https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articl...nd=opinion

"Last month, I traveled to Vienna, the former seat of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and a fitting place to contemplate the approaching 100th anniversary of the conclusion of World War I....

Although that conflict ended a century ago, it still offers three crucial lessons that are relevant to our increasingly disordered world today.

First, peace is always more fragile than it seems. In 1914, Europe had not experienced an all-out, continental conflict since the end of the Napoleonic wars a century earlier. Some observers believed that a return to such catastrophic bloodletting had become almost impossible. The British author Norman Angell would immortalize himself by suggesting, just a few years before World War I, that what we would now call globalization had rendered great-power conflict obsolete. War, he argued, had become futile because peace and the growing economic and financial linkages between the major European states were producing so much prosperity....

We are just as susceptible as we were before WWI. The world is intangled in webs and webs of treaties and alliances. As in the 1810s, 1910s and the 1930s, we are a single bad actor and a set of dominoes away from world war.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Short answer is NO, it's not unthinkable. The international trading and more importantly capital flow between nations on a widely global scale is even more prevalent than 100 years ago; however, there are so many unknowns in the future. Natural resource scarcity is an unknown for the future - though for now technology may mitigate those concerns. There are two things that may cause a future conflict: Potable water and food. Also, never discount the possibility of a future world war based on religion. While much of the world is become more inclusive of other religious ideas and arguably less religious as a whole - there are still significant parts of the ME, Africa and Asia that are radicalized enough to possibly unite to bring about Armageddon - or whatever the end times would be for an aggressor religion.

The only thing that has kept us from WWIII is mutual destruction.

The world is different from what it was in 1914. I like Peter Zeihan's analysis. From 1500 to 1914, the world was dominated by competing empires. If you needed a natural resource, you went out and conquered somewhere that produced it. And you maintained whatever military you needed to secure your empire and the trade routes to and from. So France had north and west Africa, England had south and east Africa and India and Canada and Australia and Chinese enclaves, Portugal had Brazil (lost it to independence) and Angola and Mozambique and Indian and Chinese enclaves, Spain had most of Latin America (lost it to independence), Belgium had the Congo, Holland had Indonesia, Italy had Libya and Ethiopia, the Turks had the Fertile Crescent, Germany was late to the game but had colonies in Africa, Japan was similarly late to the game but had Korea and Manchuria, Russia extended from the Black and Baltic Seas across northern Asia to the Pacific, and Austria-Hungary had most of eastern Europe.

WWI broke up the German, Austro-Hungarian, Turkish, and Russian empires. WWII broke up the Japanese and Italian, reestablished the Russian, and left just about all of those former imperial powers in shambles. And throughout the 1950s and 1960s most of the old colonies became independent. With the threat of communism growing, we made a deal with the west. We would give you access to our markets (the only economy left on its feet) on essentially a one-way basis, without reciprocation on your part, and our military (the only one left on its feet) would protect your trade routes, so you could focus totally on rebuilding, in exchange for your agreement to fall in line and give your cheery "Aye, aye," to what we tell you to do in the Cold War. So the Royal Navy went from one capable of power protection to one focused on ASW in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap (a transition that nearly cost it dearly in the Falklands), the Dutch and Belgians focused on mine warfare in the English Channel and approaches to the Rhine, and all of them reduced their armies and left the defense against a Soviet invasion to deployed US forces. This arrangement worked pretty well, except for one thing--it actually worked too well, we won the Cold War, and nobody had ever figured out what to do next. So we've been living with an outdated paradigm for 30 years.

The way I see it, there are three possible flash points, each with a potential regional hegemon--Russia in eastern Europe, Iran in the Middle East, and China in the South China Sea. It seems to me that a reasonable strategy for us going forward is to 1) constrain any regional conflicts to the respective region, and 2) assist our allies in the area to try to maintain a balance of power to deter aggression by the respective would-be hegemon. One fortunate thing is that all three potential hegemons are basically land powers, with so far little potential to project power outside their areas, other than Russia's and China's nuclear ICBMs. But MAD has worked pretty well to keep that threat bottled up. China is rapidly expanding its navy, and Russia is taking slower steps to do the same, but neither is really a threat to North America for decades.

For all his bluster, Trump actually gets this. He wants to level the trade playing field that has been one-sided since the late 1940s, he wants Europe to pick up more of its own defense (and Macron apparently agrees), and he realizes that we no longer need Europe to win the Cold War. The withdrawal from the intermediate missile treaty is actually necessary--Russia has not been obeying it for quite some time, creating a problem in Eastern Europe, and China is not a signatory, so in the South China Sea today we face weapons that we can't use in response. The problem is that he can't help putting his foot in his mouth. His tweet reacting to Macron is wrong-headed in that what Macron is proposing is exactly what we need to happen. And his tariffs are the wrong way to go about leveling the playing field. What we need is a grand strategy going forward, and our current grand strategy--winning the Cold War--is outdated.

With Brexit, I could see us forging a much closer relationship with the Commonwealth. There has been a proposal circulating among the Commonwealth countries that they should forge a worldwide defense alliance. This would pretty well approximate the British Empire forces before WWII. The RN plus India would have four carriers, for example, which would support significant power protection. I could see us joining with such an alliance. We could form pretty stout naval task forces using our carriers and the RN's in the European theater, and same with ours and India's in the IO and WestPac.

If we can do those things successfully, I think we can avoid WWIII. The problem would be if all three of the would-be hegemons got together at once. But at least for now, they don't seem to like each other all that much.

(11-12-2018 09:14 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Short answer is NO, it's not unthinkable. The international trading and more importantly capital flow between nations on a widely global scale is even more prevalent than 100 years ago; however, there are so many unknowns in the future. Natural resource scarcity is an unknown for the future - though for now technology may mitigate those concerns. There are two things that may cause a future conflict: Potable water and food. Also, never discount the possibility of a future world war based on religion. While much of the world is become more inclusive of other religious ideas and arguably less religious as a whole - there are still significant parts of the ME, Africa and Asia that are radicalized enough to possibly unite to bring about Armageddon - or whatever the end times would be for an aggressor religion.

WWIII is unthinkable for now. But as you point out---let some significant vital resource shortage develop---and quite quickly, all bets could be off. When nations are afraid for their immediate future---they often act very aggressively.

Well if you are a bible believing Christian, you already know there is a coming world war centered around Israel, Jerusalem and the antichrist.

If you are just pretending to be a Christian to make yourself feel better (or just one of those who "self-identify"), you probably never even consider that fact when this conversation comes up.

For true believers, its not even a question. Its just a matter of when.

Our Creator has already told us and pre-written it into history. Much like He did many other things that have already come to pass.

(11-12-2018 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The way I see it, there are three possible flash points, each with a potential regional hegemon--Russia in eastern Europe, Iran in the Middle East, and China in the South China Sea.

IMO you missed a flashpoint. South America/Central America. Venezuela is in desperation mode at this point, and desperate nations are capable of doing completely irrational things like attacking neighboring countries in an attempt to relieve internal pressure by gaining riches or creating a false enemy for the country to rally behind. See Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

The Central American countries are the Webster's definition of unstable. It wouldn't take much for the entire region to erupt in a bushfire war with long reaching consequences.

(11-12-2018 01:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-12-2018 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The way I see it, there are three possible flash points, each with a potential regional hegemon--Russia in eastern Europe, Iran in the Middle East, and China in the South China Sea.

IMO you missed a flashpoint. South America/Central America. Venezuela is in desperation mode at this point, and desperate nations are capable of doing completely irrational things like attacking neighboring countries in an attempt to relieve internal pressure by gaining riches or creating a false enemy for the country to rally behind. See Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
The Central American countries are the Webster's definition of unstable. It wouldn't take much for the entire region to erupt in a bushfire war with long reaching consequences.

And that highlights a real hole in our diplomatic thinking. We have really ignored Latin America since at least WWII. We need to come up with some sort of coherent strategy for dealing with the problems there, which will definitely threaten us if not solved. See the caravans, for just a tip of the iceberg.

I don't see WWIII breaking out there, but I do see major problems.

(11-12-2018 01:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-12-2018 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The way I see it, there are three possible flash points, each with a potential regional hegemon--Russia in eastern Europe, Iran in the Middle East, and China in the South China Sea.

IMO you missed a flashpoint. South America/Central America. Venezuela is in desperation mode at this point, and desperate nations are capable of doing completely irrational things like attacking neighboring countries in an attempt to relieve internal pressure by gaining riches or creating a false enemy for the country to rally behind. See Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

The Central American countries are the Webster's definition of unstable. It wouldn't take much for the entire region to erupt in a bushfire war with long reaching consequences.

This. It is not out of the realm of possibility for Russia to come in and take over Venezuela because of their oil and the rulers of Venezuela will be more than happy to let that happen as long as they stay cushy. Also, WWW3 or something close should have happened as soon as our hostages from Iran got back home. That place should have been blown off the map because nothing has changed over there. The same people are still running the place. Big mistake.

(11-12-2018 10:33 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  The only thing that has kept us from WWIII is mutual destruction.

Zactly. Russia really doesn't have anything to lose except maybe power for Putin but China with its brand new skyscrapers and middle class has its people happy for the most part. They know they would lose all of it because even though it wouldn't start with nuclear bombs the end result for the loser would be to start launching them as they wouldn't have anything to lose anymore.

I was very surprised this morning when I heard that Putin wants "IN" on that European idea by Macron of a unified European Defense model. It's laughable Putin would want in because they're the chief cause of this Defense idea. But like stupid people that wanted "Done nothing" Robert O'roark as a senator there could be stupid people that would want Russia in their new league.

(11-12-2018 01:10 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Well if you are a bible believing Christian, you already know there is a coming world war centered around Israel, Jerusalem and the antichrist.

If you are just pretending to be a Christian to make yourself feel better (or just one of those who "self-identify"), you probably never even consider that fact when this conversation comes up.

For true believers, its not even a question. Its just a matter of when.

Our Creator has already told us and pre-written it into history. Much like He did many other things that have already come to pass.

This, also the Gog-Magog war where 1/3 of world population will be killed. Makes WWII look like a picnic. Iran, Russia, Syria and Turkey attack Israel and lose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

To think war of any scale is not possible is to ignore all of human history.

Of course it is possible. Truthfully, it is probably inevitable.

I feel comfortable in saying that neither China or Russia will attack the United States in a direct and violent way. Iran and fundamentalists are another matter. I don't think Muslim fundamentalists can start a "World War" unless they attack the Russians. That situation could get out of hand in a hurry if it brought Europe and Israel into the the line of fire.

China and Russia know they aren't ready to for a war in space with the U.S. so they won't risk it.

They will fight us economically, technologically for espionage purposes, and through a continued effort to propagandize through our so called free media.

But to say a third World War is unthinkable is naive.

Miko alluded to the most demonstrable reason for conflict, resources. And apparently our Pentagon felt that potable water would be a flash point at sometime this century since they formulated strategies for defense of such in their long range plan for the 21st century.

If the oceanic ecosystem faces further stress then food may well become another.


As for South America I don't see Venezuela being anything other than its own worst enemy. But, Brazil under its new leadership bears watching for no other reason than to see if it will be beneficial to the U.S. or a destabilizing force in South America.

(11-12-2018 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The world is different from what it was in 1914. I like Peter Zeihan's analysis. From 1500 to 1914, the world was dominated by competing empires. If you needed a natural resource, you went out and conquered somewhere that produced it. And you maintained whatever military you needed to secure your empire and the trade routes to and from. So France had north and west Africa, England had south and east Africa and India and Canada and Australia and Chinese enclaves, Portugal had Brazil (lost it to independence) and Angola and Mozambique and Indian and Chinese enclaves, Spain had most of Latin America (lost it to independence), Belgium had the Congo, Holland had Indonesia, Italy had Libya and Ethiopia, the Turks had the Fertile Crescent, Germany was late to the game but had colonies in Africa, Japan was similarly late to the game but had Korea and Manchuria, Russia extended from the Black and Baltic Seas across northern Asia to the Pacific, and Austria-Hungary had most of eastern Europe.

WWI broke up the German, Austro-Hungarian, Turkish, and Russian empires. WWII broke up the Japanese and Italian, reestablished the Russian, and left just about all of those former imperial powers in shambles. And throughout the 1950s and 1960s most of the old colonies became independent. With the threat of communism growing, we made a deal with the west. We would give you access to our markets (the only economy left on its feet) on essentially a one-way basis, without reciprocation on your part, and our military (the only one left on its feet) would protect your trade routes, so you could focus totally on rebuilding, in exchange for your agreement to fall in line and give your cheery "Aye, aye," to what we tell you to do in the Cold War. So the Royal Navy went from one capable of power protection to one focused on ASW in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap (a transition that nearly cost it dearly in the Falklands), the Dutch and Belgians focused on mine warfare in the English Channel and approaches to the Rhine, and all of them reduced their armies and left the defense against a Soviet invasion to deployed US forces. This arrangement worked pretty well, except for one thing--it actually worked too well, we won the Cold War, and nobody had ever figured out what to do next. So we've been living with an outdated paradigm for 30 years.

The way I see it, there are three possible flash points, each with a potential regional hegemon--Russia in eastern Europe, Iran in the Middle East, and China in the South China Sea. It seems to me that a reasonable strategy for us going forward is to 1) constrain any regional conflicts to the respective region, and 2) assist our allies in the area to try to maintain a balance of power to deter aggression by the respective would-be hegemon. One fortunate thing is that all three potential hegemons are basically land powers, with so far little potential to project power outside their areas, other than Russia's and China's nuclear ICBMs. But MAD has worked pretty well to keep that threat bottled up. China is rapidly expanding its navy, and Russia is taking slower steps to do the same, but neither is really a threat to North America for decades.

For all his bluster, Trump actually gets this. He wants to level the trade playing field that has been one-sided since the late 1940s, he wants Europe to pick up more of its own defense (and Macron apparently agrees), and he realizes that we no longer need Europe to win the Cold War. The withdrawal from the intermediate missile treaty is actually necessary--Russia has not been obeying it for quite some time, creating a problem in Eastern Europe, and China is not a signatory, so in the South China Sea today we face weapons that we can't use in response. The problem is that he can't help putting his foot in his mouth. His tweet reacting to Macron is wrong-headed in that what Macron is proposing is exactly what we need to happen. And his tariffs are the wrong way to go about leveling the playing field. What we need is a grand strategy going forward, and our current grand strategy--winning the Cold War--is outdated.

With Brexit, I could see us forging a much closer relationship with the Commonwealth. There has been a proposal circulating among the Commonwealth countries that they should forge a worldwide defense alliance. This would pretty well approximate the British Empire forces before WWII. The RN plus India would have four carriers, for example, which would support significant power protection. I could see us joining with such an alliance. We could form pretty stout naval task forces using our carriers and the RN's in the European theater, and same with ours and India's in the IO and WestPac.

If we can do those things successfully, I think we can avoid WWIII. The problem would be if all three of the would-be hegemons got together at once. But at least for now, they don't seem to like each other all that much.

There are a couple of flash points we don't control that could escalate.
1) India-Pakistan
2) Russia-China. What if China decided all the natural resources it needed were in Siberia?

There would literally be no winners in a nuclear war. No one is going to be wealthier as a result of it. Even tinpot despots who only care about themselves realize they're going to be prime targets and even if they survive their regimes and lives will be wrecked.

And the major world economies are so interdependent on top of that. I always chuckle when people say China has a chokehold because of all the US debt they hold. If they do anything to us, they're going down with us.

There is no miracle as to why there has been no WWIII. It's just not likely.

(11-12-2018 06:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I feel comfortable in saying that neither China or Russia will attack the United States in a direct and violent way. Iran and fundamentalists are another matter. I don't think Muslim fundamentalists can start a "World War" unless they attack the Russians. That situation could get out of hand in a hurry if it brought Europe and Israel into the the line of fire.

China and Russia know they aren't ready to for a war in space with the U.S. so they won't risk it.

They will fight us economically, technologically for espionage purposes, and through a continued effort to propagandize through our so called free media.

But to say a third World War is unthinkable is naive.

Miko alluded to the most demonstrable reason for conflict, resources. And apparently our Pentagon felt that potable water would be a flash point at sometime this century since they formulated strategies for defense of such in their long range plan for the 21st century.

If the oceanic ecosystem faces further stress then food may well become another.


As for South America I don't see Venezuela being anything other than its own worst enemy. But, Brazil under its new leadership bears watching for no other reason than to see if it will be beneficial to the U.S. or a destabilizing force in South America.

I don't think Russia is a threat except through their own paranoia. They think we are a threat to them so they want a buffer. Not so much Lebensraum like the Nazis, since Russians are declining in population, but a defense buffer with client states as they had in the cold war. They have destabilized the Stans, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine and Moldova. Belarus is a client state. They would like the Baltics and Poland and Turkey destabilized and separated from NATO. The last sentence is where they become a threat.

They will try to create a Crimea situation in Estonia and Latvia with the Russian minority.

If several thousand years of human history has taught us anything it is that war is inevitable.

We’re currently in an era of shifting paradigms and so I don’t see a US v Russia, or even China, scenario as likely as a civil war or economic collapse in an area we very much feel somewhat secure today.