With the globalization of the marketplace and trade and the spread of nukes, it has become increasingly costly and suicidal to start WW3. So in theory, nations are more than ever unlikely to start wars.
It is also unlikely that we will have a major world war in our foreseeable lifetime(or what is left of this historical era) but still I would like to explore the what if potential and possiblity of a global world war.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
kiba: With the globalization of the marketplace and trade and the spread of nukes, it has become increasingly costly and suicidal to start WW3. So in theory, nations are more than ever unlikely to start wars. It is also unlikely that we will have a major world war in our foreseeable lifetime(or what is left of this historical era) but still I would like to explore the what if potential and possiblity of a global world war.
Which is why "conflicts" & massive recessions will have to do. I wouldn't be surprised if 50 years from, historians were able to link a solid decade of various conflicts as a possible WW3, if WW3 hasn't happened 50 years from now.If WW3 occurs, I'm thinking it might possibly be over resources & maybe using nukes. I wouldn't be surprised if the next war saw an increase in more "non-lethal" (a misnomer, but non-lethal compared to nukes) weaponry being used.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
On one hand I think you're correct. On the other hand the USA is doing everything it can to aggravate Iran and Russia.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
If the solution to the current crisis goes by reimposing tariffs and barriers to free trade, it might become easier to start wars.
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
I agree with Nitro. The 63 years since the end of WWII have hardly been peaceful. We came an inch within a nuclear holocaust more than once and there has hardly been a year without at least one permanent member of the UN Security Council involved in a conflict in some corner of the world, not to mention "other" countries like Israel, Egypt, India, Pakistan etc.
The two main problems with starting a WWIII nowadays are, plainly put, the globalization of economy (Bastiat's "goods instead of cannons" idea) and the costs involved in modern warfare. Plainly put not even by fully nationalizing the economy, ignoring debt, running inflation at full steam and conscripting the entire population would the US be able to start a modern, conventional warfare with Russia or China, nor the other way around. A single modern tank is unbelievably sophisticated and expensive. It takes lots of manpower and resources to build one, the crew and the engineers need to go through long and intensive training, it requires very qualified manpower to be built and programmed, manpower which cannot be sent to front. And it's same thing with aircrafts, warships, artillery pieces etc. Modern day military equipment is very expensive to build and service and requires intensive training to be fully used. It would be good if armies were to disappear altogether but let's pray this is enough to stave off disaster.
On a different note I remember an old sci-fi story in which the US and China were at each other's throat but could not start a war because China manufactured the electrics used in the US tanks and the US programmed the softwares used in Chinese fighter planes. Anyone remembers the title? Thanks.