World War III

[The Wrath]

When will it happen and who will be the major players involved? Don't tell me that the War on Terror is World War III, because it isn't. A "world war" has to be something on a more massive scale than our paltry attempts at fighting people on camels with 30 year-old AK-47s.

I don't know when it'll happen, but I say Russia and China vs. America, Britain, and maybe Japan, with France and Germany trying to be the referees.

Edited September 16, 2005 by softwareNerd

[The Guru Kid]

Before answering when and who, shouldn't we answer if and why?

[FeatherFall]

Iran's president recently declared his intention to share nuclear technology with other Islamic states, so maybe the current conflict will become a world war. However, if one is to happen, I expect it would be because we gave too much legitimacy to a world governing power, like the UN or an international court. "When" is another question, maybe never. Also, I don't think a world war would happen in the same way. Nuclear weapons would end the war very quickly. Remember, the first world wars happened before there was a "superpower"... Now there is only one.

[The Wrath]

I think England could have been considered a superpower in the first world war. Even so, we won't be the only one for long. China is catching up.

[tommyedison]

When will it happen and who will be the major players involved? Don't tell me that the War on Terror is World War III, because it isn't. A "world war" has to be something on a more massive scale than our paltry attempts at fighting people on camels with 30 year-old AK-47s.

I don't know when it'll happen, but I say Russia and China vs. America, Britain, and maybe Japan, with France and Germany trying to be the referees.

If it happens, what I think, it will be

China, Russia, Muslim world (except perhaps Iraq and Afghanistan), Venezuela, many african countries vs America, Britain, other various western countries, some african and south american countries, australia.

China: Communists will never let go off their power easily. Besides a large amount of Chinese like the Russians are jingoists. They will not fight for the Communists but if the Communists tell them that their country is in danger from Japan and USA and that they have a right to Taiwan, they will fight very readily.

Russia: Kremlin's recent actions speak for themselves. The Russians too like the Chinese can be beaten up to go to war.

Muslim world: The Muslims are barbarians.

Venezuela: Hugo Chavez. He seems to enjoy a lot of populist support too.

African countries: Barbaric to the root.

I am not sure about India, France, Germany, Canada and the like.

As for the chances of WWIII

Factors which I think indicate it will happen

a. Russia and China's strengthening military alliance and intensive military exercises in which they even tested ICBMs. They said it was to test them for defense against the terrorists. Now why would two countries want to fire ICBMs at terrorists. Even the Russian media didn't by this.

b. Putin's power grab using Beslan as an excuse.

c. The ongoing popularity of Communist leaders in Russia.

d. Mad Mullahs are becoming increasingly vitriolic in their rhetoric and some are acquiring positions of importance.Link. It's pretty scary that such people are advising the PM of Britain.

e. Hugo Chavez has said a number of anti-american statements. Yesterday, in the UN he launched into a 20 minute anti-American rant and according to news networks got a rousing applause.Link.

f. West's weak moral defense for itself

[daniel]

I'm not sure about China. As it opens up more I think this new capitalism will lead to stronger calls for democracy, just like what happened in the USSR or in the West in the late 19th and early 20th centuries - with increased wealth comes democracy as people demand protection for that wealth. However there are exceptions, for example, Singapore, which though free market is not democratic.

Russia is also becoming much more supportive of capitalism with a recent introduction of a 13% flat tax.

[scottkursk]

I think England could have been considered a superpower in the first world war. Even so, we won't be the only one for long. China is catching up.

Agreed. At the time, Britian ruled the seas and still had colonies and possesions worldwide. They were quite literally a worldwide superpower. "The sun never sets on the British Empire" was very true. It wasn't until they lost their advantage of naval power and were forced to fight on the ground in a war of attrition with a much larger nation that they lost their edge.

As for a future war, the concept of a "world war" as we knew in WW1 & WW2 I doubt applies any more. As was pointed out, nuclear weapons make the idea thanks to MAD an unrealistic idea. Plus, as I've said before war is bad for business. Nuclear war is even worse. So the Chinese and Russian jingoists may rattle the sabre like nobodys business but they won't do it. They have to much invested in peace and they don't want to loose their economic power. Anyway, their is more stroke diplomaticly to "stare down the evil Americans" than actually do something. Hussein learned that the hard way. He's out of business.

The ones we would have to worry about doing something stupid are nations with not much to loose like North Korea or parts of the Islamic world. The nation states like Iran may develop nukes and sell them off like we do F16's and the like, but the people of Iran are relatively western. It's just their leadership that has issues. Still, it's the places that really have no business structure or economy per se to loose that we'd have to worry about. Still, the war would be very ugly but over realtively quickly. Much like the war against Iraq.

It was a very quick war, and it really was an amazing victory for the US. It was the occupation when we lost part of our advantage technologically and forced to figth a gurelila war that we started to have problems. But hten that is as much a diplomatic and leadership problem than a military one.

[FeatherFall]

I think England could have been considered a superpower in the first world war. Even so, we won't be the only one for long. China is catching up.

You may be right. I'm not sure how I defined a superpower, and I'm not sure how I would now, actually... It is just hard to think of a "superpower" without tanks (the English invented the tank during the WWI, not before). But that doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't have a large technological and territorial advantage the world over. Good point.

Edited September 17, 2005 by FeatherFall

[tommyedison]

As for a future war, the concept of a "world war" as we knew in WW1 & WW2 I doubt applies any more. As was pointed out, nuclear weapons make the idea thanks to MAD an unrealistic idea.

I agree. For now it is unrealistic.

Plus, as I've said before war is bad for business.

Power hungry communists will not be stopped by money. It is power they want not money.

The ones we would have to worry about doing something stupid are nations with not much to loose like North

Korea or parts of the Islamic world.

These countries could also be used by bigger nations like China to wage war against the USA. All the losses will be of Iran or NK and the USA. All the gains will be of China.

The nation states like Iran may develop nukes and sell them off like we do F16's and the like, but the people of Iran are relatively western. It's just their leadership that has issues.

If the people of Iran really cared that much about freedom, they would have overthrown their government long ago.

Still, it's the places that really have no business structure or economy per se to loose that we'd have to worry about. Still, the war would be very ugly but over realtively quickly. Much like the war against Iraq.

If countries like NK have long range intercontinental ballistic missiles, they could yield massive swathes of destruction in US through EMP attacks. If they have suitcase nukes, they could use those too.

But hten that is as much a diplomatic and leadership problem than a military one.

A leadership no one in the US can currently provide.

[The Wrath]

I agree with pretty much everything that's been said. I agree that a third world war would likely be over very quickly. Of course, mutually assured destruction might prevent it altogether, like it did with the Cold War. But, as has been mentioned, countries like Iran could screw it up.

I'm only 23...I feel confident that, at some point in my lifetime, there will be another war on a global scale. I only hope we have the moral courage to fight it.

[scottkursk]

Power hungry communists will not be stopped by money. It is power they want not money.

Their business is power and as we've seen from Hussein, as long as you don't go to war, you stay in business. Kim Jung Il wants to stay in business and doing something like attacking us is a sure way to get killed or at least loose power. Though he is enough of a total loon he may just do that.

People like Hamas and Al Queda aren't in power and are just marginalized. That's the reason they are the ones to worry about. Them and the crazies.

These countries could also be used by bigger nations like China to wage war against the USA. All the losses will be of Iran or NK and the USA. All the gains will be of China.

But China would loose its biggest customer. Sure, they could make a go of it and still be a world power if the US stopped existing but it is much easier to trade with us than the rest of the world because of our freedom, lack of tarrifs comparably, etc.

If the people of Iran really cared that much about freedom, they would have overthrown their government long ago.

Sure, the Shia revolution that occured really did screw up the country. The mullahs have effectively enslaved their own people and kill opposition. In Iran, it's not a case of the squeaky wheel gets the grease but the nail that sticks up gets driven in first. At this time, there aren't enough people to have a revolution. Look how long it took the Czechs to have the velvet revolution, the East Germans to kick Honicker, and the Romanians to chuck out in such a glorious fashion Ceausescu. I think given the right circumstances a counter-revolution will occur. But we are back to the leadership problem again.

[JMeganSnow]

Hmm. I don't "forsee" another "World War", but if it DOES happen, I think it might be a result of a CIVIL war within the U.S. There's no one on the planet that couldn't afford to take sides in a struggle of that kind: if a conflict within the U.S. escalated to the point that it couldn't be realistically called a "police action" any more, but an actual out-and-out war, the instability would rapidly escalate to involve the rest of the world.

But I don't see it happening: I think a continuing gradual decline is more likely.

Wait! Wait! I forgot! WWII = Space Aliens Invade

[Captain Nate]

Wait! Wait! I forgot! WWII = Space Aliens Invade

WW2? Hitler was a space alien?

[scottkursk]

WW2? Hitler was a space alien?

The way Harry Turledove writes, it is a possibility.

[Captain Nate]

The way Harry Turledove writes, it is a possibility.

You're the second person I have spoken to this week to bring that writer, and his work, up in a conversation with me. I am seriously considering pursuing it when I finish up this semester at school.

[tommyedison]

But China would loose its biggest customer. Sure, they could make a go of it and still be a world power if the US stopped existing but it is much easier to trade with us than the rest of the world because of our freedom, lack of tarrifs comparably, etc.

A power hungry Communist will never care about money if he can get power.

Now are the Chinese power hungry Communists or are they non-power hungry capitalists? Their actions speak for themselves.

[the tortured one]

consider what the Chinese stand to loose if they launch an all out war against the United States: a vitally important trading partner. Without U.S imports, China would simply not have the resources to continue, their economy would grind to a halt like draining all the oil out of a car.

and despite a horrible track record, China is making an inexorable crawl towards Capitalism; parts of China are economically freer than the U.S! That's better than the west's slow descent into Socialism, protectionism, and police statism.

China is a manufacturing based economy, dependent on western raw materials to function. Cut out the west, and what do you have? Russia? don't kid yourself, Russia is a third world country with an economy run by the mafia, which happens to have a lot of old nuclear missiles. Africa and the Oceanic countries would be China's sole source of imports. Not a good proposition.

The U.S, by contrast, is a service based economy, which draws much of it's manufactured produces from abroad, specifically with China. War with China would leave huge voids in the economy that would not easily be filled.

How about that? Free-Trade Capitalism has made war an economic impossibility? Peace has broken out! Gee, that's not what Noam Chompsky told me would happen.

The real threat is Islamic terrorism, inspiring a conservative revolution amongst the Islamic communities of the West, inspiring Islamic leaders to push their religious agenda in getting free-speech abolished and Sharia law imposed. Because the west; despite having the best guns, planes, and bombs, is rather bad at defending itself morally. If their is one weak front from which Islamists could be successful attacking from, it would be the ideological front, because they would simply be using the same tools Christian conservatists have been using for years.

Edited September 18, 2005 by the tortured one

[tommyedison]

How about that? Free-Trade Capitalism has made war an economic impossibility? Peace has broken out! Gee, that's not what Noam Chompsky told me would happen.

Patently false.

Economics is not a concern for war, not for people who seek power. If it had been, the Soviet Union would have turned to capitalism. The chances of war are decided on the basis of the dominant philosophy of the day. And the world is falling philosophically by the second. Peace has not broken out!

The real threat is Islamic terrorism,

A threat which might very well be sponspored by the Govt. Of China.

[daniel]

The below is taken from the Globalization Institute:

Economic freedom is the key to prosperity. Many persist in regretting this equation, but few now doubt its truth. But classical liberals also argue that economic freedom causes peace, and now comes new evidence that the causal link between economic freedom and peace is real, and significant.

Economic freedom is almost 50 times more effective than democracy in diminishing violent conflict between nations, according to the Economic Freedom of the World: 2005 Annual Report, released today by The Fraser Institute.

In new research published in this year's report, Erik Gartzke, a political scientist from Columbia University, compares the impact of economic freedom on peace to that of democracy on peace.

Says co-author James Gwartney:

Researchers have long known democracies go to war about as often as other nations but tend not to go to war with each other. However, stable democracies typically have strong levels of economic freedom, leading to the question of whether it is democracy or economic freedom that affects the probability of violent conflict.

So, which is it, democracy or economic freedom?

When measures of both economic freedom and democracy are included in a statistical study, economic freedom is about 50 times more effective than democracy in diminishing violent conflict. The impact of economic freedom on whether states fight or have a military dispute is highly significant, while democracy is not a statistically significant predictor of conflict.

Nations with a low score for economic freedom (below 2 out of 10) are 14 times more prone to conflict than states with a high score (over 8). The overall pattern of results does not shift when additional variables, such as membership in the European Union, nuclear capability, and regional factors, are added.

I look at China now and see a country embracing capitalism - some of the leaders may be doing this in order begin a war - but by the time they are able to fight they will not want a war because of capitalism. Why? Capitalism leads to democracy and democracies don't go to war against one another. This is not just empirically so but it makes sense theoretically, after all, in war the people suffer. China is going through a process just like the USSR in the late 20th century did and the West did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Thus China will have both economic freedom and democracy diminishing the chances of war. It is already moving fastly in the direction of the former, the latter is a matter of time.

Also philosophically I think the world is doing rather well relatively speaking. Keynesism is dead, nationalism is weak and globalization is increasing all the time, for example the EU will abolish many quotas in a few years. We are in the second Golden Age - massive tranfers of money occur, war is far less rife than it was, say 80 years ago, communism is dead, left wingers are being defeated, for example Germany, and a HUGE market is opening (China) who many believe will be the next USA.

Edited September 18, 2005 by daniel

[tommyedison]

I look at China now and see a country embracing capitalism - some of the leaders may be doing this in order begin a war - but by the time they are able to fight they will not want a war because of capitalism.

IMO, you are getting too utopist here. According to your equation, Wesley Mouch would have eventually become a capitalist.

Capitalism leads to democracy and democracies don't go to war against one another.

Wasn't Hitler democratically elected?

Even if he wasn't, don't buy into that rhetoric. democracy can go to war against each other.

This is not just empirically so but it makes sense theoretically, after all, in war the people suffer.

This is simply non-sensical. Need I remind you of Japan in WWII not to mention countless other wars in history?

China is going through a process just like the USSR in the late 20th century did

It is not. China while it has allowed for limited economic liberalism with rampant corruption, it still murders dissidents.

But you see what impression this could create on a person? He might actually start thinking that the PRC system, communism + limited economic liberalism is actually a very good system.

Again take Nazi Germany. Their situation in the 30s and China's situation now, IMO bears many parallels.

and the West did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

No. America already had a system of individual rights in place.

Thus China will have both economic freedom and democracy diminishing the chances of war. It is already moving fastly in the direction of the former, the latter is a matter of time.

Taiwan's anti-secession bill.

Veiled nuclear threats from China to USA

Keynesism is dead,

Yeah, tell that to the Federal Reserve.

nationalism is weak

I doubt it.

Besides, philosophy does not consist only of economic progress.

[scottkursk]

A power hungry Communist will never care about money if he can get power.

Now are the Chinese power hungry Communists or are they non-power hungry capitalists? Their actions speak for themselves.

I agree somewhat. I think China has moved from a communist to a fascist dictatorship given the fact that the military now controls things ranging from the blood collection business to running the prisons and many export companies. The military has effectively become it's own branch of government and operates outside of the supervision, for the most part, of the government.

For them, power is their currency. The way that the military has been able to obtain their power is by the control of things like steel and clothing factories and the hard currency it brings in. If they loose the flow of money coming in then they loose the power they obtained. So I seriously doubt they would go and break off their relationsip with their top customer. I know I have clients that I hate to do business with but I keep them as clients becuase of the level of business they do. You may "fire" small clients that irritate you and make it not worth your while but you generally don't gut your top customer unless you have a replacement in the pipeline. I don't think China has a replacement partner for us yet.

Nobody is going to call China capitalist because it is very far from it. It's still an insanely violent dictatorship that has little if any respect for rights. The same is true about the Soviet Union's dictators. While they did go to war with some smaller countries and they did their best to destabalize the west, in the end, they realized it was better to just go about their business and not risk war and stay in power.

Castro is a good example of what I'm trying to say. He executes people regularly but if he did something like invade the Dominican Republic and start killing the people there, it would be game over for him. The UN doesn't mind if you slaughter your own people but they do tend to get into a snit when you invade someone. Plus it helps rally popular support for doing something like killing him.

Given the current climate, I doubt there is much public support for kicking Castro out even if he did something like that. The same goes for if China invaded Taiwan. People would carp about not fighting "someone else's war" but would surely start complaining when the flow of electronics and technology ended. Then they would blame whoever happened to be in office.

[daniel]

IMO, you are getting too utopist here. According to your equation, Wesley Mouch would have eventually become a capitalist.

Whats utopian about it? Its aready happened e.g the West (also there's more to the West than the US) - capitalism = peace. And China is becoming capitalist. Already Chinese people are becoming more aware of indivdualism. No longer are they being held back by families, and the village life. You can see this for yourself if you bother to go to Shanghai.

Wasn't Hitler democratically elected?

When Britian declared war on Germany it was not a democracy, as a host of legislation, such as the Enabling Act makes clear. My point was democracies don't go to war with one another - Britian did not go to war with a democratic state. Your above point does not suggest democracies go to war with one another rather it confimrs to me that the a bad form of democracy is propotional respresentation as it leads to weak coalition governments and so incompetence.

Even if he wasn't, don't buy into that rhetoric. democracy can go to war against each other.

But my point is they don't! Rummel, for example, studied all the wars from 1816 to 1991. He defined:

war as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle,

democracy as a stabilized liberal democracy with voting rights for at least 2/3 of all adult males,

and stability as being older than 3 years at the start of the war.

He also implicitly imposed some other related criteria; for example, the chief officer of the democracy must have had a contested election.

Under these definitions, his study found 198 wars between non-democracies, 155 wars between democracies and non-democracies, and 0 wars between democracies.

This is not rhetoric. Schumpeter argued that trade meant interdependence and thus capitalist states don't go to war as it dosen't pay. Its a very logical hypothesis backed with hard evidence.

This is simply non-sensical. Need I remind you of Japan in WWII not to mention countless other wars in history?

But Japan was not a democracy in WWII, so why is that point relavent? My argument has been that democracies don't go to war with one another - I assure you Japan was not a democracy. It could be argued that the Japanese wanted war but they weren't a democratic or capitalist people than.

It is not. China while it has allowed for limited economic liberalism with rampant corruption, it still murders dissidents.

And in the last days of the USSR there was limited economic liberalism (perestroika) with rampant corruption and the regime still murdered dissidents. Still communism fell.

But you see what impression this could create on a person? He might actually start thinking that the PRC system, communism + limited economic liberalism is actually a very good system.

Or he might think capitalism has given this this much wealth so far, lets get more capitalism to get more wealth! Its logical. After all if you had shares in a company which had given you good returns and was predicted to do just as good or even better most would continue to invest.

Again take Nazi Germany. Their situation in the 30s and China's situation now, IMO bears many parallels.

Like what? Politically Germany was invading neighbouring countries and economically becoming protectionist. China is doing neither. Whereas Germany was confiscating businesses and expanding the state, China is reducing it. Since 1995, the number of state controlled companies has halved, from 300,000 to 150,000, and since 1998, the sector has shed 16m workers. By contrast, local private companies increased output five fold and foreign enterprises three fold between 1998 and 2003, compared with an increase of just 70 per cent in the state sector over the same period. Socially Germany became oppressive, obsessed with the collective. Today individualism is increasing, for example, now Chinese farmers are allowed their own land and as a visit to Beijing will show sexaul promiscuity is widespread. People are doing what makes them happy, in Germany they did what society said.

Whereas Germany was crushing every political right, since 1979 there has been a gradual increase in political rights in China, Tfor example the Law on the Organization of Villagers' Committee and the Law on the Organization of Urban Neighborhood Committees has empowered people to make decisions on village and neighborhood affairs. Of course there is still a very long way to go but it took many years for Britain to become a democracy. In fact the transition lasted from 1832 to 1918 and some would say even longer.

QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 18 2005, 07:58 AM)

and the West did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

No. America already had a system of individual rights in place.

Firstly there is more to the West than America, Europe also exists. Of course America had individual rights in place but this was because of free trade and originally due to the ideas of Locke and Mill and what is happening in China now? Free trade! Your above point, if anything, confirms my thesis.

Taiwan's anti-secession bill.

Veiled nuclear threats from China to USA

I'm not arguing China is perfect, I never have, rather we are seeing a transition. The above points are true, though of course relations have improved dramatically, but all this shows is that China has alot to do politically - something I believe will happen due to economic reform as I have been arguing. Chinese generals regulary make threats, they are after all the old guard. Also on the issue of Taiwan Also on the issue of Taiwan - we have a similar approch here in England towards Northern Ireland in the respect that many want to break away but we won't let them. Taiwan has broke away and China wants it back. If NI did the same I dare say Britain would want it back.

Yeah, tell that to the Federal Reserve.

I'm talking about global economics. I'm talking about global issues and so will take a global view not an American centred view. Free trade is a very strong philosophy in the world. Communism is dead. Liberalism has won as Fukyama argues. CAFTA, for example, recently came into being. CAP is facing increasing hostile and will no doubt soo be abolished. Russia has introduced a 13% flat tax and the East Asian Tygers are booming.

I doubt it.

Why? Nationalism comes about when there is protectionism. It breeds in areas where there is less ideas. Today we have globalization and with it a choice of ideas. People are choosing McDonalds not nationalism.

Edited September 18, 2005 by daniel

[Pancho Villa]

WWIII? I'm on WWIV right now, WWV would be the next one, really.

The problem, you see, is asertaining the nature of war. I define it as using force for your own political ends. The Cold War was a proxy war, to be sure, but it was still a worldwide war between two ideological enemies - communism and whatever it is the US represented at the time. The US did not win so much as communism lost.

This, too, is an ideological war. Islamofacism has risen its head, has a worldwide influence, and now threatens to plunge a fairly important area of the world into civil war - or at least weaken it enough that the burgeoning Chinese Empire might think it can get away with a quick invasion. To oppose it, the great ideological vacuume of America again has taken half-hearted steps in the right direction.

WWV? It will occur, I think, but the players and circumstances will depend greatly on the status of China and the USA in the future. Are they freer? More dictatorial? Fascist, communist, commiefacist, what?

Edited September 24, 2005 by Pancho Villa

[Felix]

How about Europe?

We did the last two world wars, didn't we?

Besides, China's economy is just rising. You don't start a war when your economy is rising. Then you have better things to do.

[Pancho Villa]

Perhaps I am merely being pessimistic, but I do not foresee Europe doing anything much more wide-ranging than destroying itself.

If I am missing data you think is vital to such an evaluation, please share.