Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 400 posts

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#171

Post by pvaldes »

bsder wrote: post #164
pvaldes wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good luck occupying that. The problem is that, even with 393 millions of guns, USA can't stop recurrent fireforests year after year. And this is only an example. Would be naive to think that, as people have a pistol, can't be killed remotely from a million Km of distance. The idea of a foreign army marching in a country and killing people one by one like stormtroopers, is very outdated. And of course you can always…

> The problem is that, even with 393 millions of guns, USA can't stop recurrent fireforests year after year. Not exactly true. The problem is that nobody wants to pay the money to do so--especially the people who live in those areas. In addition, you only get to burn those forests once . After that, they are no longer a threat because there is no fuel.

> After that, they are no longer a threat because there is no fuel.

Not necessarily. I bet that the new replacement ecosystem will be, in fact, much more flammable. The water has quit the area.

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#172

Post by wonderwonder »

jeffdavis wrote: post #29

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…

I would like to think you are right, and I agree to a point. Engagements like Crimea and Georgia played out as they did because a much larger foe essentially bullied a smaller country and took what it wanted but stopped just short of making the smaller country think it was fighting for its life. The smaller country knows it cannot win so it must swallow its pride and take the loss, to go all in on a less that total invasion would be suicide against Russia. If you look at the situation in Yemen you can see the end game of a much more powerful country going close to all in against a much weaker foe (and Saudi Arabia is holding back). Mass starvation, woman and children dying for the simple reason that Saudi Arabia has blockaded the delivery of food. The world just sits and watches, occasionally sending a stern tweet. Look at what the US did to Iraq, ~250,000+ dead to date. Whenever it is a superpower pitted against a smaller nation it will likely play out as you say, but we are still talking of suffering on a massive scale.

China operates on decades long plans, is it possible that if they thought that securing the entire South China sea was worth it in the long run that they would be willing to go to war over it? I see nothing that makes me thing they would not be willing to decimate Vietnam and the Philippines to do so. Would the united states be willing to go to war against China for the benefits of Vietnam or the Philippines. They have forced a million Uighur's into camps and we shrug so probably not. That would change if China went after Japan. What if the current trade war escalated to the point it was causing serious harm to China's economy, would they go to war?

A war with China would potentially be a war to end all wars (again), especially if it pulled in Russia, Japan and others. Furthermore, the victor of a war between China and the United states would lay claim to being known as the dominant power on earth, able to enforce its will to greatly enhance its economy in much the same way the US did after WW II. If China thought it could win, they would be able to essentially force their way of life on vast sections of the world. It also allows the victor to claim the moon and mars in the long term, a massive advantage in the next few decades.

We unfortunately live in a very precarious world that most of us on this site don't have to see the worst of due to the simple act of winning a geographic birth lottery.

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#173

Post by herewulf »

helios893 wrote: post #81

Are we not in the midst of a great war now? While not massive like the previous world wars, the US has been in active military operations since 9/11. Russia has been involved in ground invasions. I'll admit these conflicts aren't huge, but they are constant and sustained.

No, because no major country has its entire economy mobilized for the purpose of war. Outside of the countries where these conflicts are taking place, most people's lives are not being affected whatsoever. That is an enormous difference from WW I and II.

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#174

Post by daxorid »

turc1656 wrote: post #137
mirekrusin wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also it feels like food supply is much more fragile now (more dependent), almost 8 bln people now compared to ~1.5 bln 100 years ago, if this collapses, it'll collapse big time.

as TeMPOraL and Erik816 mentioned, it's not just the increase in population that you get the impression the food supply is more fragile. In fact that probably has very little to do with it. It's more of the just-in-time aspect of the supply chain that all the supermarkets and other food producers/sellers utilize. It is done for efficiency to maximize profit. It applies to all food products, but especially with perish…

It's not just supermarkets.

For most of recent history in the West, it's been fairly normal for homes to maintain a larder, root cellar, pantry, or other long-term food storage as a buffer against both economic and supply-related hardships.

Prudently doing so in the modern era, however, is a fairly surefire way to get branded a crazy prepper. And supply chain buffers at home are becoming even shorter with the advent of DoorDash, Uber Eats, etc.

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#175

Post by NotAmazin »

tomohawk wrote: post #148

The thing about war is that at some point, the conditions line up where it becomes seen as a solution (if not the only solution), and its not easy to see the point at which that will occur ahead of time. Will China's big sea grab start a war? So far, they've been able to smother any of their neighbor's push back, and have just ignored any international rulings against them. What about when they invade Taiwan, which t…

You forgot to mention Israel's aggression on adjacent countries Lebanon and Palestine. Would Israel's constant belligerence start a war?

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#176

Post by verelo »

jeffdavis wrote: post #29

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…

I feel like you may have not read the article.

"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."

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#177

Post by restalis »

jeffdavis wrote: post #29

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…

Casus belli doesn't matter that much. There is something else that, in lack of a better term I'll call it "salesmanship", is usually at work. It shouldn't be so hard to imagine a crafty sales plan, with ideas catering and hitting the right demographic groups with the most potent methods for each of them, stirring enough force and demand for change on a scale so large that... well, would make handling things in a peaceful manner too difficult, to put it mildly. That scenario is old as humanity itself (or probably older). Sure, that can be prevented (as the article mentions) but that means work and determination, which are more and more difficult to come by as the time passes and the hard lessons fade from memory or loose meaning. People get comfortable, start taking more and more things for granted, and with that less and less thoughts are given to the truly disruptive situations as plausible events. (And speaking of thoughts, unfortunately the reason isn't always at helm; most of the time it gets called there only after, to clean up the mess.)

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#178

Post by setquk »

daxorid wrote: post #174
turc1656 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as TeMPOraL and Erik816 mentioned, it's not just the increase in population that you get the impression the food supply is more fragile. In fact that probably has very little to do with it. It's more of the just-in-time aspect of the supply chain that all the supermarkets and other food producers/sellers utilize. It is done for efficiency to maximize profit. It applies to all food products, but especially with perish…

It's not just supermarkets. For most of recent history in the West, it's been fairly normal for homes to maintain a larder, root cellar, pantry, or other long-term food storage as a buffer against both economic and supply-related hardships. Prudently doing so in the modern era, however, is a fairly surefire way to get branded a crazy prepper. And supply chain buffers at home are becoming even shorter with the advent…

I’ve been called crazy by my own family for buying 20 cans of baked beans for stock so yes indeed you are right.

This is despite having nothing to live on for 3 months once. Short memory they have.

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#179

Post by mattnewton »

redleggedfrog wrote: post #151
mynameishere wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

somehow my nation/religion/race/etc is superior "Somehow". The answer is found quite simply by this formula: "My [whatever] is the [whatever] I belong to." Even if you prove without a doubt that Islam is worse that Christianity, or that one race is worse than another, you won't likely convince the members that they therefore deserve less than they have, or that they should surrender to another. The core tautology sti…

It's quite refreshing, and not a little bit amusing, when you don't belong to anything. The world appears mostly insane.

I’m afraid of tribalism as much as the other guy, but it’s naive to assume it’s maladaptive. Many people are blind to how many groups that try to protect them in the United States, whether or not they identify as such. Tolerance and peace are luxuries purchased off tribal conflict in some cases.

Re: Reasons to Fear Another ‘Great War’

#180

Post by bdamm »

sarchertech wrote: post #52
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He did of course use chemical weapons in his death camps.
Post reply on HN