My friends and I are growing worried of the present economic-politico situation worldwide. Our facts and economic analysis take us to expect a deeper and harder depression which per se takes us closer to a military confrontation.
I just wonder how many of you also think this is a possibility??
Thank you all.
Corporatism is using state means to enhance market share and profitability of a few favored firms, at the expense of the citizen.
who are the combatants, and along what lines do they form up?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Anything is possible. The future can be forecast in some sense but you can never know when some nutty government official decides its time to create total chaos. I'd like to think at this point there is some awareness that massive war with large trading partners is looked upon as a negative outcome. So far the only militaries that are capable of something in the magnitude of destruction such as World War 3 are busy invading the poorest of the poor.
auctionguy10: Anything is possible. The future can be forecast in some sense but you can never know when some nutty government official decides its time to create total chaos. I'd like to think at this point there is some awareness that massive war with large trading partners is looked upon as a negative outcome. So far the only militaries that are capable of something in the magnitude of destruction such as World War 3 are busy invading the poorest of the poor.
I agree. Nobody is a seer. Think about Germany in 1929. The French would have laughed their heads off at the thought that a bankrupt, disarmed country could take on what almost all military analysts and theorists believed to be the finest army in the world, let alone defeat it. Yet eleven years later Panzer divisions coming from that same bankrupt, disarmed country humiliated the mighty French Army in little over a month. Think about the Soviet Union in 1979. Apart from a few enlightened scholars (mostly well read in the Austrian School) who could predict its spectacular collapse in ten years? If you lived through the period you would remember that people really believed all the mumbo-jumbo about their presumed economic strength while the reality was much different. Think about North Korea. Who would have thought they could survive into the XXI century, let alone build nuclear weapons and be able to blackmail the US, Japan and their incommensurably stronger southern neighbor?
How many McAmericans are going to turn off Oprah and jump in front of bullets?
You have it all wrong.
McAmericans will jump in front of bullets for the right to vote for Oprah.
"Caley McKibbin wrote the following post at Mon, Jul 12 2010 4:12 PM:
How many McAmericans are going to turn off Oprah and jump in front of bullets?"
Well I'm sure the whole "voluntary" aspect of the military would vanish in the face of another world war.
Let's see now. The countries in good shape financially, China and Canada and Australia and Germany, seem pretty peace loving. They are getting rich working for a living, what do they need a war for?
The countries in bad shape, the USA and Russia, may want a war to distract the masses from their worries. Nothing distracts someone from his worries like a bullet in the head.
But how long can they carry on this war? War is expensive. It is inflationary, because the govt prints money to pay for whatever it takes. It destroys resources. Thus it will require the imposition of a police state, because it will be very unpopular.
So an army will have to be fed abroad, and a huge secret police at home.
How long can they do this? It will have to be done by force, meaning no free markets. Meaning the total destruction of the productive capacity of the economy, because only free markets can produce. So it will be like the Soviet Union, mass starvations. And soldiers dying abroad.
Sure it can be done. But the goal of distracting the masses from their worries won't be acheived, unless it is by adding many new worries to their old ones.
But a World War? How will the wealthy countries be seduced into fighting? What's in it for them? They will be attacked? Russia will invade Germany? Just for the hell of it? Maybe. Someone will mess with China?
So I guess we may have wars, but probably not world wars.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
The only military conflict I see coming is if we keep treating Iran poorly. And, trust me, I'm not saying we should go over to Iran and be best friends with Ahmadinejad, but these sanction won't do anything except piss them off.
I never tire of saying this: take a map of the world, in Photoshop or something, open you Wikipedia page on nuclear proliferation, and crop out all nations that have nukes. Whoever is left can go to war, NOT nuclear powers, be they third rate powers as North Korea. Celente is at fault from spreading this WW3 scare, but he flopped many times before. So chill out guys, there’s no WW3 coming, not now not ever.
"Peace in our time" ?
'Whoever is left can go to war, NOT nuclear powers, be they third rate powers as North Korea. Celente is at fault from spreading this WW3 scare, but he flopped many times before. So chill out guys, there’s no WW3 coming, not now not ever. '
What proves this statement?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Hard Rain: "Peace in our time" ?
If Chamberlain had had nukes, Hitler would have had to negotiate the transfer of territories to Germany in a valontary fashion . There would have been, peace in their time.
(I suspect that both Austria and the Sudetenlands would have joined wholeheartedly if the thing had been put to the vote)
"What proves this statement? "
I can offer no satisfaction of 'proof' on this, but we can content ourselves with the fact that there is nothing to gain when the other guy can increate with a single bomb whatever you can throw at him. It’s stupid to even keep massive armies.
Whoever is left can go to war, NOT nuclear powers, be they third rate powers as North Korea.
Nuclear powers can surely go to war. What you're thinking is that they simply can't go to war with each other.
Brian: Nuclear powers can surely go to war. What you're thinking is that they simply can't go to war with each other.
True, my bad.
'I can offer no satisfaction of 'proof' on this, but we can content ourselves with the fact that there is nothing to gain when the other guy can increate with a single bomb whatever you can throw at him. It’s stupid to even keep massive armies.'
Why must there be something to gain?
Andrew Cain: Why must there be something to gain?
Why would any government choose to go to war?
It could be that the other guy is, through good policies, attracting all capital from us and hence eroding our tax base. I can surely see how China would have liked to have invaded Hong Kong back in the ’60, and I’m sure that hadn’t it been form British nukes (which Her Majesty’s government made very clear of having every intention to use in that instance) there would have been no Hong Kong as we know it today.
It could be that the government is in a precarious position and needs a victory to boost it standing at home and abroad. I can think of both parties during the Falklands.
It could be that the other guy just expropriated or otherwise harmed the interests of important citizens of our country in their territory. Say the invasion of Egypt by the British, French and Israelis.
It could be that we are autarchic and woefully overpopulated and desperately need physical land and resources to avoid starvation (Germany and Japan during WW2).
It could be that a major part of some rare resource is located within a country, and hence control of that country would enable us to establish global monopoly. Say the US in Afghanistan.
I could go on, but the idea is that I cannot see any instance in which one would be willing to funnel resources in massive armies that will be annihilated the moment they near the border, when those resources could be used to buy the cabinet yachts for decades and fund crony ‘development’ projects to hand over to our political allies.
Whoever is left can go to war, NOT nuclear powers,
Which always brings up the interesting "what if scenario" on a Star Wars type programming that worked and was easily implemented by any industrialized country. It is kind of interesting to think how dramatic that would change the nature of things in world affairs.
Why arent Germany and japan starving now?
'Why would any government choose to go to war?'
Well not necessarily to gain but perhaps to retain. Such as your Hong Kong - UK example.
'It could be that the other guy is, through good policies, attracting all capital from us and hence eroding our tax base. I can surely see how China would have liked to have invaded Hong Kong back in the ’60, and I’m sure that hadn’t it been form British nukes (which Her Majesty’s government made very clear of having every intention to use in that instance) there would have been no Hong Kong as we know it today.'
So is your argument: Britain would use nukes against millions of people in order to retain a territory that was never rightfully acquired by them? This makes me ask why anyone should allow the UK to have nukes but perhaps you have the same sentiment.
Smiling Dave: Why arent Germany and japan starving now?
They trade much more freely than they used to (especially Germany, though far from a totally free trader). Let them close their borders to trade, and they shall starve within a year.
"So is your argument: Britain would use nukes against millions of people in order to retain a territory that was never rightfully acquired by them? This makes me ask why anyone should allow the UK to have nukes but perhaps you have the same sentiment. "
Would Hong Kong prefer to go with China or the UK in the ’60? Well, the UK could (and indeed should!) have held a referendum on the issue, but I haven’t a shred of a doubt on what would the result have been. Thus ‘legitimized’ (by statist standards, that is), the UK would have been right indeed to black million of Chinese soldiers (I advocate tactical nukes) for trying to rape Hong Kong into submission a stehy did with the rest of the country. I myself would have pushed the button with pleasure.
But of course the Chinese where not stupid, and they would have preferred a million times that no referendum ever be held, else no transfer of sovereignty could have happened in a ‘legitimate’ manner in 1999 without an other referendum 9wich would have likewise failed miserably, in turn undermining the PRC’s claim towards Taiwan). So perhaps they secretly negotiated for no referendum with the UK in the ’60 and the transfer of sovereignty at a later date in exchange for leaving British interests alone in Indochina.
So, I must repeat myself: the UK is following what seems to me to be by far the soundest nuclear policy of a minimum 24/7, second strike deterrent capability and nothing else. If anyone should have nukes, it must be the Brits (and the French possibly).
The countries most likely to go to war in the next 5 to 10 years are the US and Iran. The BP oil spill only increased that likelihood because government cannot solve the problem and will instead enact all of these regulations and taxation and prohibitions which will lead to higher oil prices. Just another reason to blame Iran. On the part of Iran they don't really care because they indoctrinated by religious mumbo jumbo.
North Korea is too poor to be a major threat.
China will continue to be blamed by US media but war is unlikely. I think it was Jesse Ventura who said that neocons are pussies and will only attack the weak of the world. So I don't think US-China war is likely, but then again, you never know.
Giant_Joe: How many McAmericans are going to turn off Oprah and jump in front of bullets? You have it all wrong. McAmericans will jump in front of bullets for the right to vote for Oprah. Brilliant way of putting it. Together we go unsung... together we go down with our people | Post Points: 5
Brilliant way of putting it.
. On the part of Iran they don't really care because they indoctrinated by religious mumbo jumbo.
The US government creates policy based on "religious mumbo jumbo" just as much as Iran does.
The start of WWIII will happen within the next 2 years.
Gates said a few days ago that he won't hesitate to use a military strike on Iran.
The Israel lobby is too powerful and Obama is too pro-war for it to not happen. I've thought there was going to be world war iii ever since I saw his campaign when I he said something like, "we are the party of LBJ we are the party of FDR. If Bush and the GOP could only chase Bin Laden into a cave, then I could chase him to the gates of Hell".
Saying something like that is a very ominous message.
What is your evidence about the power of the Israel lobby?
Well, I've simply heard that they're pretty loud and powerful.
Wrong. Ahmadinejad is one of the few leaders that understands the economic implications of their actions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhpKu8C2TA0
To the poster who mentioned France's elite military status in 1929, Mises thought the same as well. The French military WAS superior to Deustchland's even in 1939, the issue came when the top military commander of the French force surrendered immediatly, which funnily enough was due to his own collusion with the Nazis to further his position in the new Vichy France.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
No, there will never be a WWIII. Nuclear weapons ensure that.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.