4 ms·

I don't like where this is all going. I've seen too often how seemingly trivial things can lead to all-out wars. Thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has s

I don't like where this is all going. I've seen too often how seemingly trivial things can lead to all-out wars. Thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has spent a lot of treasure. The population doesn't have the desire for more war. Now Russia and China are seeing how far they can push. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like we're seeing the beginnings of things that lead to a major war between Russia & China on one side, and the US on the other. The Fermi paradox is a reminder that we are living in very dangerous times right now.

afterburner 12y ago
Now? Nuclear World War has been a possibility for 60 years now. And 60 years ago the US was actually fighting China.
- shangxiao 12y ago
  Yes but the threat of a nuclear war has been considerably low for the past 20 years. Now we have generations of people not knowing what it was like to live under the threat of nuclear annihilation.
  - adventured 12y ago
    Not to mention the world keeps acquiring more nuclear powers (India, Pakistan, N. Korea), rather than reducing them. Likely more will come on board in the next decade. Such as Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and so on. I would expect another country or two to go nuclear in Asia in response to China's mighty military.
- sixQuarks 12y ago
  60 years is merely an eyeblink in human history, and a nanosecond in life's history. Human nature hasn't changed in 100,000 years. How many brutal leaders has the world seen, Hitler being only one. It's not a question of if, but when we will see another one. The difference this time is that he/she can destroy the entire world.
Silhouette 12y ago
I feel like we're seeing the beginnings of things that lead to a major war between Russia & China on one side, and the US on the other. If you think that's scary, consider the all too plausible possibility of a shooting war between Russia and China over what is currently south-east Russia.
mikeash 12y ago
This may be a stupid comment, but could we stop using "treasure" outside the context of forgetful pirates and sunken ships and such? When talking about Iraq and Afghanistan it's just an overly fancy way to say "money".
- krapp 12y ago
  I generally agree with you, but it (likely) refers the the archaic (and somewhat romantic) phrase "blood and treasure"[0] commonly used to describe the cost of war for a nation or state. [0] http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/02/blood-and-treasure.html http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/02/blood-and-treasure...
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Thanks, I wasn't aware of the historical usage, and it makes me feel a little better about it.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    It certainly refers to that phrase, but of the two elements of that phrase, "treasure" is used pretty literally ("blood" for "lives" is, I supposed, slightly figurative, since the issue isn't the blood itself.)
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > This may be a stupid comment Indeed. > but could we stop using "treasure" outside the context of forgetful pirates and sunken ships and such? When talking about Iraq and Afghanistan it's just an overly fancy way to say "money". No, its an accurate way to say "treasure" -- or, if you have some need to avoid pirate-related associations in your head, "wealth". Money is, of course, one form that treasure takes, and also money values are used for "keeping score" of all forms of treasure, but what is actually at issue is the treasure--wealth, material assets of all kinds--expended, not just money (sure, those assets were generally purchased for money at some time in the past, but often that was before the war started and not specific to it -- what was consumed by the war was the concrete assets, not the money.)

afterburner 12y ago

Now? Nuclear World War has been a possibility for 60 years now. And 60 years ago the US was actually fighting China.

shangxiao 12y ago
Yes but the threat of a nuclear war has been considerably low for the past 20 years. Now we have generations of people not knowing what it was like to live under the threat of nuclear annihilation.
- adventured 12y ago
  Not to mention the world keeps acquiring more nuclear powers (India, Pakistan, N. Korea), rather than reducing them. Likely more will come on board in the next decade. Such as Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and so on. I would expect another country or two to go nuclear in Asia in response to China's mighty military.
sixQuarks 12y ago
60 years is merely an eyeblink in human history, and a nanosecond in life's history. Human nature hasn't changed in 100,000 years. How many brutal leaders has the world seen, Hitler being only one. It's not a question of if, but when we will see another one. The difference this time is that he/she can destroy the entire world.

Silhouette 12y ago

I feel like we're seeing the beginnings of things that lead to a major war between Russia & China on one side, and the US on the other. If you think that's scary, consider the all too plausible possibility of a shooting war between Russia and China over what is currently south-east Russia.

mikeash 12y ago

This may be a stupid comment, but could we stop using "treasure" outside the context of forgetful pirates and sunken ships and such? When talking about Iraq and Afghanistan it's just an overly fancy way to say "money".

krapp 12y ago
I generally agree with you, but it (likely) refers the the archaic (and somewhat romantic) phrase "blood and treasure"[0] commonly used to describe the cost of war for a nation or state. [0] http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/02/blood-and-treasure.html http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/02/blood-and-treasure...
- mikeash 12y ago
  Thanks, I wasn't aware of the historical usage, and it makes me feel a little better about it.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  It certainly refers to that phrase, but of the two elements of that phrase, "treasure" is used pretty literally ("blood" for "lives" is, I supposed, slightly figurative, since the issue isn't the blood itself.)
dragonwriter 12y ago
> This may be a stupid comment Indeed. > but could we stop using "treasure" outside the context of forgetful pirates and sunken ships and such? When talking about Iraq and Afghanistan it's just an overly fancy way to say "money". No, its an accurate way to say "treasure" -- or, if you have some need to avoid pirate-related associations in your head, "wealth". Money is, of course, one form that treasure takes, and also money values are used for "keeping score" of all forms of treasure, but what is actually at issue is the treasure--wealth, material assets of all kinds--expended, not just money (sure, those assets were generally purchased for money at some time in the past, but often that was before the war started and not specific to it -- what was consumed by the war was the concrete assets, not the money.)