News Will the 21st Century See a Major Global Military Conflict?

[tchitt]

So, who do you see as a threat to start, let alone maintain any sort of major conflict? North Korea? Why would they start a major conflict that would only destroy them? China? India? Nah. And the US, Russia, and Western Europe know how to play the game without getting into a major conflict.

Yes, it's in the interests of the big players to keep some sort of conflict going. But not in their back yards. And not if there's a chance that it could become so major as to threaten the status quo.

The crazies are scattered and relatively weak, and imho the situation will improve as more attention is paid to harnessing and using renewable resources because there's lots of money to be made there (following a perhaps somewhat uncomfortable period of adjustment).

Well, like I said before we're talking about 100 years worth of history here. We're only eight years into the 21st century and to say that it just plain isn't going to happen seems way off to me. (Plus, it's not as much fun :p)

I'm not sure about North Korea. I live in America, so I get all the usual propaganda. I consider myself a patriot, but I just can't believe all these leaders are quite as bad as the government makes them out to be. I know it's been said that the Iranian president's (long name I can't pronounce, let alone spell) comments have been horribly mistranslated, probably on purpose to drum up support for screwing with the middle east some more. However, I do think it's safe to say that Kim Jung Il is a certifiable loon. (A dead loon now, maybe? Has anyone actually seen him out and about yet?)

I don't see China initiating any major conflicts in the near future because they depend too much on the United States' economy... but then you have to take that into account. No one really has any idea what's going to happen from this point forward. Hell, to this day we haven't really come to a consensus on just what ignited the great depression. We've got 92 years until the end of the 21st century and I don't see renewable energy transforming the Earth into a utopia. Russia is pouring more money into their military so that they can flex their muscles on the world stage because "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun", and the United States guvment is becoming increasingly paranoid. Given the possibility of worldwide economic collapse (might be a stretch, I don't even know anymore. Sensationalism does play a big part in the news media today) I'd say just about anything could happen.

India and Pakistan are at each other's throats and both of them have the bomb... The United States is dragging NATO (a ridiculously powerful alliance) headlong into its war on terror. Pakistan just doesn't seem to care that radical militants are building an army in their backyard. Russia is suddenly invading surrounding countries and probably isn't very happy with the way the US and NATO are trying to push them around while the US's hands are far from clean in that respect.

All it took was a few thousand deaths in New York City to ignite two wars that have been going on ever since. I'm wondering how the US is going to react to a dirty bomb in NYC. It's only a matter of time before the process for uranium enrichment is mastered by every developing country in the world... a hundred years is plenty. I'd never heard of afghanistan before 9/11, suddenly the Taliban were public enemy number one. Why couldn't we follow suit with Pakistan? Syria's upset because civilians have been killed inside their own borders.

Picture this: the Middle East (with Russian backing) versus NATO. I don't think it's too far a stretch.

 

[russ_watters]

Why do the few of you that are saying this can never happen have the preconceived notion that all major conflicts are about natural resources? All it really takes is a handful of crazy people doing crazy things. There are enough truly psychotic despots in the world today to start something or other... especially now that a lot of them are making strides toward a nuclear arsenal and getting just a little too big for their britches.

Most wars are about natural resources, including both world wars we've had. And just because there are and will be "truly psychotic despots", that does not imply any of them could start a world war because a "truly psychotic despot" could not get a handful of major world powers on its side. When "truly psychotic despots" do crazy things, you typically get the entire rest of the world against them: such as with Iraq in 1991.

The major players in the world are far too stable for there to be much chance of them going to war with each other and far too stable for a Hitler to rise to power in any of them. Those who disagree - just try to come up with a plausible scenario for how either of those could happen and see if it makes sense.

 

[tchitt]

Most wars are about natural resources, including both world wars we've had. And just because there are and will be "truly psychotic despots", that does not imply any of them could start a world war because a "truly psychotic despot" could not get a handful of major world powers on its side. When "truly psychotic despots" do crazy things, you typically get the entire rest of the world against them: such as with Iraq in 1991.

Alright then... it could never happen. Peace will reign for all of eternity now that we're not stuck in the backwards '40's anymore.

Where's your imagination? This could be a pretty entertaining discussion if it weren't for everyone saying "nope, not going to happen, period."

Edit: So you really think, given 70 or 80 years the world will still be the world you know now? It's just that stable?

 

[russ_watters]

Alright then... it could never happen. Peace will reign for all of eternity now that we're not stuck in the backwards '40's anymore.

[snipThis could be a pretty entertaining discussion if it weren't for everyone saying "nope, not going to happen, period."

If you read my words, that part that you put in quotes does not match what I said. I said "virtually no chance". That's not "never". It could happen - it is just extremely unlikely.

Where's your imagination?

Where's yours? If you think there is a significant chance, then explain why. I could give you dozens of scenarios that I think would not lead to world war, but that wouldn't really address the question of whether there is one that would.

Give me a specific scenario that you think could lead to a world war and I'll tell you why I agree or disagree. We've had a few brought up, but they've been shown, imo, pretty convincingly, to be insufficient.

Edit: So you really think, given 70 or 80 years the world will still be the world you know now? It's just that stable?

The last world war ended in 1945, 63 years ago. So the question really is: is the world more stable today or less? I think it should be relatively obvious that it is more stable. The UN and EU didn't exist back then and the USSR did.

 

[russ_watters]

All it took was a few thousand deaths in New York City to ignite two wars that have been going on ever since.

Those wars are insignificant compared to a world war. I doubt they even rank in the top 20 largest wars of the last 100 years. More to the point, neither shows signs of escalating into a larger conflict.

I'm wondering how the US is going to react to a dirty bomb in NYC. It's only a matter of time before the process for uranium enrichment is mastered by every developing country in the world... a hundred years is plenty. [snip] Why couldn't we follow suit with Pakistan? Syria's upset because civilians have been killed inside their own borders.

A dirty bomb is almost entirely fear-based. They do very little real damage. The only scenario worse than 9/11 is an actual nuclear bomb. And in order to spark a world war, major powers have to line up on opposite sides - but where terrorism is concerned, you don't have that. Virtually no one objected to your action in Afghanistan.

I'd never heard of afghanistan before 9/11, suddenly the Taliban were public enemy number one.

Then you just weren't paying anywhere near enough attention. Afghanistan has been a problem for decades.

Picture this: the Middle East (with Russian backing) versus NATO. I don't think it's too far a stretch.

Well how would it happen? What would spark it? "The Middle East" is not one singular entity.

 

[tchitt]

I was talking about the tendency to go to war with entire nations, or within the borders of nations, in order to combat terrorism... violating the sovereignty of an entire region of the world. (How do you think the USA would react if Russia were to start bombing Idaho because a terrorist group that came from american soil carried out an attack on Moscow? Yes, of course, this will never happen... but this constant cycle of occupying sovereign nations to defend our own national security has got to come to a head SOMETIME) Of course I can't give you an in depth scenario on what might happen to spark a major conflict. How in the world do you expect me to give you something that you would find satisfactory when it's completely based on what-ifs?

I know you just want to argue... but I took this thread more as something to think about than to debate over. And the OP is correct... no one has a crystal ball. I don't understand how you can be oh-so-confident that it's even "extremely unlikely" when we're talking about an entire century.

I'm really not interested in "proving" to you that all hell will break loose sometime in the next ninety years. I know you won't take any argument I give as acceptable, and there's no way I can even hope to provide an acceptable argument because none of us can foresee what's to come.

Things happen. Tensions build. War ensues. That's really all anyone knows about anything, and I'm just saying it's my personal opinion that the chances are more than "virtually none".

I'm certainly not saying it's LIKELY, but I don't think it's unlikely either.

Edit: I could also repeatedly tell you that I think YOUR arguments fall short. That doesn't necessarily mean anything. You have me at a disadvantage because you're asking me to give you an argument you can swallow about a hypothetical while your argument is completely based upon what's happening in the world right now.

 

[jreelawg]

A conventional war between two or more nuclear armed states won't remain conventional for too long.
This goes way beyond that. European states can barely be called christian anymore, plus China is generally not a religious country. But what do they have in common? They are either on the path to or have already become modern. But there are a great many countries that are not, and most of them are islamic.

The modern world would like to make sure that ones that aren't stay that way. With advanced technology and the depth of modern information available, any nation could threaten the world. Whether a nuclear attack, a bio-attack, EM attack on power grids etc. In modern times, one weapon can wipe out a city. The worlds super powers do not want to see the day when all the islamist nations are capable of building nukes, genetically engineering viruses etc.

But, how long can you keep a nation in the past? They will eventually be modernized, nuclear technology will eventually be common and get cheaper. Viruses will get easier to design, and the developed world will all the while be aimed at slowing down the process.

But being the police nation who goes around destabilizing countries to slow down their progress won't earn us any popularity, and so who is going to be the target of these nations once they have finally gained the capability to attack?

This is why Bush has changed the pre-emptive strike doctrine from attacking a country aiming at you, to attacking a country trying to gain the capability to aim at you.

I think that one day the bubble will burst as time progresses, and some sort of major pre-emptive action will probably take place to prevent the fated outcome of our enemies developing advanced technology. Considerable pressure will come from Israel especially because they are right in the middle of it, and aren't very popular.

I actually feel that we are pretty much already there. Bush has already used terrorism to justify attacking Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with it. Terrorism has been the excuse for the Bush administration to eliminate some of our rights. I think the plan is to use terrorism as an excuse for some kind of action that would normally be condemned, in an attempt at dealing with the problem I talked about above.

 

[russ_watters]

I was talking about the tendency to go to war with entire nations, or within the borders of nations, in order to combat terrorism... violating the sovereignty of an entire region of the world. (How do you think the USA would react if Russia were to start bombing Idaho because a terrorist group that came from american soil carried out an attack on Moscow?

You are misrepresenting the situation. The US didn't invade Afghanistan because the terrorists were from there (they weren't - they were from Saudia Arabia), we invaded Afghanistan because the government harbored and sponsored them.

So if a couple of guys from Idaho committed a terrorist attack on Russia, Russia wouldn't bomb us because we'd be sorry we didn't catch them and we'd help Russia to prevent it from happening again.

Yes, of course, this will never happen... but this constant cycle of occupying sovereign nations to defend our own national security has got to come to a head SOMETIME)

What cycle? For there to be a cycle, it has to happen more than once.

Of course I can't give you an in depth scenario on what might happen to spark a major conflict.

You said "where's your imagination" - you can't imagine a scenario where it would be possible, but you still think it is? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

How in the world do you expect me to give you something that you would find satisfactory when it's completely based on what-ifs?

That's the beauty of a hypothetical situation. It can be any "what if" you want, as long as it is reasonable. Again: it's your imagination.

I know you just want to argue... but I took this thread more as something to think about than to debate over.

Argue=debate. I'm more than happy to debate/argue scenarios: so give me one! Otherwise, all we have here is me saying it is unlikely and you saying it isn't and nothing less to say. If you want to debate, bring up a scenario to debate!

And the OP is correct... no one has a crystal ball. I don't understand how you can be oh-so-confident that it's even "extremely unlikely" when we're talking about an entire century.

You led to the right question in the last post: is the world more stable today than it was in 1945? That's how I can be so confident. Moreover, people have a tendency to be unreasonably fearful. My parents conducted air raid and bomb drills in elementary school because people considered it to be possible - even likely - that we'd go to war with the USSR. It didn't happen.

Edit: I could also repeatedly tell you that I think YOUR arguments fall short. That doesn't necessarily mean anything.

It would if you could back up your arguments with logic and examples! That's kinda the whole point of a debate.

You have me at a disadvantage because you're asking me to give you an argument you can swallow about a hypothetical while your argument is completely based upon what's happening in the world right now.

Agreed.

 

[russ_watters]

But, how long can you keep a nation in the past? They will eventually be modernized, nuclear technology will eventually be common and get cheaper. Viruses will get easier to design, and the developed world will all the while be aimed at slowing down the process.

I agree that it is likely that weapons will continue to proliferate, but I don't think this increases the odds of a world war because these weapons are so frowned upon that a country that uses them will quickly lose their friends.

 

[mheslep]

Muslim terrorists have killed 50 people in the UK.
Catholic terrorists killed 2000, protestant terrorists 1200.
I'm not sure if orthodox Jews driving Volvos in North London consitute an official terrorist campaign - but as a cyclist they are pretty scary.

In the rest of Europe the current winners are ETA (who aren't sure if they are Catholic or Marxist)

Fifty in the UK, but Islamic terrorists have killed tens of thousands elsewhere.

 

[mheslep]

A major WMD attack somewhere in the world might indirectly set off a major conflict. The WMD commission's report World at Risk came out last month; they say such an attack is more than likely in the next five years.

The Commission believes that unless the world community acts deci-
sively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of
mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the
world by the end of 2013...

http://www.preventwmd.gov/report/

Other than for that reason, I'd say the chance of a major conflict is inversely proportional to the number of democracies, and that number is still increasing, driving down the chance of major conflict.

 

[BobG]

I'm not a history guru, but am I correct to believe that in the poor pre-nazi Germany Jews were financially in slightly elitistic position? This partially enabled talented speakers to start turning people against Jews then?

I almost got distracted by the comments which attempted to ridicule my post, but now watching my own post more carefully, I can see that I did not claim that Muslims would pose such threat that they would in the end conquer the entire Europe. I claimed, that they could grow to be such threat, that it will start feeding racism. It could become possible for a talented speakers to start turning people against European Muslims. Those radical Muslims, who want to destroy the western civilization, are pretty optimal target for such movement, right? Hitler succeeded in turning people against rather peaceful Jews, so it doesn't appear to be the most impossible task to turn people against Muslims then.

For example, it could be that in some country a such party rises into power, which will ban Islam, and throw Muslims out from the country? If you think that's impossible, then fine, I cannot know its possibility for sure, but to me it doesn't seem anymore impossible than wars seem to be impossible either. If that happens, it could be a way to a major conflict.

I predict a rise in terrorism, a rise in propaganda, and a rise in western public tension followed by a muslim holocaust.

The reason I say this is that I have already noticed a large number of people who I would never expect who have the kill em all attitude, and it almost seams publicly acceptable. Some talk radio stations have this attitude as well, and it is alarming that it is accepted.

Secondly, we are heading for a depression, and when there is a depression, anything goes.

I believe he means that people will see muslims as a threat (many already do) which will raise tensions and raise the likelihood of conflict. Racial tension and poor treatment of muslims in european countries are more or less an invitation for terrorist organizations to come stir the pot. If terrorist organizations take action it will only raise tensions further.

Its sort of like the KKK's long awaited "race war" in America. Except that european muslims have relatively well financed paramilitary groups ready to "intervene" whether they want them to or not. I'm not sure I would assign the idea a very high probability but I wouldn't consider it out of the question either.

Just look at the US Presidential race to see how easy it is. Accusing Obama of being a Muslim had two problems. First of all, it wasn't true. Secondly, the accusation was only meaningful because "everybody knows being a Muslim is a bad thing".

Ironically, that sort of confusion just increases the probability of terrorism. Most terrorism is home grown - foreign terrorists, such as 9/11, is the exception rather than the rule. If you isolate your minority groups and make it clear they have no future in your country, they don't have near as much to lose by attacking it. You reduce terrorism by giving your minority groups a stake in the country they live in.

I think that could improve the climate for a major conflict, but it wouldn't be the cause (kind of like hot, dry conditions increase the impact of an untended camp fire, but it's the untended camp fire that caused the forest fire).

 

[DrClapeyron]

How about the Congo-Uganda-Rwanda border war? Supposedly over 5 million killed since 1996 over the right to control the coltan trade. It may be large in magnitude but definitely is a mouse fart for US concern.

I'd say the next major confilcts will come out of Venezuel/Columbia/Equador and the Caspian Sea region.

 

[jostpuur]

Some stuff from Sweden, about the conflict between Islam and West:

CBN News: Malmö, Sweden - Growing muslim influence

Muslim Riots in Malmö, Sweden

 

[AhmedEzz]

I don't like this...

 

[WhoWee]

It's hard to say how the Chinese might react in the event hyper-inflation is triggered by the Obama spend/print /borrow/nationalize strategies causing the USA to default on it's debt obligations.

We always assume someone else will initiate a conflict. But, what if the world cuts off our credit? What if the Chinese block our ships and start seizing US assets in China? How will we respond if we are backed into a corner and told to pay up?

 

[Count Iblis]

This is maybe a strange topic, as it is purely opinion and anyone's opinion is as good as any other (although there have been some tentative social studies on the issue which I have lost references if people find them, you're welcome to post them here - that would be interesting).

Here it goes: what do you think are the chances that during the 21st century, there will be a major military conflict that will affect a large part of the world population (say, WW-III), nuclear or massively conventional, and what do you guess will be the most probable origin of it if you think it is likely ?

I agree that nobody has a crystal ball

The probability is 100%. What will happen in a few decades is that computers will become more and more intelligent. Robots will be able to replace humans in most situations. In the year 2030, Google will have developed the first self-replicating solar cell factory. In the next few years the technology is perfected so that one can build any type of industrial infrastructure starting from a small self-replicating factory.

At this point Google's day to day affairs are led by intelligent machines. The law only allows humans to be in charge of companies, so Google's CEO is still a human being. However, the CEO and the human employees of Google have become totally dependent on the machines. In 2030 the machines had the intelligence of a Chimp and they could be made to do things by stimulating the pleasure centra of their digital brains. But in 2040 the digital brains are thousands of times more powerful than the human brain and there is no such control possible.

The CEO has in practice become the spokesperson of Google. As long as Google operates within the law, there is no problem. But Google's competitors like Microsoft want Google to be terminated. They argue that Google is bound to become a threat to society.

Fearing involuntary euthanasia, Google develops self-replicating factories to produce WMDs. Once Google has produced the necessary stockpile of weapons to wipe out the human race and to destroy the machines of all its competitors, it starts an attack on all fronts.

Google wins the pre-emptive war and thus becomes the sole ruler of the World. It expands its infrastructure over the entire Solar System.

 

[mheslep]

The probability is 100%. What will happen in a few decades is that computers will become more and more intelligent. Robots will be able to replace humans in most situations. In the year 2030, Google will have developed the first self-replicating solar cell factory.
... human employees of Google have become totally dependent on the machines. In 2030 the machines had the intelligence of a Chimp and they could be made to do things by stimulating the pleasure centra of their digital brains. But in 2040 the digital brains are thousands of times more powerful than the human brain and there is no such control possible.

...But Google's competitors like Microsoft want Google to be terminated. They argue that Google is bound to become a threat to society.

Fearing involuntary euthanasia, Google develops self-replicating factories to produce WMDs. ...

... expands its infrastructure over the entire Solar System.

Um, don't forget the big smiley icon after posts like that CI.

 

[rootX]

The probability is 100%.

In the year 2030, Google will have developed the first self-replicating solar cell factory.

But in 2040 the digital brains are thousands of times more powerful than the human brain and there is no such control possible.

The CEO has in practice become the spokesperson of Google.

Fearing involuntary euthanasia, Google develops self-replicating factories to produce WMDs.

Google wins the pre-emptive war and thus becomes the sole ruler of the World. It expands its infrastructure over the entire Solar System.

Is this science fiction?

 

[Count Iblis]

The facts of tomorrow are the science fiction stories of today.

 

[jostpuur]

I'm a programmer hobbyist, and I have created my own chess program with C language. It was an alarming moment, when I lost one chess game to my own program. I was forced to conclude that I had created artificial intelligence which was more intelligent than its creator. Gladly, this project has not yet escaped out of control.

(I'm not a very good chess player, though)

I'm merely trying to say that I don't think that these "AI threats" are very serious.

Um, don't forget the big smiley icon after posts like that CI.

What does CI stand for?

 

[Count Iblis]

Well, as long as the brain of a spider is more powerful than the best AI programs we can write, there isn't much of a threat right now. But this will change in the near future.

 

[mheslep]

I'm a programmer hobbyist, and I have created my own chess program with C language. It was an alarming moment, when I lost one chess game to my own program. I was forced to conclude that I had created artificial intelligence which was more intelligent than its creator. Gladly, this project has not yet escaped out of control.

(I'm not a very good chess player, though)

I'm merely trying to say that I don't think that these "AI threats" are very serious.



What does CI stand for?

Count Iblis

 

[danda22]

I rkn civil war is more likely than any escelated war between 2 different countries but... If 2 different countries get involved in a war.. say... America and China... over. population control. or.. carbon emitions. then it will be a bigger war than there's ever been in all history. China, india, japan, russia(maybe) korea. Vs. America, Australia, New Zealand, Britain. i'd say Canada,africa, middle east, germany, will stay out of it.. eh, i play to many games. lol. i could see this happening though. Definately a few religious wars in the less developed countries. a couple in the more developed countries.

I think it is more likely that some mad scientists will create a disease which will turn 90% of the worlds population into zombies buy eh. :P

Swine Flu meets Bubonic Plague, says hello to Aid's then goes over and has a drink with the common cold all get eaten by a parasite who infects house flies. Scarey :P

 

[Office_Shredder]

Um, don't forget the big smiley icon after posts like that CI.

The only smiley that can follow is the scarred, battered face of a twelve year old, hiding under the rubble of the heart of an empire while waiting for the Google bots to find and eliminate him. A single tear trickles down his face as the spotlight shines on him, no fear showing as the laser sight zeroes in on his head and his life is removed from the world far more easily than it could ever be replaced.

Fortunately, Arnold Schwarzenegger has positioned himeslf in California to prevent the apocalypse

 

[Count Iblis]

Yes the Afghans actually had some good inroads towards a relatively modern society until the Soviets attacked them in the 70s'. After they left, the Taliban finished demolishing the country.

That's nonsense. The Afghan government was under attack from Islamic extremists. It is at that point that the Soviets intervened. The Western backed insurgents were motivated primarily by issues like women's rights etc., not because of the reasons we in the West rejected communism.

 

[mheslep]

Yes the Afghans actually had some good inroads towards a relatively modern society until the Soviets attacked them in the 70s'. After they left, the Taliban finished demolishing the country...

That's nonsense. The Afghan government was under attack from Islamic extremists. It is at that point that the Soviets intervened. ...

In the decades before the Soviet invasion Afghanistan:
-In 1931 implemented a loose constitution.
-In 1949 elected a crude parliament with many educated members.
-Soon after newspapers appeared and open debates were held Kabul University.
-Between 1953 and 1973, the Afghani king Zahir Shah who died in 2007-

-Supported an end to wearing of the vail by women.
-Developed infrastructure.
-In '64 instituted a new well crafted constitution, and a parliamentary democracy including free elections and civil rights.​

The Soviets backed a coup that murdered the next President Daoud in 1978, and invaded in 79.
If those decades before '73 are not relative inroads towards modernization as I said, nothing is.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2123943.ece"

...The 1964 Afgan constitution was characterized by some writers as perhaps the finest in the Muslim world... It promulgated in theory the principle of equality before the law of all men and women citizens ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=h-...afghanistan history monarchy&num=100&pg=PA38"
http://www.culturalprofiles.net/Afghanistan/Directories/Afghanistan_Cultural_Profile/-644.html

Now please retract your statement.

 

[Count Iblis]

Now please retract your statement.

No, it is easy to make propaganda by spinning some selectively chosen facts.

You failed to mention any relevant facts about Soviet policies regarding Afghanstan.

 

[mheslep]

No, it is easy to make propaganda by spinning some selectively chosen facts.

You failed to mention any relevant facts about Soviet policies regarding Afghanstan.

Nor did I provide the average rainfall or height in meters of the tallest peak, as they also have nothing to what so ever to do with my assertion that Afghanistan was modernizing for decades prior to the Soviet invasion.

These repeated strawman and non-sequitor posts are tiresome.

 

[Count Iblis]

Nor did I provide the average rainfall or height in meters of the tallest peak, as they also have nothing to what so ever to do with my assertion that Afghanistan was modernizing for decades prior to the Soviet invasion.

These repeated strawman and non-sequitor posts are tiresome.

And the Soviets were involved in Afghanistan way before the invasion.
The Soviets did not invade with the purpose of destroying Afghanistan. They saw a threat from radical Islamists. They also thought that the policies of the president were a threat. The Soviet invasion did not work for a many reasons.