Major conflict in 21st century ?

  • News
  • Thread starter vanesch
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Major
In summary: I think that there is a lot of Muslim conflict in Europe, as they don't seem to be adapting to the new way of life.
  • #1
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,117
20
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 :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I have several. It's just that they don't do anything.

There are about 90 years before us, with many countries having access to nuclear weapons and a total paradigm shift of what "terrorism" is. Yeah, suicide bombers and Kamikaze pilots existed before, but this kind of shows how far some people are willing to take it. The idea that someone will piss someone else off and the back-and-forth starts to escalate until nobody can step in and stop it is reasonable. Look at the Mumbai thing. It's already creating a lot more tension between Pakistan and India. How much longer before they start slaughtering each other?

I don't remember a 1st world country being at the receiving end of a conflict in a long time. There is no telling what would happen if two 1st or 2nd world countries started war with each other.
 
  • #3
There is virtually no chance of a war between major world powers. Iraq, 1991, is about as big as conventional war can get.
 
  • #4
Apart from the climate war, no indeed. The difference with WO-II is economic globalization. In the old days economies were closed entities within one state or a few states, battling for the better piece of the cake. Nowadays it's unthinkable that General Motors Hongkong finds itself to be in war with General Motors Adelaide or something likewise.
 
  • #5
We're talking about a hundred years here... A lot can happen between now and 2100. So I wouldn't say the chances are "virtually zero".
 
  • #6
russ_watters said:
There is virtually no chance of a war between major world powers.

At the moment. 90 years is a plenty of time. But I agree that it is unlikely that anything (in terms of major powers being involved) will happen in the near future. In 2030 situation may look different, shift happens.

There is plenty of local conflicts that can end in local conventional wars, but they will be just local.

I think there is a huge conflict between poor and rich. This one is unlikely to end with war as the poor don't have means to attack the rich - unless we are talking about terrorist attacks. These are hard to classify as conventional war, but this is kind of a war. (Poor and rich is kind of a generalization - some parts of this conflict may have ideological roots, some can be attributed to faith, nationalism - but to some extent these are all flavors of the same problem; make them fat and they will calm down).

Conflict that I am most afraid of is the one between India and Pakistan, both sides have nuclear weapons, and with events like Mombai attack situation is not going to get better anytime soon.

Edit: tchitt beat me and posted similar comments. That's what happens when you start composing a post and then unexpectedly you have to do something else for half an hour.
 
  • #7
Andre said:
Apart from the climate war, no indeed. The difference with WO-II is economic globalization. In the old days economies were closed entities within one state or a few states, battling for the better piece of the cake. Nowadays it's unthinkable that General Motors Hongkong finds itself to be in war with General Motors Adelaide or something likewise.

Still, there is place for conflict between - say - Gasprom and Shell or ExxonMobil (I can be completely off in my selection of names, but you hopefully should be able to get the general idea).
 
  • #8
Nowadays it's unthinkable that General Motors
Bad example especially from 1939-1941 !

I think Borek is closer to the mark. Instead of the USA and Russia going to war over oil in the middle east we will just cut out the middle man and have Gasprom and Shell going to war. Since with companies like Blackhawk we have privatised most of the war anyway.
Now the corporations can just hire their own 'security consultants' and leave the politicians out of it.
 
  • #9
Europe vs. Middle East?

Out of time: Radical Islam Taking Over Europe & West

Radical Muslims In Britain Part 1/5

What Muslims Want? (ISLAM EXPOSED)

...
...
...

There are lot of Muslims in Europe, who fail to adapt to the western society, so to speak, and keep seeing the western way of life as evil, and something that should be destroyed. If Europe fails to make them adapt, which may be likely, because the task may be too difficult and may require more understanding about evolution of cultures than we have, and if Europe also fails to shut the doors to East, which may be likely too, because all critique of multiculturalism can be seen as condemnable racism, it could be that at some point "the Muslim problem" grows beyond the critical value in the Europe, and results in dramatic rise of racism and nationalism.

Could this lead to civil wars in some European countries, or possibly wars between European and Middle East countries too, if Islamic countries start protecting their ethnic minorities in the West?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10


jostpuur said:
Could this lead to civil wars in some European countries, or possibly wars between European and Middle East countries too, if Islamic countries start protecting their ethnic minorities in the West?
No it will be OK. Because all Chinese restaurants have scores of Chinese army hidden in the basements as part of plot to take over the world. Add in all the unions, anti-nuclear and environmental campaigners, who are all KGB agents remember, and there are more than enough highly trained heavily armed atheists to defeat them.
 
  • #11
We already know that small groups of radical Muslims can be a serious threat (suicide bombings and all that). It is careless to believe that large masses in Europe would remain harmless.
 
  • #12
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)
 
  • #13
Anyway, Vanesch, if you want the informed opinion about the chances of an all out war, perhaps check out the publications of one of my teachers, Dutch Prof Rob de Wijk

http://www.twq.com/04winter/docs/04winter_dewijk.pdf [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
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.
 
  • #15
Well, Hitler was trying to conquer all of europe. Invading countries left and right. I don't think the world would've cared much if he was throwing out all of the Jews in Germany.

Ethnic cleansing has happened since but the sky didn't fall.
 
  • #16
jostpuur said:
It is careless to believe that large masses in Europe would remain harmless.
But it's also careless to associate any Muslim as a potential radical out there to kill people. If we do, then couldn't the same be said about other religions?
 
  • #17
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.
 
  • #18
there is too much hydrocarbon within reach of russia, china, europe, and the usa for there not to be a chance of a major conflict. i think the recent russian stomping of georgia is just a taste of the things to come.
 
  • #19
jostpuur said:
We already know that small groups of radical Muslims can be a serious threat (suicide bombings and all that). It is careless to believe that large masses in Europe would remain harmless.
But a major conflict is a long shot. As we saw with Afghanistan, the Taliban didn't embrace technology and other advancements. Any major conflicts would necessarily be indirectly associated.
 
  • #20
jostpuur said:
We already know that small groups of radical Muslims can be a serious threat (suicide bombings and all that). It is careless to believe that large masses in Europe would remain harmless.
We already know that a small number of catholics can be a serious threat (car bombings and all that ). It is careless to believe that the large masses in Boston or New York could remain harmless.
 
  • #21
russ_watters said:
There is virtually no chance of a war between major world powers. Iraq, 1991, is about as big as conventional war can get.


True, it is highly unlikely the US and Russia and/or China would go slugging it out in a nuke fight, however that being said there is still a belt of instability from Morocco to Pakistan full of failed states with failed economies. Combining this with religious extremism (which was pushed in large part by Saudi funded maddrassas using our own petro dollars) and rapid population growth that is a recipe for trouble. If any conflicts come it will be between nations that have, by and large, chose the path of modernity (US, Russia, China, EU) and those that didn't (mostly islamic states). That's my theory anyway.
 
  • #22
aquitaine said:
True, it is highly unlikely the US and Russia and/or China would go slugging it out in a nuke fight, however that being said there is still a belt of instability from Morocco to Pakistan full of failed states with failed economies. Combining this with religious extremism (which was pushed in large part by Saudi funded maddrassas using our own petro dollars) and rapid population growth that is a recipe for trouble. If any conflicts come it will be between nations that have, by and large, chose the path of modernity (US, Russia, China, EU) and those that didn't (mostly islamic states). That's my theory anyway.
A conventional war is not nuclear.
 
  • #23
Muslim vs Christian (non-muslim) discord has been around since the two cultures first bumped into each other. It's all just background noise really. It fills in the gaps until something important comes along.

The next major conflict will start like all it's predecessors. Nations will group together in alliances and as these greater bodies absorb more of the self-interests of their members, eventually they will fall foul of the the interests of a member of a rival bloc and so once again a small spark will lead to a huge conflagration as it has all through history. I'm sure every generation has said 'but we're different now' only to end up traveling the same well beaten path to war.
 
  • #24
I'm not worried about China declaring war on Germany or something like that, I'm worried about an incident like Pakistan all out attacking India or vice versa sparking a bigger conflict when people start to take sides.
 
  • #25
noumed said:
But it's also careless to associate any Muslim as a potential radical out there to kill people. If we do, then couldn't the same be said about other religions?

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.
 
  • #26
Art said:
The next major conflict will start like all it's predecessors. Nations will group together in alliances and as these greater bodies absorb more of the self-interests of their members, eventually they will fall foul of the the interests of a member of a rival bloc and so once again a small spark will lead to a huge conflagration as it has all through history. I'm sure every generation has said 'but we're different now' only to end up traveling the same well beaten path to war.

Can anyone spot the Realist? :cool:
 
  • #27
A conventional war is not nuclear.

A conventional war between two or more nuclear armed states won't remain conventional for too long.

Muslim vs Christian (non-muslim) discord has been around since the two cultures first bumped into each other. It's all just background noise really. It fills in the gaps until something important comes along.

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.
 
  • #28
A major conflict isn't going to happen. Even though the number of people engaged in killing each other throughout the world will steadily increase, there will also be a steady increase in the development and deployment of technologies and infrastructures that use the vast renewable wind, sunlight, and water resources of the Earth rather than fossil fuels. The major players (US, China, Western Europe, Russia and India) each have enough real estate, scientists, highly skilled workers, etc., etc. to make it happen.

When true fossil fuel independence is achieved, then stability in the Middle East will no longer be a primary concern -- though it will still be closely monitored to minimize the nuclear capabilities of groups of people who might carry a grudge against the West. Israel will be forced by the major players into a solution of their problem with the Palestinians that will greatly improve the situation of Palestinians -- and help to lessen any sort of organized militant Islamic threat.

The exploitation of the relatively poor and unskilled will continue of course, but this steadily ( slowly) increasing percentage of the population will have no means to initiate or engage in any sort of major conflict -- and a truly global economy, and cheap energy, and the building and maintaining of vast new infrastructures will actually improve the situation for a large percentage of the world's population.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
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.
 
  • #30
tchitt said:
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.
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).
 
  • #31
ThomasT said:
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.
 
  • #32
tchitt said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
russ_watters said:
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
tchitt said:
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.
 
  • #35
tchitt said:
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.
 
<h2>1. What are the main causes of major conflicts in the 21st century?</h2><p>The main causes of major conflicts in the 21st century include economic disparities, political ideologies, religious differences, territorial disputes, and access to resources. These factors can lead to tension and ultimately escalate into conflicts.</p><h2>2. How has technology played a role in major conflicts in the 21st century?</h2><p>Technology has played a significant role in major conflicts in the 21st century. Advancements in weapons and communication technology have made it easier for conflicts to escalate and for groups to spread their message and recruit members. However, technology has also been used for peacekeeping efforts and to gather evidence and information for conflict resolution.</p><h2>3. What impact do major conflicts have on global stability?</h2><p>Major conflicts can have a significant impact on global stability. They can disrupt economic systems, cause displacement of populations, and lead to political instability. Conflicts can also have a ripple effect, affecting neighboring countries and potentially leading to larger regional conflicts.</p><h2>4. How have international organizations and agreements addressed major conflicts in the 21st century?</h2><p>International organizations, such as the United Nations, have played a crucial role in addressing major conflicts in the 21st century. They have implemented peacekeeping missions, provided aid to affected areas, and facilitated negotiations and agreements between conflicting parties. International agreements, such as the Geneva Conventions, have also set standards for the treatment of individuals during conflicts.</p><h2>5. What are some potential solutions to major conflicts in the 21st century?</h2><p>Potential solutions to major conflicts in the 21st century include diplomatic negotiations, mediation by neutral parties, and international interventions. Other approaches may include addressing underlying causes of conflicts, such as economic disparities and resource access, and promoting cultural understanding and tolerance. Ultimately, a combination of strategies may be necessary to effectively resolve major conflicts in the 21st century.</p>

1. What are the main causes of major conflicts in the 21st century?

The main causes of major conflicts in the 21st century include economic disparities, political ideologies, religious differences, territorial disputes, and access to resources. These factors can lead to tension and ultimately escalate into conflicts.

2. How has technology played a role in major conflicts in the 21st century?

Technology has played a significant role in major conflicts in the 21st century. Advancements in weapons and communication technology have made it easier for conflicts to escalate and for groups to spread their message and recruit members. However, technology has also been used for peacekeeping efforts and to gather evidence and information for conflict resolution.

3. What impact do major conflicts have on global stability?

Major conflicts can have a significant impact on global stability. They can disrupt economic systems, cause displacement of populations, and lead to political instability. Conflicts can also have a ripple effect, affecting neighboring countries and potentially leading to larger regional conflicts.

4. How have international organizations and agreements addressed major conflicts in the 21st century?

International organizations, such as the United Nations, have played a crucial role in addressing major conflicts in the 21st century. They have implemented peacekeeping missions, provided aid to affected areas, and facilitated negotiations and agreements between conflicting parties. International agreements, such as the Geneva Conventions, have also set standards for the treatment of individuals during conflicts.

5. What are some potential solutions to major conflicts in the 21st century?

Potential solutions to major conflicts in the 21st century include diplomatic negotiations, mediation by neutral parties, and international interventions. Other approaches may include addressing underlying causes of conflicts, such as economic disparities and resource access, and promoting cultural understanding and tolerance. Ultimately, a combination of strategies may be necessary to effectively resolve major conflicts in the 21st century.

Similar threads

Replies
36
Views
12K
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
932
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
40
Views
13K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top