Given the current circumstances regarding international affairs and the health of powerful nations and their relation to the like, I would like to here any speculations regarding the possibility of war.
When do you think the best possible outbreak of war will occur and why?
How will a declaration of war occur between powerful nations occur?
Who will be the main stakeholders?
Who will suffer most?
Who will proper most?
What pros and cons will result from a war outbreak?
I have listed below several points-of-departure for whoever would give their opinion on the matter.
i) Technology (drones, satellite tech, clean energy vs. fossil fuels, militarism, etc.)
ii) Nationalism (USA and its national security, China in the South-East China sea, North Korea, Annexations by Russia, etc.)
iii) Domestic disputes (Brazil, USA: Trump vs. Hillary, ISIS and the Middle Eastern refugees, etc.)
iv) International relations (USA’s overseas interventions, China in South-East China sea, Saudi Arabia and its business partners, Brexit, etc.)
It depends on who is president, Hillary is the war hawk with a wake of grew some destruction behind her.
Trump is a businessman pushing for more isolation if he isn’t able to renegotiate our international alliances to make them more fair and reduce the requirement the US has to be on a constant war footing for others.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for a nationalist apocalypse, Trump is for a reduction of a American lead universe, and more international responsibility and pluralism. Negotiation and not brute, liberal know it all force would play out in Trump’s businesslike negotiated universe. Killary only knows the sledgehammer in Libya, or criminal neglect with ISIS.
I believe is is obvious which one sends the world down the path of self destruction. Trump is the only major candidate who doesn’t have a history of war crimes, of a completely failed foreign policy. Killary has a proven track record of death and destruction, when negotiation, compromise, forging stronger strategic alliances and using wise limited military force to prevent something much worst from happening was taken off the table, instead embracing misfit tantrums and outright ignoring situations, syatemmatically applying the wrong approach, and killing off or alienating long term allies who tried to negotiate with the US to see common sense, while embracing the every stupid idea other, whiter looking allies had, like “hey, let’s bomb this country for cheap gas”.
Honestly, just fuck her. She is building a presidency out of lies and fear, manipulating the stupid and easily impressionable to follow her, ultimately for what? She lacks anything hinting at integrity and personal beliefs, we deep down haven’t the slightest clue what she represents other than Hillary being in charge for the long term. I would accept any candidate on either side of the isle except Cruz over her (unconstitutional for him to be president, which really does matter if your running on a pro-constitutional platform to me).
“What pros and cons will result from a war outbreak?”
There would be no pros from a war outbreak, at least speaking from a point of view of humanity, and the current generation.
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." (Albert Einstein)
Therefor, since I believe that there are still some enlightened people holding the power, there won’t be any war outbreak. Or, said more accurately, I hope there won’t be a war outbreak.
Turd, your claims may hold some truth, but nonetheless, I am expecting a Clinton presidency because the system is rigged. I suspect that Congress and the gang have bought it all and would withstand strenuous affairs to avoid another hasty thinking Republican inside the house (lets not forget the complete shitstorm Reagan or Bush stewed). But then again, it could be about overall domestic health (is the unemployment deficit really a deficit?) or national security (Why does the US keep producing its own worst enemy?).
I am completely uncertain as to whether the outbreak of war will come from the middle east, knowing that its been hairy over there for awhile. What I wouldn’t be surprised at is whoever the next President will be, he/she will deter the already weak international relations with Russia, China and/or the big bad bankers who have billions of overseas investments which fund the multi-billion dollar, long lasting US military - the world police of liberation and business vices.
A lot of what has been said about Hillary the past year is agreeable, and indeed, atrocious, but does Trump really think he can effectively bring about economic reform by tearing up or repealing outdated economic doctrines and renegotiating them with foreign investors? For this is not the only thing I am skeptical about, Trump seems very impulsive and driven by passion, not reason. But then again, its been a long time since any important world position of power and representatives has ever used reason as a guide for their decisions.
IMO, the west is far from the best and we have all experienced only a sliver of what kind of hell awaits us in this century.
Regional skirmishes will develop, exchanges similar to Crimea and the proxy wars in the Middle East. But a large-scale mobilized world war is not going to happen. We don’t live in a world with the same kind of setup and triggers for what led to WW1 and WW2, and then there is the fact of nuclear weapons deterrence, and then there is the fact of globalized interconnected national economies and how neocolonialism has replaced old-school colonial aggressions. Those old-school aggressions were ripe for developing into nation against nation conflicts as western powers fought for expanding their respective colonial territories; now it’s much more subtle and the whole “economic hitman” thing largely prevents open conflicting goods between nation-states which conflicts would result in inevitable zero sum situations and need to save face.
But the main reason there will be no world war is that everyone has more mutual interest in peace, or whatever passes for peace today in a geopolitical sense. China and Russia and Iran and probably others will start using their own drones, there will eventually be international agreements prohibiting drone use that violates national sovereignty of another country, there will be further “free trade” agreements (Trump and Hillary will not stop these), and economic interests will continue to entwine. The main thing that will happen is the US and EU states will lose some ground (physically like Crimea, and morally and economically as well) as Russia and China flex muscles, and this is a quite natural progression toward a more multipolar globalized world where single state hegemony is no longer desirable.
New tech innovations wil open up virtual reality spaces and also send us out into real space; these new frontiers will disperse much of the accumulated tension and pressure currently seething below the surface. Climate change will fuck over so many people that clean energy tech use and research will skyrocket, leading to further redistributions of wealth and capital more equitably throughout the world.
Doomsday scenarios of world war are unfounded. Let’s try working for a better future in realistic terms rather than keep reading from Revelations.
Doomsday scenarios are unlikely, except for the unlikely scenario of the literal Trumping madness following the figure me out pre election proclivities of the Great Dictator. Where nobody cares to see the Emperors clothes, any guess is as good as any other.
That mental illness is no longer a definable concept, the nuclear trigger is likely to become more chancy.
As we hate to honestly admit it to ourselves, had Trump ran say post world war 2, when the decorated Allied Commander: Dwight D Eisenhower won by a landslide, such political outrage would have no conceivable opportunity to run, no less win.
How times have changed, and how political morality has flushed down the toilet!
One man’s sanity, another’s madness. A real sequel to : It’s A Mad, Mad World. Mad Max is coming, nuclear toys are just way to expensive to have to sit there, gathering dust. Hopefully they will be micro managed, ultra minituarized ones, fitting into suitcases. They will make humongous ultra megaton hydrogen bombs obsolete, anti missle systems are already achieving that.
Peace is only a denial of an irresistible urge in man.
Trump don’t murder people who disagree with him, Hillary does.
Doomsday scenario unlikely? No, very likely.
And as usually, it is the males who will sacrifice their lives so that the Females can experience Heaven on Earth, whist the males get their usual ticket of hell and perdition.
This is an optimistic view of 21st century globalization. I hope your speculations play a part in the future reality of man. However, I did not want doomsday claims or apocalyptic prophecies, more simply, speculations to when, where and why the next war will take place. Although I can envision such a future as you have described, I am uncertain as to whether we can achieve these feats without any real combat, whether small or large scale. The idea of natural progression towards a multipolar globalized world of drones and clean energy is a comforting one, but it all seems to ignore the slight possibility of how the many nation-states will respond to the changes you have proposed. Personally, I see catastrophe which resembles the World Wars as highly unlikely, but I do see a continuance of Middle Eastern conflicts, conflicting values between Eastern countries (Russia, China, Saudi Arabia) when we attempt to further these ‘free trade’ agreements, and most importantly, the likelihood of drone wars, cyber wars and oppressive national security (five eyes) to be the main impetus’s to developing conflicts during our path to globalization.