3 ms·

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

by 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.

by Joeri 12y ago

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.