Forum menu
Very true. I just hope that there are more Obama's and zero Trumps in the next generation.
International finance and globalization should make WW3 less likely surely?Would the wealthy, powerful Russians and Chinese really allow their governments to blow up their expensive Western property portfolios and devastate the value of their other overseas investments?
As above. The world is more globalised now then ever. The largest economies are all tied very much together.
Would the wealthy, powerful Russians and Chinese really allow their governments to blow up their expensive Western property portfolios and devastate the value of their other overseas investments?
They've been tied for a very long time, marrying rich folks to enemies is a time honoured way of creating peace (saxe coburg and gottha sound familiar?) big wars are rarely started by people playing the same game as everybody else. It's the gavrilo princip and hitlers of this world who are the risk.
Ww3 when it happens will start out of a group of poor angry hungry people who pull down the rich, just like Germany in the 30s or the rise of isil. The next person to rise to prominence like al-baghdadi in the middle east might decide taking a proper pop at Israel is worth the risk, and then we're all screwed because the one thing you can be sure about is the moment anyone launches a nuke everyone does.
Ww3 when it happens will start out of a group of poor angry hungry people who pull down the rich
Ah! When we vote for a labour government.
Ah! When we vote for a labour government.
We'll be fine, corbyn is a pacifist.
Ww3 when it happens will start out of a group of poor angry hungry people who pull down the rich, just like Germany in the 30s or the rise of isil. The next person to rise to prominence like al-baghdadi in the middle east might decide taking a proper pop at Israel is worth the risk, and then we’re all screwed because the one thing you can be sure about is the moment anyone launches a nuke everyone does.
That is just a proxy war though. It would rely on some group/faction etc - maybe terrorists or maybe a wannabe independent state with some sort of tenuous claim to some disputed territory somehow managing to acquire the weapons, means of delivery and the knowledge to do so. That's a lot more complicated than just buying a shedload of AKs and RPGs. Generally, most countries have the storage and launch of their nuclear weapons under quite close control - it's not really the sort of thing you just stick on Terrorist Ebay. Unlike AKs and RPGs.
In a situation like Syria, Yemen and so on you do end up with what is essentially a war between the Russians and Americans with one side supporting (say) the Government while the other side support the rebels by selling arms to them although you also end up in situations where American-made kit then gets used against the very people it was originally meant to support via other trade routes. But ultimately while they might be quite destructive on the ground, it's a relatively local conflict to take (or keep) control of an area of a country so no-one wants to go nuclear with it cos you just end up wrecking the very land you're trying to seize (or keep).
Much more simple to use chemical or biological weapons. Slightly more localised, more difficult to detect and doesn't make the land uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years.... Cheaper too. That's the big threat.
don't think there will be an all out nuclear war , we moved on from that , its all cyber/space now , u can do more damaged shutting down infrastructure permanently . if anything it will be a terriot nuclear attack ,thats just my opinion from working at skynet !
Slightly more localised, more difficult to detect and doesn’t make the land uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years
Maybe not that long anthrax is about 50 years, but I can't see Vozrozhdeniya Island generating many hits on zoopla any time soon.
One thing I've learnt over the years is that humans are completely useless at predicting the future. Almost everything that even the most learned people have tried to predict about the future has been wrong.
Regarding climate change and related conflicts, here's an article from the Guardian in 2004, where the Pentagon tells us that London will be experiencing Siberian winters by 2020 and there'll be 'Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. '
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserverheobserve r">Linkie
It's worth asking yourself who benefits from division and fear in society.
JP