pencil-whip the paperwork and steal the funding? If you're ever caught, it will be under circumstances where nobody will be in a position to do anything about it.
      - ColdStream 3mo ago
        There is a good chance of this. Nukes need ongoing yearly maintenance to be operational, without that they are basically just a flying tin can. The whole movie trope of stealing an old nuke and using it doesn't apply to the real world. Also corruption is somewhat accepted in some countries as it allows those at the top to have legitimate means of disposing of traitors when needed without that hassle of drumming up fake charges.
        AnimalMuppet 3mo ago
        What ongoing yearly maintenance does a non-hydrogen nuke need?
weberer 3mo ago
The Atlantic Council and RAND corporation both report on this. https://www.rand.org/topics/taiwan.html https://www.rand.org/topics/taiwan.html https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-council-strategy-paper-series/welcome-to-2035/#war https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-coun...
jandrewrogers 3mo ago
This has been discussed in strategic geopolitical circles for a long time. When surveying defense analysts and similar if they believe a "great powers conflict" will occur in the near future, the percentage that say yes has been rising rapidly (currently 40-50%). If you search for "probability of global war in $YEAR" you will find a lot of discussion of varying quality. The major alignment is almost always assumed to be something like Russia/China vs Europe/US/Japan. You can find circumstantial evidence for this in the change in military posture of many countries and rapid scaling of production capacity. Some random examples: French General states that they are preparing for open war in "3-4 years" in 2025: https://www.politico.eu/article/french-top-general-expects-shock-with-russia-in-3-4-years/ https://www.politico.eu/article/french-top-general-expects-s... Sweden increases defense spending by 40% starting in 2021: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/12/15/sweden-ups-defense-budget-40-due-to-regional-tensions/ https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/12/15/sweden-...
- ColdStream 3mo ago
  Up until a about a decade back, here in Australia/New Zealand, politicians behind door always talked about the tyranny of distance. Simply due to distance we were largely kept out of or behind larger global flows. Nowadays it is seen as having the world largest moat. When things like global conflict starts, it does impact us but it is more the flow on effects rather than direct impacts. The last few minutes of this 2025 recap by 'Ordinary Things' did the best job or summarizing how the world is getting ready for war. https://youtu.be/ZEobLPh82-w?si=hrUaw-vTx4mWU6T6&t=6627 https://youtu.be/ZEobLPh82-w?si=hrUaw-vTx4mWU6T6&t=6627 I hope we avoid this but I fear we will not.
  - jandrewrogers 3mo ago
    Australia at least is taking it very seriously and aggressively upgrading their capabilities. If things go down in the Pacific no one will be safe.

petcat 3mo ago

There is a lot of nuance missing in public discourse about the US threats of leaving NATO, stopping direct arms support of Ukraine (except for intelligence), and generally scaring NATO members and Europe into funding their own defense. Every USA president since the fall of the Berlin Wall has implored NATO members take control of their own defense. The US has long since abandoned the two theater war doctrine. The US is not going to fight Russia. Doing so would just be taking the bait to split their forces when China simultaneously decides to mobilize in the South China Sea. All of USA military planning has been in preparation for that theater. Trump's belligerence has accomplished the US foreign policy goals of every administration for the last 40 years.

nemomarx 3mo ago
How's the Iran thing figure in, then? That's a lot of the stockpile used up before China starts.
- petcat 3mo ago
  It's the same as Venezuela. These are strategic moves to control China's crude oil supply.
- s1artibartfast 3mo ago
  Possibly the first strike in the war with China.
- margalabargala 3mo ago
  The point made by the parent comment should not be taken to mean that the Trump administration strategically accomplished the aforementioned goals, just that they were, in a vacuum, accomplished. If you're saying that it seems to you that the tactical goal was accomplished at the expense of the broader historical strategy, I would respond that yes, it does seem that way.
  - nemomarx 3mo ago
    I'm also personally a little skeptical that the current administration would actually go to war with China over, say, Taiwan or control of the South Sea or so on. Maybe they are keeping that in mind, maybe they're just isolationist in general? Whether the admin would have done anything to Iran without being asked by Israel is a big open question for me here.