Live data from Hacker News

Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

bloomberg.com

51–60 of 400 posts

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#51

What the article and the commenters here seem to forget is that it's not only the technological level/political situation has changed, but the way people think as well. There are several global trends that allow for optimistic predictions regarding big wars of the future. The global level of violence is dropping and overall tolerance of casualties is declining. Rising cost of human life shifts the perception of confl…

> But thinking of probability it seems that the balance is shifting towards smaller local conflicts rather than global wars.

Only if you ignore "but you started first" nuclear war that can start even completely accidentally.

https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/past-announcements/

If you think "but everybody in charge knows what they are doing" you probably never worked in any large enough organization. We should all actively work on forcing the politicians to significantly reduce the installed nuclear resources, simply to increase the chance for humanity to survive once an accident happen, because sooner or later it will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#52
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is specifically talking about another "Great War", not limited conventional conflicts. All out, generation crippling war is a far cry from anything we've seen large industrialized countries engage in since World War II. I can't see how anything like another "Great War" could be possible without going nuclear.

Nobody brought out chemical weapons in World War II, though both sides had them. (Granted, chemical weapon defenses were practical in WWII, whereas nuclear weapon defenses are not today. Still, even in great wars, there have been weapons that were not used.)

That's a very good point. They weren't widely used. But Japan did use both chemical and biological weapons against the Chinese. We don't really know why Hitler didn't use them, but it's likely that his experience in WWI gave him a unique hatred of chemical warfare.

Regardless by the time Germany accepted that they were facing an existential threat, they couldn't have used Chemical weapons to completely decimate their enemy the way a losing country could with ICBMS (both land based and on submarines).

They had no way to reach America, or even Britain at the end of the war (with enough munitions), so chemical attacks would have been pointless by that time. If Hitler could have pressed a button completely destroy America, Britain, and Russia when he was in his bunker in Berlin, I'm willing to bet he would have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Changde#Use_of_chemi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_dest...

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#53
post #24
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see MAD as being a given, especially depending on if China or the US develops rapid technological advancements over the next few decades. I think it's a really unlikely idea to assume the nuke will be the great deterrent or equalizer for the rest of this century. China could easily conquer the planet if they pull sufficiently ahead in China, which is a fair possibility, looking at the current state of…

>if they pull sufficiently ahead in China, which is a fair possibility, looking at the current state of the US and Europe Be careful with extrapolation. People said the same thing about the USSR, Japan, and the EU. Sure the US won't be as dominant as they are now forever, but extrapolating China's growth from a very poor developing country to their current level and assuming that means that they might make some kind…

I don't think it's going far enough. There are several hundreds variables completely separating China and the USSR and Japan from a blanket comparison.

I would like to hope that they hit the breaks in the same way that Japan did, and there's certainly plenty of evidence that it's possible. However, if their model remains viable and they continue growing at the same rate, they'll certainly eclipse us in political and economic influence in 10-20 years at most - potentially technologically as well. I'm not sure that's even a disputable claim - it should be self evident. The question is if we'll suddenly outperform or if they'll hit a stumbling block, which remains to be seen.

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#54
post #42
post #37

I believe that the likeliest cause of another Great War is not to save the planet from dictators, but from environmental destruction. At some stage, a consensus must build for stopping our destruction of the climate. (Well perhaps it won't, but in that case we're doomed, so there's little point in evaluating that path). At that point, some countries (presumably rich ones) will have cleaned their own houses emissions-…

I expect some incredibly stupid reason. Post-brexit UK tries to nuke somewhere in the EU, or the USA decides we need to get Jesus here faster, or actually anything on this spectrum of insanity. Right now it seems like science fiction that anybody will try doing anything about the climate. So, in reality we'll probably see a failing ecosystem and the strongest military killing the rest of us.

> Post-brexit UK tries to nuke somewhere in the EU

What is stopping pre-brexit UK trying to nuke EU? The EU treaties?

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#55

What's the point of war in the modern world? Gain land/people? If there's a thriving economy there, war will probably change that quickly. If there's no thriving economy, what's the point? You could try to exploit the people/resources there, but the profits in that seem (at least compared to a world power) pretty thin. Unskilled labor and unimproved land are just not worth what they used to be. Specific resources mig…

There are reasons to go to war that transcend macroeconomics. Our instincts to tribal violence are ancient, and I suspect the social bonds of shared fear, danger, and trauma are far more potent than most of us peacetime civilians understand, arguably being an end unto itself. Moreover, there are political motivations domestically that have nothing to do with ostensible mission objectives, whether pursued ideologically, or cynically. If anything, our long stretch of (relative) worldwide peace is the anomaly, and it's debatable whether that would be the case if not for the atom bomb setting an existential upper bound on the level of war that first-world societies choose to tolerate.

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#56
post #37

I believe that the likeliest cause of another Great War is not to save the planet from dictators, but from environmental destruction. At some stage, a consensus must build for stopping our destruction of the climate. (Well perhaps it won't, but in that case we're doomed, so there's little point in evaluating that path). At that point, some countries (presumably rich ones) will have cleaned their own houses emissions-…

> At that point, some countries (presumably rich ones) will have cleaned their own houses emissions-wise and be signed up to assist poorer nations.

> It will then become unacceptable to them that their efforts are in vain and at risk, because other countries are free riding and doing nothing, and continuing to pump emissions into the atmosphere.

The idea of invading countries to stop carbon emissions is interesting as a thought experiment, but given how things are now, it's far more likely that most countries (including rich countries) won't make efforts to massively reduce carbon emissions until it's far too late. It may already be far too late.

Most countries aren't even interested in trying to limit emissions to their current levels which is a complete joke compared to what is actually needed to have a chance of stopping global warming (assuming it can still be stopped).

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#57
Back when countries near proximity had access to conventional military gear with equal level of power, all out war made sense, you simply had to destroy the other countries gear to deter them from ever trying that shit again.

but after the development of nuclear weapons, this is no longer a realistic choice. Instead, look at the Russian model:

1) Infiltrate high society of an enemy country decades before saboteur activities. Helps if you have kompromat of sexual nature. Especially, if back home if the truth ever got out, you would be finished. Elites are used to doing whatever the fuck they want and getting away with it so there's little to suspect or take precaution. They are the perfect weak willed asset that can be easily persuaded to serve their own interests which is aligned with the foreign government's.

2) Use your newly acquired assets to spread misinformation through social media. Instigate separatist movements within the enemy country.

3) Wait for the enemy country to react and use it as an excuse to "protect ethnic minorities" or some other bullshit like pipelines.

4) Start arming the rebels, send professional soldiers and latest equipment to make the enemy hurt.

5) Occupy the rebel territory, sign ceasefire, and let UN sit on it's ass for decades until the rest of the world forgets.

6) Repeat.

The American model is a bit different and rarely need to involve the military unless other escalation method fails:

1) Bribe the elite, give out monopolies, lucrative contracts to further American interests at the peril of the victim country's citizens in the name of "Freedom". Target country is cleaned bone dry of resources. If you had oil and lived in the same continent, chances are high that the US is directly responsible for narco-economies in South America.

2) Let human greed corrupt the government inside and out so they are more open to electing a leader serving their own self interests that are aligned with American interests.

3) If somebody doesn't take the silver, they get lead or crash and burn. Make it look like an accident.

4) If all your assets are gone thanks to annoying rebels that took up arms to protect their country from corrupt foreign interests, send in the military to crush them, install someone friendly to the US, and this time give them the latest hardware and weapons aimed at their own citizens.

tldr: How poor and rich empires do empire things slightly differently in robbing the world blind.

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#58

What's the point of war in the modern world? Gain land/people? If there's a thriving economy there, war will probably change that quickly. If there's no thriving economy, what's the point? You could try to exploit the people/resources there, but the profits in that seem (at least compared to a world power) pretty thin. Unskilled labor and unimproved land are just not worth what they used to be. Specific resources mig…

Basically all war is caused by a combination of competition over resources, and a fear of/interest in subjugation. There's no such thing as unlimited resources, and there will always be someone who wants to subjugate you, or someone you want to subjugate. Logic doesn't prevent a war.

The point of the article is that people thought WWI would not only be impossible, but that it would also be "bloodless". It turned out to be the bloodiest war the world had ever seen.

The future big wars will (eventually) turn the world into an apocalyptic hellscape, but the beginning will be fought with robots and big guns. Less infantry, but more damage. Lots more civilians dying of starvation, cold, disease, once critical infrastructure gets taken out. People in cities are mostly dependent on utilities, so once those go, it's going to get chaotic. Also we don't really have industry anymore, so a trade embargo might totally erode our ability to wage war once we exhaust our surpluses.

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#59

> This is why the U.S. chose to stay so deeply engaged in the affairs of Europe Aside from this rather endearing naivete, the gist of the article is fine: we need to fear another 'Great War'. Modern warfare grants (perceived) first-strike capability to almost any state, rendering the power of MAD and military alliances close to negligible. We live in the 21st century now, things are different than before, and highly…

> Modern warfare grants (perceived) first-strike capability to almost any state

What are you talking about? Only 9 states have nuclear weapons. Of them, only 5 have any significant number.

Post reply on HN