Not WW3, but Cold War 2.
Already there
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.
This might be his exit strategy. This is how he can get a third term.
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.
Probably. Too many hot spots in the world right now where a minor mistake can result in a chain reaction.
In the long term, yes. The bourgeoisie are rich and comfortable with no desire for a war that could jeopardize their position. However, they have lots of financial incentives for military spending because it's rife with corruption. As such, they do a lot of saber-rattling to make WWIII seem like a genuine possibility, while also fighting in proxy wars around the globe.
But the problem is, they're playing with forces beyond their control. If you have a generation raised on constant propaganda to genuinely hate other countries, then all it takes is a couple people in the wrong positions at the wrong time who aren't in on the game. Right now, the rabid dog is on the leash of the bourgeoisie, but the gamble they've been making is that they can keep pumping steroids into it forever and never lose control.
Furthermore, wasting all this money on war and militarism has allowed China to emerge as a credible threat to their global hegemony. China is sitting back and focusing on domestic economic development, and they are winning the peace while the US burns itself out. What happens when the only area in which the US has an advantage is the military? Are people really going to accept becoming #2, or are they going to force a confrontation? Given that we're talking about Americans, who are 1) Riled up on propaganda, 2) Preoccupied with being "#1," and 3) Unused to experiencing the effects of fucking around firsthand, it seems almost inevitable. Ofc, it's true that we somehow maintained a Cold War with the USSR for decades, but it's different today because conditions are declining and the far-right is growing stronger every day.
I mean, unless there is no major global war from now until the heat death of the universe or some other extinction level event, aren't we just perpetually going towards WW3?
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
I think sort of, although it won't be as cut-and-dry and the first two. I think it'll be somewhere between a traditional 'hot' war and a cold war, where the larger players (ie: China, the US, Russia, the EU) will engage in propaganda wars, attempts to destabilize each other, cyber attacks, trade wars etc. while in areas outside of those groups (eg: Ukraine currently) there will be physical wars fought by proxy between the bigger groups.
I think we're seeing the start of it now, and IMO the US is probably doing the least well so far of the major groups. Russia is doing the destabilization thing, which is working quite well in Europe and spectacularly well in the US, China seems to be leading in trade and tech (both cyber attacking and just undermining the US tech sector with things like DeepSeek) and I think Europe's strategy seems to be to just bunker down and see what happens.
I think the main advantage the US traditionally has always had is its military - it's geared up very well for a big physical war, but I don't think this is that kind of conflict. And with the Trump administration's obsession with tariffs and the general disregard for education and soft power, I think the country is really heading in the wrong direction for what may be coming.
Depending on how you define it, it may have already happened. WW1 was mostly just Europe.
The class war never stopped.
I'm going to look at it more in terms of how long a European peace lasted.
The Napoleonic wars ended with the Concert of Europe, a peace that was able to last until World War I and depended on a balance of power that lasted for almost a century.
An equivalent system was set up after World War II with a peace anchored by the Allied Powers, decolonization, and the US-Soviet rivalry. That system has lasted for about 80 years and is showing significant strain.
I don't know how long this system will last, but it doesn't seem like it will last for much longer. Trump's election seems to be hastening that end.
An equivalent system was set up after World War II with a peace anchored by the Allied Powers, decolonization, and the US-Soviet rivalry. That system has lasted for about 80 years and is showing significant strain.
What? No it hasn't. The cold war ended by 1992 at the latest. At that point the US achieved total, unipolar hegemony over the world and began exercising it. Clinton's "interventions" in Kosovo, Africa, etc. The Bush era Neo-Cons, those were all results of a new era of unchallenged American power and hegemony. That marked a new era.
Right now the world, led by China and Russia as well as other members of BRICS are trying to buck that total dominance and hegemony of the US and set up a multi-polar world but the US is not letting go, it is not ceding power, it has replaced international law as set out in agreement with the victorious powers of WW2 with "rules based order" which means its way or the high-way, the rule of their might and their wants and nothing else matters. Trump is flexing that built up power, the fact they control SWIFT, the fact the dollar is world reserve currency, their incredible ability to do sanctions to anyone anywhere and put a big hurt on them for defying US interests and wants. He's unleashing the full might, threatening sanctions, tariffs, straight up invasion to take Greenland or the Panama Canal, etc. All to do what? To maintain US primacy, to prevent the emergence of a multi-polar world where the US doesn't dominate everyone else and set the terms and rules for the entire world.
So there are movements to try and strive towards a Westphalian (multi-polar) order led by China, Russia, and followed in those steps by other BRICS nations but they are cautious, they don't want to anger the US and even China still backs down if the threats of sanctions gets too big. So right now we're in a struggle to determine what kind of world we have either a continuation, a hardening of US empire and unipolar hegemony, unchallenged dominance of the world and its peoples to their dictates and benefits or else a multi-polar world structured around Westphalian principles of sovereignty of individual nations and cooperation and peace born out of multiple strong powers checking each other's ambitions against other weaker nations.
The US ended an era of struggle and some independence for nations on its own after it won the cold war, it chose to build up its power, to break international law (Yugoslavia, Iraq, war on terror, sanctions regimes galore, etc), to replace it with "rules based order" which no one can solidly define the rules of because they're ever shifted based on the wants and needs of the US.
It has still been a relatively peaceful time in human history post fall of the Soviet Union even when you include Iraqi and Afghani deaths as a proportion to the world's population. Wars still happened in that relative time of peace, but those conflicts were relatively contained to not create a new great power war.
Great powers haven't entered in open conflict on the scale of World War II, which was chosen as a bench mark.
Maximum profit is extracted being in a perpetual state of "will they/won't they WWIII" which is why we'll be right here in this mood for a long time..
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.
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
- Other countries decide to band together and stop the United States.
Holy shit, called it.
-
Ww3 is too high risk due to nukes, but it will get to that point and hopefully not over it
I think some would argue that class warfare is a cold war already happening.
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.
America will take Greenland, and then Canada is next being surrounded on three sides.
Can a NATO country invoke the defence pact if it's attacked by another NATO country?
NATO vs America wasn't on my bingo card.
We have been in WW3 since Russia started it's fully scale invasion if Ukraine in 2022. The major conflicts if it just haven't become kinetic yet. China has conducted cyber attacks in the United States, Russia has been attacking undersea fiber. China is building ships that on gave one ouroose to invaide Taiwan. In 100 years thus will be seen as the early days if the war.
I sure hope so
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.
There are certainly some folks, who are leaders of various countries, who seem to very much want it. Heck you would think china would not given their economic position but they still do the push push on the south of china sea, taiwan, india, tibet.... Add in putin, kim and trump and a match and we got it.
