I want to hear you reasons, why do you think that.
During the first cold war conflicts happened outside of the super-powers:
- Vietnam 🇻🇳 and North-Korea 🇰🇵💥🇰🇷
This time conflicts will happen in Siberia, Africa and Middle east. I also think Indonesia and Pakistan will be center of major conflicts between China, India and the USA. These conflicts will costs some millions of lives, but not touch the empires heartlands, so it will not get nuclear again imo.
Demographics will play a major role in this: Younger median age countries will have more war and conflict, while the older countries can maintain some semblance of stability. South Sudan is a great example of this mechanism: This is why I also think this war will last 30 years, like the 30 years war in Germany 1618 that killed 50%+ of its populaiton.
I think we’re going through Cold War 2 before World War 3. China and Russia have been testing krill fishing limits recently while American private equity has entered the field, and the TikTok showdown is testing Internet authority.
Not WW3, but Cold War 2.
Already there
Most arguments against a potential WW3 happening seemed to base the assumption that we were dealing with mentally competent world leaders, who were ultimately worried more about their money and comfortable life, so would not let it happen. Trump and Elon have grown up in such wealth, they are completely disconnected from reality and I believe are insane enough to think they are untouchable by anyone and anything, even Putin knows he is not invincible. This swing to the right in Western countries seems to be filled with similar people, with the common belief that they will never truly have to deal with the consequences of their actions. People with this level of insanity, do not care if the poors get ground up in their wars and thus, i think it is now just a matter of time.
when the rich wage war it’s the poor who die
No, we are not headed for WW3.
The military-industrial complex must be fed, our weapons sold or used. But, a large magnitude hot war has far more social and economic risk and not enough return on investment relative the alternative of multiple proxy wars. We’ve currently proxy wars in Israel and Ukraine. Economic growth is optimized by beginning a proxy war with China.
If Trump was smart then he might internally convince others in his administration to diplomatically and operationally over-commit. Then we could have WW3. But, he’s a puppet ruling by fear. We’ve been fighting our proxy wars since Reagan. Trump isn’t capable of overcoming capitalism’s mandate for optimized growth.
Economic growth is optimized by beginning a proxy war with China.
But where? Taiwan seems the obvious candidate. Not sure if that would really lead to (quaterly) economic growth though.
Not sure if that would really lead to (quaterly) economic growth though.
Regarding war and money, the question often isn’t who’s positioned to gain the most, instead who’s positioned to lose the least. We often don’t measure self against history and reason, instead relative our competitors.
Taiwan seems the obvious candidate.
The US has already manufactured consent to have a proxy war with China. I assume we’ve not done it in Taiwan because we’d lose more on trade than we’d gain consuming weapons, perhaps also because China could absorb the loss of Taiwan as a trade partner better than the US.
But where?
To be determined. We’re ready and waiting for an opportunity to present itself.
Myanmar borders China in to its north and India to its west and is currently in a civil war. This would be the perfect battlespace for a proxy war between India, US vs China.
While I know a lot less about global politics than other subjects, involving India seems like a really bad idea. Otherwise it makes sense.
As the Axis, yes
deleted by creator
I think some would argue that class warfare is a cold war already happening.
You have to define ‘we’ and you also have to define ‘WW3’.
Possible scenarios:
-
USA decides to get actively involved in Ukraine’s conflict. Yes, that could spell WW3. Low probability, though, since Trump does not care about Ukraine.
-
Russia decides to attack Western Europe. Probably only a regional conflict, since Trump would probably pull out of NATO. This is the scenario a lot of European nations are gaming today.
-
China attacks Taiwan and/or North Korea attacks South Korea. Probably a regional conflict, but with a high probability of escalation. Trump would drop both South Korea and Taiwan at the drop of a hat.
-
Iran attacks Israel, probably through proxy. Regional conflict. This is already going on, so low risk of escalation.
Mmm if Iran and Israel really start to go at it, I could absolutely imagine Trump finding a way to use nukes on Iran. He wants to use the nukes.
It’s possible none of those would technically be WW3 by itself, perhaps the start of heavier US commitment in the first of those conflicts might be perceived as the opportunity for the others to get started. Maybe even some less obvious conflicts are merely waiting for NATO to be preoccupied (e.g. random colonies being invaded or declaring independence). The US will be forced into taking at least one L, or switching back to a war economy.
- India vs Pakistan
- ISIS expansion
- Water Wars (multiple locations)
- USA invading Mexico
- Syrian Civil War
- Greenland War
- IDK if Denmark can defend Greenland, but NATO could article5/split
India vs Pakistan
not plausible, neither of them are that stupid
Afghanistan vs. Pakistan, or Iran, is infinitely more likely. Pashtun supremacists (yea the Taliban) are actually stupid af
You remember how the Tamil Tigers invaded Sri Lanka? Now imagine if they were doing that but to China. That’s basically what the Taliban is doing right now lol
(just to be clear, Tamils were actually fighting oppression, Pashtuns are not)
- Other countries decide to band together and stop the United States.
Not saying any of these would cause WW3, but remeber that, depending on who you ask, WW2 started:
- when Germany and Russia invaded Poland in 1939
- when Germany invaded Checkoslovakia in 1938
- when Japan invaded China in 1937
there is no single point of start for a war, just many actions of variable intensity that escalate
-
This war is about control, not by weapons but by controlling minds. It’s fairly obvious. Social media forms opinions. It’s also full of bubbles where people get reinforcement for their existing beliefs. What people believe doesn’t matter so much, just that their beliefs are shaped by social media.
Social media platforms are controlled by big tech algorithms, so they in turn control what information should surface. On computers and phones, you have survellience apps running (called AI) that collects information about each users private life. This is all combined with other info to build an accurate profile of everyone having a device using social media or the web.
The end goal is to watch everyone, keep them in line. In the west I think it’s mostly used to sell ads, but in other countries like China and Russia, I think it’s more sinister.
Either way, the end goal is control of people. Before, it was control of land and borders.
Yes, surely with programs like PRISM and the NSA, and corporations collecting information about literally every aspect of our lives with every device we purchase…they are just trying to sell us ads.
Our ruling power structure is paranoid, our government is rogue and largely does not serve US citizens (only the ruling elite), they maintain control by invoking fear, division, outrage, and stress in the population and they count on our learned helplessness and slave mentality. They want us to be depressed, they want us to be chronically ill and tired, they want us to be poor and struggling, and most importantly they want us to think we’re the “good guys” fighting the “bad guys”.
In the west I think it’s mostly used to sell ads, but in other countries like China and Russia, I think it’s more sinister.
Which social media algorithm caused you to form this opinion?
In the west I think it’s mostly used to sell ads
The Twitter Files showed us that this is not true. Though corporate social media didn’t invent propaganda. Previously.
I sure hope so
Perhaps. Depends, ultimately, on if the US Empire goes down with a bang, or a whimper. Its grip on the world is spilling through its fingers like sand, so either it will watch it fall out helplessly, or will attempt to strike and retake what it’s losing.
“and now class I would like to draw your attention to a footnote that existed between the ancient empires of Britain and the Glorious Peoples Empire of China… for a time there was a thing called ‘America’…”
I don’t think the PRC will be taking on the mantle of “Empire.” Hegemon, sure, but their strategy thus far has been starkly different from the British and US Empires with respect to the Global South. The current US Empire dominates the Global South largely through massive Financial Capital and control of the World Reserve Currency, and is largely de-industrialized, while the PRC focuses more on selling to other countries as a heavily industrialized country. For example, in the US, “Made in USA” is a rarity, and usually just assembled in the USA, while in China “Made in China” goods are by far the norm.
Belt and roads is China’s attempt to do exactly what we’ve been doing with the global south, invest for influence and put them on a debt treadmill. Build infrastructure, pressure them to take on more debt with new projects, say it’s time for austerity, open up more foreign investments, use pressure to buy up raw resources, etc
It’s worth mentioning Coca-Cola… You can get American products everywhere, opening them up as a new market isn’t a different strategy, it’s part of the process
Is there actual evidence of these debt traps, or is that just an assumed motivation? Again, China’s financial Capital is largely held by the State, not private entities. Big difference in motivation compared to, say, US finance Capital, which is largely Private. Furthermore, Coke largely produces in the Global South, China produces in its own country.
Yes, the World Bank and the IMF. I’ve even seen it personally, which is what led me to dig down the rabbit hole - I got interviewed by a world Bank employee to explain why I was installing a system for an airport, and they kept trying to guide me to explain why it was helpful…I couldn’t, because it was only useful if the Internet is down, and if that happens it’s probably not useful because the system had to be taken down if there’s bad weather, and the airport regularly flooded during storms anyways
They were constant protests and news coverage of projects being pushed on them, and it was an open secret for the airport workers. It was for things they didn’t need or want, even though they had plenty of infrastructure in disrepair already
Argentina is the classic example, they resisted and had their currency destroyed, which makes international trade hard. Other countries go so deep in debt they have IMF officials installed in their government to implement austerity measures, some even are forced to hand over their currency printing powers
Sometimes countries get into our good graces, like Peru, and they are let off the treadmill in exchange for beneficial trade deals. That’s after having their resource rights sold off and letting in foreign investments to extract wealth moving forward, but mostly they’re kept in perpetual debt as leverage
It’s a wild and very deep rabbit hole. The information isn’t hidden, it’s just spun in a positive light
You’re describing Imperialism as outlined by Lenin in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and its contemporary form by Hudson in Super Imperialism, but these are overwhelmingly done by Western countries, especially the United States. Do you have specific evidence of this being a primary factor for China specifically? Again, the US relies on this as its Capital is overwhelmingly financial, whereas China’s is Industrial.
I mean… They’re not exactly hiding it. The expressed purpose of belts and roads is to invest in their infrastructure and partner with them to build industrial capacity. Conveyer belts and roads. They openly state they’re doing it to build up trading partners and global influence
It’s literally the same thing… Will they be better partners? Hopefully, it’s not exactly a high bar
Yes, the World Bank and the IMF are major actors in post-WWII neocolonialism.
Guess which is the sole country with veto power in both the World Bank and the IMF?
This is bullshit projection.
- The Atlantic, 2021: The Chinese ‘Debt Trap’ Is a Myth
- Geopolitical Economy Report, 2022: China forgives 23 loans for 17 African countries, expands ‘win-win’ trade and infrastructure projects
UK went through industrialization leading to its empire, and the US was the industrial power during its ascent. Same thing with Japan before WWII.
Many imoeralistic powers seem to go through big industrial growth before expansion.
Sure, but that evidently doesn’t seem to be the course the PRC is taking. Rather, as Marxist-Leninists, they appear to be more interested in building up the Global South through favorable trade deals as an investment in future customers for their exports. This is fundamentally a different strategy from focusing on exporting financial and industrial Capital to the Global South. Further, China is too populous to offload their productive forces to the Global South, even if we doubt them as dedicated Communists it doesn’t appear to be an economically viable strategy to adopt an Imperialist stance to begin with.
They’re not Marxist-Leninists at all though… They’re just a highly regulated form of capitalism.
The government doesn’t own Tencent, they just keep a strong grip on them. They have their own billionaires, the factories have owners, companies bid to fulfill government contracts, you apply for a job and get paid what they offer. It’s just capitalism
Their government does a lot more than in the US and has a lot more influence, and they do influence the market more… But that’s just regulation and public services
They basically do what we did to tik tok. The US government can revoke a corporate charter for any or no reason, China just actually uses this authority actively
They claim to be Marxist-Leninists, explain their actions, and have an economy driven by Marxist-Leninist analysis. They have Markets, yes, but markets aren’t the same thing as Capitalism itself. Rather, they have a Socialist Market Economy, which is driven by public ownership and planning of heavy industry, energy, finance, infrastructure in general, etc and have partial private ownership over light industry.
By what reasons do you say they aren’t what they say they are? What do you think their economy would look like if they were “true Marxist-Leninists” in your eyes? When does an economy become “Capitalist” and when does it become “Socialist” in your eyes?
I feel like we’re already in WW3 but everyone has to pretend we’re not to avoid escalating it to nuclear.
This might be his exit strategy. This is how he can get a third term.
