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

  • Thread starter Thread starter vanesch
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Major
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the likelihood of a major military conflict in the 21st century, particularly World War III, and its potential origins. Participants express skepticism about the probability of a large-scale war between major powers due to economic globalization and interdependence, while acknowledging the risk of local conflicts escalating into broader violence. Concerns are raised about the ongoing tensions between nuclear-armed nations like India and Pakistan, as well as the socio-economic divides that could lead to unrest. The impact of religious extremism and the potential for terrorism are also highlighted as significant threats. Overall, while a major conflict seems unlikely in the near future, the evolving geopolitical landscape could change perceptions and realities by 2100.
  • #51
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.

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

What does CI stand for?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
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.
 
  • #53
jostpuur said:
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
 
  • #54
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
 
  • #55
mheslep said:
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
 
  • #56
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.
 
  • #57
mheslep said:
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...

Count Iblis said:
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"
Afghanistan By Angelo Rasanayagam said:
...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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
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.
 
  • #59
Count Iblis said:
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.
 
  • #60
mheslep said:
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.
 
  • #61
Count Iblis said:
And the Soviets were involved in Afghanistan way before the invasion.
So what?
Count Iblis said:
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.
Most of that is false, but even if all true so what? The topic at the moment is the historical fact that Afghanistan was in many ways a modernizing country prior to the Soviet invasion, and that the Soviets did great damage to the country upon invasion. You called that nonsense.
 
  • #62
Most of that is false, but even if all true so what? The topic at the moment is the historical fact that Afghanistan was in many ways a modernizing country prior to the Soviet invasion, and that the Soviets did great damage to the country upon invasion. You called that nonsense.

It is not false at all, but to see that you may have to ditch some biased US sources. The Soviet invasion did end up doing a lot of damage, but the reason for that had a lot to do with the Western support for Islamic extremists in that country (the so-called "freedom fighters").

You quoted some examples of positive developments in Afghanistan, but you left out some crucial facts about Ismalic extremists gaining power. You cannot have a modern democratic society, if some (small) fraction of the population does not want it and is prepaired to use violence. These forces were present in Afghanistan and they were even seen to be a threat to the Soviet backed governments and to some republics of the Soviet Union.
 
  • #63
Count Iblis said:
It is not false at all, but to see that you may have to ditch some biased US sources. The Soviet invasion did end up doing a lot of damage, but the reason for that had a lot to do with the Western support for Islamic extremists in that country (the so-called "freedom fighters").

You quoted some examples of positive developments in Afghanistan, but you left out some crucial facts about Ismalic extremists gaining power. You cannot have a modern democratic society, if some (small) fraction of the population does not want it and is prepaired to use violence. These forces were present in Afghanistan and they were even seen to be a threat to the Soviet backed governments and to some republics of the Soviet Union.
Enough.
 
  • #64
Locked.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
31
Views
9K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
97
Views
15K
Replies
49
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top