4 ms·

I'd be interested to know if some people do not feel (entirely gut feeling is what i'm referring to, no hard data required) that the world is headed towards ano

I'd be interested to know if some people do not feel (entirely gut feeling is what i'm referring to, no hard data required) that the world is headed towards another world war? If you do not feel that way, please elaborate on how you feel the events around the world transpire into your view of reality. (no sarcasm intended in this message, please respond seriously if you do)

baddox 12y ago
You'd have to get more precise before I would agree to a prediction. I'm sure there will be something that could reasonably be called a world war some time in the future, so in that sense we are "headed towards" one. I wouldn't claim with much confidence that it will happen in the next, say, 50 years.
ohazi 12y ago
I don't think we're headed for another WWI/WWII style total war between superpowers and their allies. I think we're more likely to get 1984 style perpetual wars against countries and concepts when they're politically convenient, fought by professional soldiers that are increasingly disconnected from the rest of society so that the illusion that everything is normal can be maintained. One could argue that we're already pretty much there, but I could certainly see it getting worse.
Joeri 12y ago
The economic situation of today is not conducive to global war. Our whole system is now based on international trade and skilled labor. When war breaks out what happens is the skilled labor evaporates, destroying the local economy, which then percolates into the global economy. Simply put, a world war is now too expensive because governments wouldn't be able to simultaneously fight and keep their population fed. Only if you had the right mix of dogmatic leaders who were willing to throw their own people under the bus and had the support of troops to do so (think taliban) could it happen, but given the gradual decline of populous religious extremism in most regions (except the middle east) i doubt we could get to that point any time soon. Then again, world war 3 might break out next year. You can never tell such a thing in advance.
- LiweiZ 12y ago
  "dogmatic leaders" do exist today. They live in different systems. Not all leaders treat their people as people. If our system lost its balance, things would go really bad this time. As an individual, I wish I could have a peaceful life if that happens. Wish the system can find another balance point with little violence.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- gbhn 12y ago
  > a world war is now too expensive That's what they said about WWI. Direct quote. My observation is that most populations are pretty readily swayed to support a war. And the invisible hand is no match for martial law in organizing resource commitment in a war footing. It's been decades since this happened on a large scale, so I think we've forgotten how truly terrifyingly effective a war footing can be for a major power. I mean, can you imagine the kind of utter devastation that would result if the United States, as a society, really, and I mean really, decided that Islamic terrorism was an existential threat, and mobilized to fight it on the fully integrated national level comparable to WWII? If the country were all-in -- spending at the level of the European powers during WWII -- this would mean an expenditure of perhaps $30 trillion per year for three or four years focused on that goal, an intensity which is almost beyond imagining. That's war mobilization in a modern economy. It's hard to conceive because it is, frankly, inconceivable. How would that even work? But possible? Oh, yes.
  - tomp 12y ago
    It's easy for the US to attack the middle east, because the US is almost self-sufficient (they grow plenty of food and have a lot of oil), and they get almost nothing from the region. It would be way harder for most other countries to attack/be attacked, because most countries simply need the exports/imports to survive.
nickbauman 12y ago
No. At least not like WW2, the costliest war in human history. Huge operations consuming thousands of tons of ammo per week, millions of combatants costing dozens of trillions of dollars that could be ended all at once with a hydrogen bomb that a country as small and poor as Pakistan controls just isn't feasable not to mention how much more at stake there is.
- fixedd 12y ago
  If a country starts throwing atomic weapons at it's enemies then it will soon find that it's enemies are "everyone". There are treaties and such.
vdaniuk 12y ago
I do not feel that world is heading towards another world war as it happened in the XX century. Why? Putins daughters live in Europe/US. Same for childer of other Russian top government officials. Same for China. Who will go for total war? On the brink of the war western military may assassinate the top government officials of the enemy hawk faction using fly-bots or some other kind of high tech minidrones. I have no information on the current capabilities though I've read about some of those being developed. Asteroid mining will change the incentive structure for total war. Further AI development will change the incentive structure for total war. The world becomes less violent with every passing year. Look at the gapminder data. We will see lots of local conflicts, hunger revolts, sectarian violence, mechs-human battles in Middle East and other futuristic tropes though.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

baddox 12y ago

You'd have to get more precise before I would agree to a prediction. I'm sure there will be something that could reasonably be called a world war some time in the future, so in that sense we are "headed towards" one. I wouldn't claim with much confidence that it will happen in the next, say, 50 years.

ohazi 12y ago

I don't think we're headed for another WWI/WWII style total war between superpowers and their allies. I think we're more likely to get 1984 style perpetual wars against countries and concepts when they're politically convenient, fought by professional soldiers that are increasingly disconnected from the rest of society so that the illusion that everything is normal can be maintained. One could argue that we're already pretty much there, but I could certainly see it getting worse.

Joeri 12y ago

The economic situation of today is not conducive to global war. Our whole system is now based on international trade and skilled labor. When war breaks out what happens is the skilled labor evaporates, destroying the local economy, which then percolates into the global economy. Simply put, a world war is now too expensive because governments wouldn't be able to simultaneously fight and keep their population fed. Only if you had the right mix of dogmatic leaders who were willing to throw their own people under the bus and had the support of troops to do so (think taliban) could it happen, but given the gradual decline of populous religious extremism in most regions (except the middle east) i doubt we could get to that point any time soon. Then again, world war 3 might break out next year. You can never tell such a thing in advance.

LiweiZ 12y ago
"dogmatic leaders" do exist today. They live in different systems. Not all leaders treat their people as people. If our system lost its balance, things would go really bad this time. As an individual, I wish I could have a peaceful life if that happens. Wish the system can find another balance point with little violence.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
gbhn 12y ago
> a world war is now too expensive That's what they said about WWI. Direct quote. My observation is that most populations are pretty readily swayed to support a war. And the invisible hand is no match for martial law in organizing resource commitment in a war footing. It's been decades since this happened on a large scale, so I think we've forgotten how truly terrifyingly effective a war footing can be for a major power. I mean, can you imagine the kind of utter devastation that would result if the United States, as a society, really, and I mean really, decided that Islamic terrorism was an existential threat, and mobilized to fight it on the fully integrated national level comparable to WWII? If the country were all-in -- spending at the level of the European powers during WWII -- this would mean an expenditure of perhaps $30 trillion per year for three or four years focused on that goal, an intensity which is almost beyond imagining. That's war mobilization in a modern economy. It's hard to conceive because it is, frankly, inconceivable. How would that even work? But possible? Oh, yes.
- tomp 12y ago
  It's easy for the US to attack the middle east, because the US is almost self-sufficient (they grow plenty of food and have a lot of oil), and they get almost nothing from the region. It would be way harder for most other countries to attack/be attacked, because most countries simply need the exports/imports to survive.

nickbauman 12y ago

No. At least not like WW2, the costliest war in human history. Huge operations consuming thousands of tons of ammo per week, millions of combatants costing dozens of trillions of dollars that could be ended all at once with a hydrogen bomb that a country as small and poor as Pakistan controls just isn't feasable not to mention how much more at stake there is.

fixedd 12y ago
If a country starts throwing atomic weapons at it's enemies then it will soon find that it's enemies are "everyone". There are treaties and such.

vdaniuk 12y ago

I do not feel that world is heading towards another world war as it happened in the XX century. Why? Putins daughters live in Europe/US. Same for childer of other Russian top government officials. Same for China. Who will go for total war? On the brink of the war western military may assassinate the top government officials of the enemy hawk faction using fly-bots or some other kind of high tech minidrones. I have no information on the current capabilities though I've read about some of those being developed. Asteroid mining will change the incentive structure for total war. Further AI development will change the incentive structure for total war. The world becomes less violent with every passing year. Look at the gapminder data. We will see lots of local conflicts, hunger revolts, sectarian violence, mechs-human battles in Middle East and other futuristic tropes though.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]