Who would win the third world war?

[noname223]

Some people in this forum said there is already world war 3 happening in Ukraine. Personally I doubt that. It is a proxy war, no world war. Otherwise Vietnam or Korea war would have also been a world war.

Probably noone would win. Due to the fact the superpowers have nukes. When one superpower is about to lose they will use nukes. There are some scenarios I have read: there are some strategies to nuke first and to destroy the enemies opportunity to retaliate. It would be a huge gamble.

I rather think world war 3 will likely happen unintentionally. I doubt one superpower will say: okay lets start WW3.
The leaders also will know yeah we will probably die because of it.
The time when we were closest was during the Cuba missle crisis. Like a technological error almost led to starting the nukes. The more nukes there are the more likely it is that such an accident will happen. And in the future more and more weapons will be used by AI.

Maybe maggots will be the winner and other vermits which can survive under the worst circumstances. There will probably be no human that could be called winner.

 

[Sans]

If it goes nuclear, everyone loses. That may not be a bad thing though, a nuclear war may be the reset button this planet needs.

If it doesn't go nuclear, I hope America loses. This "country" has fucked my life for two decades, I could stand to benefit from living under a less oppressive government.

 

[veryhappyhuman]

If it goes nuclear, everyone loses. That may not be a bad thing though, a nuclear war may be the reset button this planet needs.

If it doesn't go nuclear, I hope America loses. This "country" has fucked my life for two decades, I could stand to benefit from living under a less oppressive government.

I don't think there is a good track record for leaders who gain power after a country gets defeated in war. The guy who's able to ascend to power in that situation would typically be a strongman type, and democratic principles would become an afterthought compared to restoring order in a ravaged country full of angry people. Imagine that happening to a great world power like US. I think the world would be done for at that point.

 

[want2dienow]

Tochi Empire.

 

[JealousOfTheElderly]

China would win

 

[TLEEA]

Probably the northern parts of the EU and some southern developing countries? I'm gauging this on the fact that nuclear escalation is very likely between Russia and the EU, China and the US over some parts near Taiwan, and India and Pakistan. Small-scale nuclear conflicts will cripple these countries, breaking apart the international order. Those countries I mentioned might be self-sufficient without industrial giants, so they'd probably win in the long-term, I guess.

 

[Catloaf]

Cockroaches

 

[lionetta12]

Some people in this forum said there is already world war 3 happening in Ukraine. Personally I doubt that. It is a proxy war, no world war. Otherwise Vietnam or Korea war would have also been a world war.

Probably noone would win. Due to the fact the superpowers have nukes. When one superpower is about to lose they will use nukes. There are some scenarios I have read: there are some strategies to nuke first and to destroy the enemies opportunity to retaliate. It would be a huge gamble.

I rather think world war 3 will likely happen unintentionally. I doubt one superpower will say: okay lets start WW3.
The leaders also will know yeah we will probably die because of it.
The time when we were closest was during the Cuba missle crisis. Like a technological error almost led to starting the nukes. The more nukes there are the more likely it is that such an accident will happen. And in the future more and more weapons will be used by AI.

Maybe maggots will be the winner and other vermits which can survive under the worst circumstances. There will probably be no human that could be called winner.

Considering how things are right now, China would probably win.

 

[Angi]

Probably noone would win.
[...]
Maybe maggots will be the winner and other vermits which can survive under the worst circumstances. There will probably be no human that could be called winner.

This. Nobody ever wins a war, there is just someone who lost less, usually.

If the war is big enough and wipes out humanity, though, some other species might win, because we are no longer around to fuck with its ecological niche.

 

[sewercide]

Aliens, they orchestrated the whole thing as entertainment. True story.

 

[sserafim]

Some people in this forum said there is already world war 3 happening in Ukraine. Personally I doubt that. It is a proxy war, no world war. Otherwise Vietnam or Korea war would have also been a world war.

Probably noone would win. Due to the fact the superpowers have nukes. When one superpower is about to lose they will use nukes. There are some scenarios I have read: there are some strategies to nuke first and to destroy the enemies opportunity to retaliate. It would be a huge gamble.

I rather think world war 3 will likely happen unintentionally. I doubt one superpower will say: okay lets start WW3.
The leaders also will know yeah we will probably die because of it.
The time when we were closest was during the Cuba missle crisis. Like a technological error almost led to starting the nukes. The more nukes there are the more likely it is that such an accident will happen. And in the future more and more weapons will be used by AI.

Maybe maggots will be the winner and other vermits which can survive under the worst circumstances. There will probably be no human that could be called winner.

WW3 will probably be between the US/the West and the new Axis of China, Russia, and Iran. I think the US will probably win because of its military power and capabilities.

 

[Kattt]

All the usual death merchants like Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon technologies, Norinco and AVIC to mention a few

 

[Bodydysmorphia34]

No one would win a third world war because nuclear weapons would effectively end civilization.

Or maybe some countries not involved in the conflict that are far off would be spared like New Zealand or some other island states. If WWR3 was to break out, it would likely be between NATO and China/Russia, so basically all relevant military powers in the world. This could potentially trigger other conflicts like North vs South Korea, war in the Middle East & Africa, maybe some countries would join alliances (like Japan, Australia supporting NATO and other Asian countries joining China/Russia).

 

[DarkRange55]

• It is likely that we have hit a point where a true force on force war is extremely unlikely to happen due to things like global economy, increased lethality of every system, our technological advances, nukes, and more. Means it is likely that insurgents and asymmetric forces are our biggest enemy, but we still have to have a military large enough and ready to deal with a conventional force due to military industrial complex the off chance Russia, China, or anyone else goes crazy.
• For WWIII to happen, NATO would have to some how break up along with the UN Security council. And I just don't see that happening. Given that NATO has a monopoly on military power, any conflict would be stopped before escalating to full blown World War. NATO has a monopoly on military power in Western Europe. Only the US has any realistic reach into Asia. Pax is a state of peace that occurs when one power holds an overwhelming military force. Examples of Pax are the Pax Romana (27 BC to 180 AD) or Pax Britannica (1815–1914 AD). When one global military exists, it is easy for people to conduct trade safely, and for people to go about their business as normal. For a good portion of the world, there is no need for the people to worry about protection from foreign invasion or from injury from violent internal conflict. Yes, there are areas in which violence occurs, but nothing compared to what would happen if people were invading left and right. The world is in a state as close to perfect as it is going to get. We are currently in a state of Pax Americana. We aren't seeing another world war for a while.
• There is something called, "The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" which was based on the observation that "No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's" and Friedman's point is that due to globalization, countries that have made strong economic ties with one another have too much to lose to ever go to war with one another. There have been a few minor counter examples since this theory was proposed, but I think the underlying justification and logic still holds.
  • WW3: I'd say it's not only possible, over the span of the next century, it's very likely. Nuclear war before 2100 is a very real possibility because of the oil crisis and the stock market crash that will happen
  • Just before World War 1, the common rhetoric among everyone was that the telegraph, the huge surge in global travel, trade and commerce, and the rise of Enlightenment philosophy had made Western civilization was too interconnected and trade too vital that the world could never be at war on such a massive scale, the Napoleonic Wars could never happen again. Everyone was linked together and it was in the sovereigns best interest to not go to war because they were making too much profit. When World War 1 broke out, and turned out to be much more deadly than the Napoleonic Wars, there were a lot of economists and intellectuals who were shocked. And "they were mistaken back then, but now it really is true" is not much of a counterargument.
  • - After World War 1, there was a great deal of effort put into ensuring that it would never happen again. The League of Nations was founded for that purpose, Germany was disarmed and closely monitored, and there was a belief in places like Great Britain and America that the absolute horror of WWI had made it a "war to end all wars". Of course, the restrictions on Germany backfired, the Nazis used the horror of WWI to fuel more violence by scapegoating the Jewish community, and we had WWII.
  • - If economic interdependence and nukes can fail to prevent war individually, they can be fail to prevent war together as well. The argument that combining interdependence and nuclear weapons will create a uniquely powerful combined incentive for peace is flawed. You're assuming (tacitly or otherwise) that these two major factors feed into each other, when in reality they exist in two separate spheres. It's not like adding nuclear weapons to the mix affects the absolute economic gains and mutual incentives of peace, and it's not like increased economic interdependence actually changes the nature of the security dilemma, which is defined in terms of military capabilities possessed by sovereign actors in an anarchic international system. If nukes don't cure the security dilemma (they don't seem to) and economic interdependence doesn't negate the importance of relative gains and subjective security interests (it doesn't seem to), then there's nothing that really proves that combining them will be able to prevent war better than either one has been able to individually. The point regarding the ambiguous and inter tangled alliance structure that exists today is an interesting one. However, the ambiguity and overlap present in the alliance structure of the international system is not a good thing necessarily. There's a prominent school of neo-realist thought that argues that the bipolarity of the two-bloc cold-war system actually contributed to peace and stability, and that the complex and intertangled European alliance system prior to WWI created conditions permissive for war.
  • - The same power structures and incentives are still in place.
  • People have been proclaiming "The End of War" for centuries, based on the idea that states will act "rationally".
  • My current thinking is that we are in a period comparable to the 1860s in Europe, shortly before the Franco-Prussian War. There is a lot of tension, and the preeminent power (France/USA) is still seen as powerful, but the rising powers (Germany and Italy/China) are putting new pressures on the overall framework of the region. There's a flavor of the 1890s, as well, with its foreign adventurism (The Scramble for Africa didn't start until the 1880s!) and the self-recriminations of the Third Republic of France (because of the failures in the FP War and the Dreyfus Affair), mixed with the greying of that republic and the failure to progress compared to the other European countries in the Second Industrial Revolution. They even had to deal with international terrorism in a form that supported violence (bombings and killing national leaders) and whose advocates could self-radicalize outside of established networks (Anarchists!) If there is a shift in power, like the FP War, it would rebalance things rather than rearrange them. France was at the end of the one of the greatest periods of culture and power that they have lived through, lead by a somewhat competent, somewhat stupid man in Napoleon III. Germany was under the expert control of Bismark, which helped create tensions but also knew how to relieve them as needed; WW1 didn't start until after Bismark left the government. It was the knife's edge of brinksmanship, but they didn't fall off. I think we're looking at something similar, where the rising powers are in a position to make small gains without repercussion, just as Russia was able to invade Crimea and the Donblas region, China (and Vietnam) extend their positions in the South China Sea, the various players in the Middle East make their moves (Iran into Iraq; Saudi Arabia against Qatar), but we don't have the tangle of commitments in unstable regions that we saw prior to WW1, and while the leadership of most of these countries cannot be compared with Bismark, none of them can exactly be compared to Wilhelm II, either.
  • how unstable is the current world order, and is that instability likely to grow or fade?
• This is an interesting question. I would argue that its current level of instability is moderate, but not critical. However, I think it will become critical in due time. The unipolar nature of the balance of power is inherently unstable and forces other powers to balance against. Predictions are generally more foolish the more precise you make them, but we can make some general predictions that can help us gauge future instability.
  1. China has three main avenues to pursue in the next century: stagnation, regress, or progress. Each presents its own challenges to stability in the world order. Stagnation can abate fears abroad but pressurize them at home. Economic strife can arise out of mere stagnation if well-being is tied to growth (which it is, in many cases). But stagnation need not produce stress levels that alter global stability. Japan is a great example of that. Its stagnation was managed as well as one might expect. Regress obviously would exacerbate domestic problems and would likely be a result of domestic problems going unsolved. If the Chinese slump backwards, the gains they have made will be circled by geopolitical vultures. The US would likely toy with the possibility to reasserting itself in the region. States like Japan and others may seek to carve out their own spheres in the region. Progress would further heighten tensions between Beijing and Washington as control over East Asia becomes more intensely an issue that cannot be ignored. All three options present global challenges to stability.
  2. Europe may further unify or it may bid fare-thee-well to its grand experiment. I do not think it is worth while to debate which is more likely, but the status quo is not really sustainable, imo. Further centralization would likely include some degree of military centralization. This could change the dynamic of NATO both within itself and abroad. The unification of Germany was a major destabilizer in 19th Century Europe, and a European unification would likely be sufficiently destabilizing as well. This would put states like Russia and China is a position of peer status with Europe in military terms. European disintegration presents stability concerns as well. If the EU fails and is curtailed or abolished, power politics will almost certainly return to the continent. To what extent that would threaten the European (and by extension, the global) economy is uncertain, but I think we can all appreciate the claim that a stable Europe is in the interest of everyone.
  3. The United States can choose to continue its role in world affairs and seek to limit challengers, or it can take a step back and allow, encourage, or hope another power takes over. American restraint would likely embolden others to take action where they otherwise might not, and it may hasten the onset of a multipolar order, one that is unstable as well. Continuing its current role, the US could affect the timing of other events like EU unification or Chinese forward strategy or Russian aggression. If the US were to continue its roll, current tensions would only heighten. These are just a few scenarios painted in broad brushstrokes. But I think it is fair to say that instability is likely to increase in time. Right now I think we are in the 4-6/10 range of stability.
  4. There are a lot of creeping issues that are slowly transforming our current world beneath our feet. Some of the major issues right now are: the digital and especially the mobile digital revolution, which is making computer power and Internet connectivity available to large rural sections of developing countries; the current lack of clear prosperity granted by the democracy/ capitalist model, especially in the forms championed by the United States; the United States beginning one of its cyclical periods of pulling back from direct involvement in international leadership; the greying of many of the biggest economies in the world (esp Japan/ US/ Europe), which cuts into the available workforce and redirects large chunks of the economy; the encroaching effects of climate change. Many of these are likely to help transform the world we're living in at various points in the next 20 years, but it's hard to say how much they form a present danger. Overall, about 5/10.
  5. I think that the current circumstance is comparable to pre-World War I, when Britain was feeling pressured to contain the growing German industrial economy and was trying to prevent European mainland unification (by doing things like undercover blocking of Germany's railway building).I would say that today, USA is Britain, China is Germany, and the Eurasian landmass is the European mainland. There are more flashpoints and destabilizing points now than there were any time since the end of the Soviet Union
• There are probably others that I am listing above. The prime mover here is how the United States reacts to the breakdown of Pax Americana. There are several reasons why I think the United States will only be able to engage in limited security competition with China/Russia (as opposed to full out war) in the form of covert action and containing (through arming rivals and competing for influence):
  • Obviously the nuclear disincentive
  • The United States would have limited support in creating an image of legitimacy behind any major conflict with large powers (China/Russia). Every conflict since Vietnam has been met with wide resistance, and guiding public opinion now is the hardest it has been due to the internet. I think the world is simply going to become more multipolar in the medium term (10-20 years), but there is still plenty of room for economic growth to discourage major war. Long term (50-100 years), I am very pessimistic about humanity's ability to not drive itself into extinction, as growing population and resource strains will inevitably lead to conflict that could easily lead to a nuclear dark age. I'd give today a 6/10 for instability.
  • I think it would most likely start over a resource grab - either over the range of valuable ores/minerals or fresh water that are starting to become accessible in the arctic circle thanks to permafrost getting yeeted in the course of global warming....or the metric fuckton of crude in veneuzela. Possibly a bunch of African countries due to the growing demand on lithium, cobalt (all the big raw materials for battery tech). A lot of it will probably be proxy wars (i.e funding of local extremist groups from the three largest players: US, RUS, CHN) although for an Arctic circle conflict - thats probably going to be more reliant on large naval resources more than anything else.
  • India and China start by fighting over their Himalayan border. Iran and Pakistan side with China. America and NATO side with India. Russia has a choice. They're allies with both India and China - no telling. I have a hunch they would side with NATO and India since that would possibly be the winning side but again it isn't a certainty. North Korea sides with China. China would probably end up getting blown to bits by nukes and India would face a lot of damage as well.
  • Most likely a small country with strong allies being attacked by a neighbouring country, with hopes to expand and create wealth. It will start a chain reaction, until two major players get involved, one on each side. Probably something like China and the US, in the future when the USA has lost its status as the only superpower. It will become mostly politics, in which the public will obey due to the hopes of getting out of their current poverty/poor quality of life. That said, with technology as advanced as it is now, it's hard to say how it would end. Nukes exist, so the next world war would make a visible dent on the earth. It's pretty scary to think about.
  • I'm not seeing much consideration of apolitical (or not-inherently-political) factors in these answers. I think that's a major error; not to say that things are more dire than they're being made out, because we could well find solutions to these issues, but thinking about geopolitics entirely within the realm of... well, world politics, is a very dangerous gaff lacking in interdisciplinary context. A quick and easy example: we know that irreversible climate change will alter conditions in certain areas such that ways-of-life in those locales will be forced to adapt or suffer. Most likely this will incite violence and instability in those regions, as we see occurring in tandem with rising heat and lowered resource availability even in first-world countries. One could call that a regional issue that might not have tremendous effect on 'world order' in that the major powers, excepting Europe, can largely push those ramifications to the side. However, we have a few other issues that I think demand contention. Late-stage capitalism is a fairly clear example. Capitalism as constructed requires a constant acceleration of growth; we can continue to inflate economies and push that growth into the third world in the form of free trade zones and other imperialist proxies, but eventually we'll either run against hard resource, environmental or political boundaries that will demand a deceleration that the current system is not prepared for. Can we reasonably predict that our societies will handle this problem before it becomes a geopolitical issue? This is already too long for a criticism so I won't go into more detail, but at the least I think we need to be looking at issues like environment, technology, economy (in the abstract), rate-of-growth in general (i.e. exponential growth as applied across all fields), population growth, and distribution of power in addition to simply extrapolating upon current international political tensions.
  • Main world conflicts have and will continue to start in Europe, and the stability and the balance of European powers will be the main factors in avoiding a new World War.
  • War will be fought not on the battlefield but one of intellectual space. Our leaders will converse on behalf of the population to achieve singularity on rising issues.
• Just kidding, we will send the poor (not white) people to die for the needs of the rich.
  • Proxy wars might be the status quo, but direct war seems obsolete to me. I think for a war now to reach a global level, it would have to be largely financially based (and we may be in one now). Management of markets and trade embargoes would lead to internal conflicts within governments that would extend across borders. It's not a war in the traditional sense, but I think it could still be considered a war. I'm doubtful of the utilitarian value of detonating a nuke during a proxy war. I believe in terms of military value there's more useful tactical weapons which also have less fallout..
• - Economic sanctions and cyber warfare. Tariffs and trade sanctions. Look at the headlines and you'd swear we were already at war, wouldn't you? ;-)
  
  - A hybrid warfare scenario such as cyperattacks, influence OPs, and/ or wagner/little green men is more likely with russia vs nato than outright hostilities. you could box that into state sponsored terrorism IMO...
  
  - WW3 has already begun: Cyber-warfare. Cyber terrorists hack into New York City's power mainframe. The largest city in America suddenly loses access to electricity, clean water, and communication. Or perhaps a remote destabilization of the Three Mile Island reactor? The Chernobyl scenario which would follow would have the same effects. Cyber warfare is well underway and attacks happen every day, thank the Air Force for keeping cyber space safe. But what i meant is that cyber-warfare is probably on its early stages.
• • The majority of Wars throughout the ages have been fought for the following reasons, trade routes, to secure areas of land to further the offensive, natural resources, raw material and the bringing together of a people or to unite and area by building a sense of family, camaraderie or nationality.
  • As George Friedman said: "... [E]very century has a war. The 21st century is not going to be the first century without major warfare." You can read his predictions about a WW3 scenario here: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/40th-anniversary/george-friedman-on-world-war-iii-776748/?no-ist Personally, I think the following scenario is more likely. George Friedman offers a divergent scenario to the one below. One where China fragments and Japan emerges as the Asian hegemon, with its maritime ambitions leading to hostilities with the U.S. George Friedman has the belief that advances in technology will lead to war unlike the previous. One where the scale of casualties and destruction is lower.
  • The smart money in geopolitics is a small conflict between China and the US, China and Russia or China and India, sometime within the next few decades. The Middle East has been relatively well contained, in part through American financial and military largesse.
• The US power advantage is far greater than it currently seems if they get truly serious. And even the US alone, if given sufficient provocation, could pretty much cut off China's oil and end China at little cost to the US provided world opinion was on its side.
• The President has no intention of putting boots on the ground in Syria. There will be some modest amounts of deployments in Iraq, but they will mainly be for training and advisory positions; perhaps some light combat in terms of defending certain posts or cities. If the ISIL (and you should call it ISIL; not IS or ISIS) threat continues to the next President if its a Republican, you can pretty much bet there will be some deployments, the scope of which are still difficult to predict.
• North Korea... never going to happen. You have to understand the politics of that whole region. China has NK on a short leash lately. They don't like it when NK starts making trouble. It impedes economic flow and China's economy is the most important thing to them right now. NK will never act without China's absolute commitment and approval. Just before he died/was killed, Kim Jung Ill made a trip to China. Now, here was a guy not know for his international travel, even to China. Leaded documents suggested that it was because he was asking for approval to launch an attack on South Korea or even funds from China to help do so. What happened? He came home a week later and suddenly "died." More leaks suggest China didn't trust him to stay put so they had him killed. There won't be a conflict in North Korea until US/China relations go completely to dust. I'm not saying that won't happen, but it would take decades of slow decline or some major revelations to make that the case.
• Africa - any deployments in Africa will be short-term and won't be in the context of a full-scale "war." These will be temporary missions meant to free some villages from warlords or track down medium size militias. The reason Africa might be more active in the future is because the jihad movement in the Middle East is spreading more there and that China has invested heavily in Africa. If we are ever to balance China's influence in the region, we will need to start showing local governments in the reason we are willing to help in terms of economic aid as well as defense. Remember, Clausewitz said "War is just the continuation of politics by other means." In Africa, that could not be more true.
• Russia - Listen, nobody on either side wants a conflict between Russia and NATO. Too many world economies would take a hit and there would be no definable end-game. You never start or go into a war unless you have a clear idea it is you want to achieve. The reason Iraq was a disaster? The goal was to set up a functioning democracy. That's an incredibly broad goal with subjective definitions as to what that means. The reason the first Iraq war was a success? The goal was to remove Sadaam from Kuwait. Very easily defined and was to clear to everyone when it happened. What would be the goal with Russia? If it's "to remove Russian forcer from Ukraine" then that could be a possibility. If it's "react Russian advancement" well then, anyone who takes us into that war would need to have his/her head examined. There is the possibility that some of the former USSR countries could follow Ukraines lead and start pushing for closer NATO and Western European ties. If Russia decides to react to them as it did with Ukraine, the possibility exists that NATO could get involved. However, the sanctions levied on Russia since invading Ukraine have been damaging to their economy. Putin is no longer pounding his chest and is trying to put out fires left and right in Moscow. He would have to be desperate or very well funded by the oil billionaires to want to try something that like again.
• The arctic powers are going to be diverting resources to the arctic circle, but I don't really see any open conflicts happening. Everyone has very well agreed and defined borders. There is some disagreement with how much neutral territory is being claimed, but no one is overstepping and claiming seas that are already claimed by someone else.
• Between the US and Russia for example, there is an extremely hard line at the Bering Strait that both sides fully respect. Russia isn't going to do any oil drilling, etc, on the US's side of that line, and the US has no plans to do anything on Russia's side. The greater international community might be in disagreement that either of them should have rights to the arctic waters north of their shores, but the arctic players themselves are respecting their neighbor's already established borders. In a way, it mirrors (and imo will continue to mirror) what has transpired in Antarctica minus the formal treaty. A formal treaty could come later. Export is a main driver for the Chinese economy. And a arctic connection to the Atlantic would be boost for their export. The naval route from Rotterdam to Shanghai can be reduced by 30%. A new port on the Russian east coast connected with the North Sea Route would give north China a competitive advantage. So instead of friction I can foresee a situation where Russia and China cooperate on a arctic Route.
• South America, literally everything I said about Africa applies here. Chinese influence, local militias, everything. Except replace jihad warlords with narco-warlords and it's almost an exact copy. We might be more willing to get involved in any conflicts mainly because it's in our hemisphere, thus the recent diplomatic moves with Cuba. Don't be fooled, that wasn't about helping the Cuban people. That was about trying to pull them out from under China's wing. The Castro have looked at China as their new major benefactor for years now. Restoring diplomatic relations was a move to try and keep that from happening.
• Lastly, there's the Pacific. DoD has made a pivot to focus on the Pacific more recently. Everything from the new uniform being more "jungle ready" to sending top brass to advice Filipino forces; the Pentagon at least sees the island nations on the Pacific rim as the next probable are of involvement. This could mean Islamic extremists groups in South East Asia or it could just be a show of force intended to slow Chinese advancement in the region. The Pacific is hard to judge because of all the moving parts in the region. I would say that if you see Japanese Defense Forces start ramping up, with the approval of the US of course, then the area might become more active. Until then, the Pacific is more about posturing. Deployments yes, combat likely no.
• Korea: The South believes air supremacy will cripple the operations of an obsolete North Korean military, while the North believes that its growing air defense grid and powerful artillery park will more than make up for their aerial fire support disadvantage. Further, the North has resorted to asymmetric tactics, deploying thousands of commandos to South Korea, and having tens of thousands more in reserve to deploy through invasion tunnels and its huge fleet of small landing craft, to disrupt the South when a war begins. The North is also counting on the admittedly backwards US-South Korean strategic plan, OPLAN 5027, which places the best assets of the South just miles from the DMZ, in range of the North's artillery. At present, reconciliation governments are in power in both Pyongyang and Seoul, but this situation won't last forever. When talks start to prove fruitless, Moon Jae In's star in the south might set. Meanwhile, politics in Pyongyang are and always have been "dogs fighting under the carpet", and there's no telling when the faction of O Kuk Ryul might once again gain favor and chart a more militaristic course.
• No one has a crystal ball. That said, the CCP values stability above all other concerns. I do not believe they'll ever instigate a conflict themselves, and that it's unlikely they'd allow an ally to drag them into one. So my prognosis for the next 20 years is essentially a continuation of what we've seen. China will continue to shore up their regional power, but only via carefully calibrated provocations that stop short of sparking real conflict. The US will maintain freedom of navigation and will otherwise back the status quo in Taiwan, NK. China depends on America much more than the other way round. China is still critically reliant on the U.S and its allies, the EU and Japan, as its principal export markets and sources of advanced technologies and know-how. Overall, China's dependence on international markets is very high, with the trade to GDP ratio standing at 53 percent. China imports many vital raw materials, such as oil and iron ore. As most of its commodity imports are shipped by the sea, China would be extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade, which is likely to be mounted by the U.S. in case of a major conflict. Both for economic and strategic reasons, the Chinese government pursues policies to reduce the country's reliance on foreign markets, trying to shift from an export-oriented model to domestic sources of growth. It is also making efforts to secure raw materials in the countries and regions contiguous to China, like Central Asia, Russia or Burma, so as to reduce dependence on sea-born shipments.
• - China doesn't have to defeat the entire American military and it's certainly not going to engage in a first strike nuclear attack. With regards to a possible invasion of Taiwan, all China has to do is make it impossible for America to stop them, either by sinking an American carrier fleet or making the likelihood of that happening too risky for them. And that is the single capability the Chinese navy is being bred for at present. The blue water stuff is more for show and long term investment. The only country coming close to this number is... Italy, with a whopping 2 Aircraft carriers. We need way more! I want a god damn floating city out there full of fighter jets.
• The Euphrates: Turkey and Iran have been strange bedfellows these last few years, united by a common desire to see the US leave the Middle East. However, many analysts believe they'll go back to their old habit of fighting over the region, as they had done for five centuries before the arrival of Westerners. This fear is exacerbated by the ongoing deployment of both Iranian forces and (illegally) Turkish forces in Syria. The Assad regime believes the Turkish advance is an invasion. Turkey has bought off Russia with a rapproachement, and it's likely that Russia will go back to its old tactics of divide and conquer, balancing the two Middle Eastern powers against one another, and being perfectly comfortable with a war. The confidence of Iran's forces have been buoyed by years of unbroken success, while on paper Turkey is indisputably the strongest military in the region. It's very possible that in the next years, clashes between Turkish and Syrian troops will lead to direct Turkish military action against the Syrian government.
• The Persian Gulf: The scariest of these conflicts where much of the global oil supply is at risk. Iran believes that swarms of missies and speedboats can overwhelm the targeting computers of the US Navy's missile defense system - Phalanx - while the US believes Phalanx will hold. Before Phalanx, the US's own simulations predicted disaster in this conflict, but that platform has largely evened the odds.
• Taiwan: The rise of the DPP has led to Taiwan's increasing isolation. Meanwhile, China in suppressing Hong Kong and defying its basic law has cast suspicion on peaceful reunification, as many Taiwanese think the country will simply go the route of Hong Kong. Taiwan believes its rapid mobilization, urban territory, and advanced army can hold its own until they get international help, while China has upgraded its navy and missile capabilities and will most likely be able to pull off a blockade. Taiwan used to be one, but not any more after Xi's last meeting with former KMT president. Xi sent a clear message that he doesn't want to talk to President Tsai's government, but he has no intention to invade Taiwan in short term either. As long as Chinese internal politics is stable, Taiwan policy would not likely to change. I don't think Xi will lose power soon.
• South China Sea, the main dispute is between China and Vietnam. Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Taiwan are not interested in joining the SCS disputes. There are reasons neither China nor Vietnam would go to war. Both countries are developing fast and trying to avoid wars. Vietnam holds more islands than China so Vietnam doesn't want to change the status quo. China is heavily investing in Vietnam, which suggests it has no intention to invade Vietnam either. If you read a lot of American news you probably would think Taiwan/SCS are going to war, but they are not going to. US utilizes its propaganda to justify its military presence in east Asia.
• Kurdistan: Abadi and the Iranians temporarily put a lid on the Kurdistan issue this year, but the KRG is still in power and angling for a second chance to declare independence. The next war actually might be started by the Shi'a bloc instead of the Kurds. Iran is in the finishing stages of a 2-year project to secretly unite the Iraqi oil reserves with Iran's national oil companies. Once they're finished, they have a huge financial incentive to make a move on the fields in the Kurdish lowlands. Far from the difficult mountain territories, the Kurdish oil reserves are easily assailable, and Iran has every legal excuse to attack.
• Kashmir isn't going to war. All three countries involved(China/India/Pakistan) are developing very fast, nobody can afford a war. China is throwing billions in Pakistan, so it clearly doesn't want a war there. Pakistan's newly elected president sent a message to India that they are willing to talk. India is having historical growth rate so it doesn't want a war to disrupt it either. Also keep in mind all 3 countries are nuclear powers.
• What makes Iran unique is that it has an unstable internal power struggle. Significant amount of Iranians believe it is their government's fault for the declining economy. If you think about China/India/Vietnam/Pakistan/Taiwan, they are all stable, much different from Iran. There is no plausible reason for US to quit the Iran deal other than it is trying to incite a regime change. (I don't rule out the possibility Trump simply hates everything about Obama.) The Iranian regime is brutal and awful but they're not crazy. And the one thing they want more than anything else is to retain power, that's it. And I think they look at the idea of a direct military conflict with US, and this not to say that their proxies wont strike out at some place around the world at some point, but the regime looked at that and thought nah, we're not gonna do this. They can't afford it. We have the ability to take out their entire energy infrastructure, their missile bases, their key military facilities. It's not in China & Russia's best interest to do anything. They're consistent about acting in their own best interests. They most likely wouldn't do anything. I can't imagine a scenario where Russia would come in. If the Russian military was there we would liaise with them, we're gonna advise them shits coming down because the last thing we want to do is drag them into it by hitting some of their facilities or personnel or whatever. So there would be that level of coordination which there always is no matter who are parties are. There's always some element of coordination. Russia and China are not significant players with this drama going on, and no country really wants to start a world war and potentially nuclear war. The UK, France & Germany all have real strong financial incentives for continuing to do business in Iran as do Russia and China.
• As for Syria, the talk between SAA and SDF could go wrong and result in a new civil war. SDF is backed by US but it has no popular support from local Arabs. SAA is backed by Russia and is clearly winning the war against ISIS and FSA. If US quits Syria, SDF is likely to join SAA. However, if US continues to back SDF, a new civil war would start. Syria also has territorial dispute with Israel. Would a united Syria back down to Israel?
• Qatar was thrown out of the bus of Arabic countries. Saudi Arabia and UAE cut all diplomatic ties with Qatar. The tension between UAE/KSA and Qatar has been rising very fast. If KSA decided to invade Qatar, there's not much anyone else can do. Qatar went China for help, and China told KSA to cool down. However, as the closest ally of US, could China hold KSA back?
• Turkey is an interesting country now. It probably won't go for a war, but it clearly isn't very friendly to its NATO allies.
• Georgia wants to join NATO, but if Russia invaded Georgia there's no way for NATO to defend it. Also I highly doubt NATO countries would even honor the alliance if Georgia were attacked.
• Sahel, Nigeria, etc. as Islamic extremists gain power in Africa
• I would say the odds of American military action in North Africa and the Sahel as something I would not be surprised at all though we may just direct and supply the French. Well at this point more overt action in support of the National Unity Govt against ISIL in Libya is not beyond the pale. And a far more likely state to stabilize around a national govt than Iraq or Syria. Russia has next to no interest in North Africa. Hard to see them taking an active role in Libya. Russia has an interest in keeping their Syrian Naval Base as a foothold in the Med, but the surrounding areas I doubt they really care. Also, depending on the state, it could be in a position to trouble important trade routes as Somalia was doing for a time.
• Fundamentalist coup in Pakistan, loss of control over nukes. Pakistan. If the government collapses, which is likely, the U.S. military has contingency plans to eliminate their nuclear weapons stockpile, which I find very reassuring. the U.S. military has a metric shit ton of contingency plans in place for multiple scenarios. A US contingency plan developed from a series of wargames in the latter part of the bush administration actually predicted an Arab Spring style series of revolts snaking across north africa and built around a scenario where nuclear or biologically armed nations experiencing outright civil war had to be intervened and disarmed. The most dangerous thing however is the constantly growing nuclear armament that Pakistan is producing. I find it hard to believe the Pakistani government wouldn't keep at least some of their stockpile buried under a mountain range. The plan would include special ops teams on the ground to secure stockpiles I'm sure.
• The missiles can't be hacked. They run on a closed network of cables. It's not like you can find the IP address of Oscar 8 at Minot. Launch codes are not kept on networked computers. It's pretty disingenuous to take a maintenance fuckup and call it proof that the missiles are vulnerable. The people can be hacked. Communications and news can be hacked.

How do you think World War 3 will start: Well if world war 3 is a nuclear war then I don't really think it matters because all of us are gonna die probably anyway. How do I think world war 3 would start? The Pakistanis and the Indians are always at each other's throats but I don't know how that could turn into a world war because I'm not sure how size would play out in that. But Russia has weight to throw around. They seem to have forgotten that since the beginning of the '90's. It just seems to have dawned on them one day, oh yeah we have the second largest nuclear stockpile on the planet and are by extension the second most powerful country on the planet. Are they gonna start throwing their weight around more? We'll see. That could be a problem. Are they gonna try to reclaim some of their former Soviet republics? I don't know but thats something to lookout for. Are the Chinese ever gonna make any real moves on Taiwan? That would be something to lookout for. This one's a little bit more farfetched but there has been an increase in sympathetic towards fascism again especially in places in Italy and some places in Eastern Europe. Could a totalitarian upswell occur in the European Union? Maybe. That's something to lookout for but thats a little bit more farfetched. But you want ideas so I'm giving them to you. With any of the current players right now it would probably be something that started between us and China that's my personal opinion. Or something got fucked up and there was a mistake and everyone thought that somebody launched something. They really didn't or something like that and we end up nuking each other all on accident but the chances of that happening are very low.

Which future world is more likely, a world that is completely controlled by fascistic governments or a world where humanity has completely destroyed itself with nuclear weapons or in some other way?

Why does it have to be a fascist government? Is a world where we've fucked ourselves up considerably possible? Yes. And it remains very possible as long as things like religion have not been taken care of. But I've said this before, I'm not necessarily against the concept of a one world government. Who says it has to be fascist?

 

[DarkRange55]

No drones, no nukes, no soldiers. Pure manipulation of currencies and hacking power-stations. Driving the countries to such devastation they wouldn't be able to recover. Previously the losers of wars recover to countries with great economy, see Germany and Japan. They built their countries from within.


Maybe they would rather have people think its aliens then realize that they may be maneuvering us into having a nuclear war or some shit. I just have so little faith in the government and you're not supposed to say this but I just don't trust that the US military can do all that the shit that it says it can. I recognize they're probably on paper better than anything than anybody else's shit certainly the naval and air assets. But I don't know, I just don't just assume that just because the shit is better that we're gonna win. Because we're being positioned and everything in a way to just think that we can out win a war with China. Like we probably could win a war with China but its gonna be really costly. We could win a conventional war with China if nukes were not allowed like if you changed that setting in the game. So they could kill a lot of people, they've upped their ICBM's, they've done a lot of shit. I do not trust the government when they say that they're able to stop these ballistic missiles or enough of them. Maybe they'll stop 80% of them and 20% of a couple hundred thermonuclear weapons is a lot. And also if you believe The numbers for what they've given to the Ukrainians they've given them a large number of our stuff. Its very bizarre.

My thesis around China is unchanged. There's maximum fear and pessimism in China. I think most beliefs are wrong. I think China is going through some troubles. But I don't think the Chinese government is going to intentionally destroy their economy. They cracked down on their tech giants because Jack Ma opened his mouth. Its not America where you can just criticize people. They stay powerful by having a strong economy which results in a strong military and a bunch of other benefits around the globe. They're our geopolitical enemy and you're going to hear a lot of propaganda in the US. During the Great Recession, the US stock market fell +56%. Nobody seems to talk about this anymore. Back then people were saying US stocks are over. The same stuff about China. Maybe the Chinese government will intervene and prop up their property sector. We did the same thing and had a golden age for US stocks. We cut interest rates to zero, cut taxes for corporations in 2017. Its a not so great population pyramid in their demography. They're aging and not having as many kids. The estimated working population right now is almost 3 times the United States. Even by 2050 they're working population is gonna be twice the size of the US.

China is the second largest economy in the world, its an emerging superpower and the United States is threatened by China. Otherwise it wouldn't be such a kerfuffle. Their economy, at least historically, has been growing faster than the United States and its entirely possible that it could continue to do so into the future. 1.4 billion people. The Soviet Union competed with the United States with a fraction of the population and a fraction of the economy. China is even in proximity to a huge part of the global population. They basically dominate Asia. Obviously the United States has its little alliances with Japan and Australia counter balancing the Chinese in that respect. But they're a big player in Asia. The most populace region and country in the world.
I mean China doesn't need to invade the United States. They just wanna control their region and they want access to Europe and Africa. I mean basically we kind of have them like pinned in on the water because you have the Philippines, Taiwan and Japan (possibly Vietnam) are all our allies so its like a ring around China. So we could really interrupt their sea lanes. And they get a lot of their oil obviously from the middle east and they have to ship it and there's a lot of narrow straights we could cut off. But once they develop that belt and road initiative they're like connected to Europe and Africa through pipelines and roads and stuff. I mean China doesn't have to spend as much as the US. They can't invade us. They should be able to control their area around China to free up their sea lanes. They don't need to conquer the United States to defeat us.

China is a rising power. It's unclear whether it'll actually become a superpower in the short or medium term, or whether it'll stagnate like Japan did in the 1990s. Regardless, China is a nuclear weapons state, a P5 member, it's experiencing a booming economy (though slowing as of late), and has a massive labor force and incredible natural resources.

Today, Russia is one of the few debt-free nations in the world, is consolidating its influence over the CIS and other former Soviet republics, and has a world-class military with little power projection but still orders of magnitude more than what it had twenty years ago. Military wise- America and Russia. Only 2 countries that will send troops to foreign battles on their own (no coalitions). France has been doing this for decades. (They also have the third largest nuclear arsenal.) Economically- America and China. European Union would be here if they were more united in their foreign policy. Nowadays, our world is becoming increasingly multipolar. With the example of Russia, they have a niche of military and cybersecurity in which they project their power, and this is generally the most visible to the public, compared to a country like Germany that asserts its power through political means and by financial dominance of the EU. Russia is a declining power. Like Britain after the world wars, Russia is settling down from superpower status to great power, or perhaps even middle power status. A large, nuclear backed military, sizable economy, access to vast resources, and an incredibly large expanse of land all help Russia hold on to great power status.

When will US no longer be superpower, if ever? I know that as long as the United States maintain its vast nuclear stockpile it will forever remain a superpower. Even if it fell out economically, no country that has the capability of ending life on the planet will be easily ignored. I also know that the United States has the recipe to maintain superpower status for at least the next 100 years. How long do you think the Dollar will stay strong (relatively to other fiat currencies) and how long do you think US passports will still be extremely valuable?
The US have all the ingredients to remain the dominant superpower for centuries to come, but they also have all the ingredients for civil war. But do you believe it will retain its sole global hegemony status and eventually overcome China long-term?

Own the seas you own the world - The British and Spanish knew that.
Before the 19th century it was Britian and France and before those two there was Spain. Spain was the first superpower, they were shortly joined by the Dutch, who used trade to influence everyone for a time. No superpowers before Spain becuase there was no global trade or transit. Portugal while a great power, was quickly supplanted by Spain when they fell into a personal union, uniting the crowns of Iberia. Beginning their long decline. Portugal wasn't really a superpower.
It has been recognized for close to 400 years that the ability to sail from point to point safely underpins the global economy.
The ability to "beggar thy neighbor" by obstructing free travel on the seas would be an enormous and often-used tactic when nations struggled for dominance. The value of doing so would in most cases vastly outweigh the short-term consequences.
Recognizing this the major world powers have acted since the 1700s to police the sea lanes and keep them free not only of pirates and other criminals but also to form such a massive deterrent that no smaller states would take the risk of trying to create problems either.
The US Navy became the dominant force in this effort after WWII, following a 50 year transition from the combined forces of the British and the French. A substantial amount of the money the US pours into its military can be attributed to the US Navy being the undisputed guarantor of the freedom of the sea lanes.
Only a handful of nations now have "blue water" force projection capabilities - the ability to operate far from home waters. The US, the UK, France, Russia, Japan, India and China - and the Asian powers either keep their navy close to home waters (India & Japan) or are just now starting to develop a true blue-water capability (China).
Look into the Barbary pirates of the Med sea...if my memory is correct the infant US was the only seafaring country that refused to pay the "protection" and fought to protect their ships. During Jefferson administration.
The US was one of the first to use its navy to protect and secure its merchant fleets. By doing so it was the start of protecting the seaway trading. Look at the Marine Corp hymn. "The halls of Motezuma to the shores of Tripoli"

Haha I've read that long ago the Chinese tapped into Australia's undersea fiber optic cables but they know this so they've been intentionally feeding them false information. I think a lot of countries would sever those cables further damaging the internet.

 

[DarkRange55]

In my mind, a Superpower can project power anywhere in the world at several places at once without putting strain on the country. A Global/World Power can potentially project power across most of the world, but it would be more difficult for them to do so. A regional power can project power in their region, or if they work together they can project more power. Some of those countries are regional powers, small regional powers at that too.

Power - Regional influence
Superpower - Global Influence
Not 100% sure where global power would fit in but its less than superpower and greater than regional power. China & Russia are both currently global powers, possibly the UK, too. The US is the (temporary?) sole superpower. India for example is currently a regional power.
There are lots of Powers in the world, their is only one Superpower currently.
Pre WWI, Britian was a superpower. France, Germany, and the US were on the verge.
Between the Wars it was Britian and France but Britian and both were rapidly falling.
Post WWII, it was the US and Soviets
Then in 1989 the Soviets collapsed
Now there is only the US.
China is on the verge right now and is looking to get over the hump.
Britian is still on the verge but is definitely below superpower. They have some international influence but its not at superpower level. There is no political will in Britian to attempt to get back their either.
Before the 19th century it was Britian and France and before those two there was Spain.
Spain was the first superpower, they were shortly joined by the Dutch, who used trade to influence everyone for a time.
No superpowers before Spain because there was no global trade or transit

Portugal while a great power, was quickly supplanted by Spain when they fell into a personal union, uniting the crowns of Iberia. Beginning their long decline.
Portugal wasn't really a superpower.

• Today, Russia is one of the few debt-free nations in the world, is consolidating its influence over the CIS and other former Soviet republics, and has a world-class military with little power projection but still orders of magnitude more than what it had twenty years ago. Military wise- America and Russia. Only 2 countries that will send troops to foreign battles on their own (no coalitions). France has been doing this for decades. (They also have the third largest nuclear arsenal.) Economically- America and China. European Union would be here if they were more united in their foreign policy. Nowadays, our world is becoming increasingly multipolar. With the example of Russia, they have a niche of military and cybersecurity in which they project their power, and this is generally the most visible to the public, compared to a country like Germany that asserts its power through political means and by financial dominance of the EU. Russia is a declining power. Like Britain after the world wars, Russia is settling down from superpower status to great power, or perhaps even middle power status. A large, nuclear backed military, sizable economy, access to vast resources, and an incredibly large expanse of land all help Russia hold on to great power status.
• Despite of 30 years recessive or stagnant economy, Japan still have 3rd economical power(even 2nd until 2010) with resource-independent comprehensive industrial structure. This economical capacity and relative stability made Japanese yen as global currency in the world, par with Chinese yuan, EU Euro and UK pound(of course not the level of US dollars). Moreover, Japanese softpower such as anime&manga, game, country reputation is still great. However, when it comes to geopolitics, Japanese has been relatively silent and less powerful country. Military strength is constrained by constitutions, though that are being changed. Japan is expanding its military links throughout the region. We know that Japanese navy ships have made port-of-call trips to Brunei and Singapore. Japan does not field nuclear weapons and has a small army. However it does have a number of "helicopter destroyers" as a concession to its Constitution that are functionally mini aircraft carriers due to their potential to launch F35s and other advanced weapon systems one would expect from a carrier. It also commissions a pretty sizeable force of submarines and advanced naval forces, along with a sizeable cutting edge air force. They are indeed not "moving much" owing to their current position under the American protective umbrella militarily and due to the Constitution needing to be worked around, but the capabilities are there. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...copter-destroyers-code-aircraft-carrier-90416

It contains a large and highly educated population (even if the demographics are horrid), is at the forefront in many fields, and fields a navy and air force that, while limited in size, is probably comparable in effectiveness to anybody outside of the US, China, and Russia. Many nations of the Asia-Pac region are willing to accept Japanese cash but not a show or display of Japanese military power. The Japanese-American Alliance or the status of technically still being occupied by the America render Japan unable to make independent foreign policies. Japan is barely there due to suppressed military potential, but they could develop real military power in just a couple years if their mindset changed. https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=japan

Additionally, it is worth noting that Japan possesses enough plutonium such that if it were to seek nuclear weapons, it could have the second or third largest arsenal on Earth, likely limited only by their means of deployment and manufacturing time. It processes advanced knowledge and enough working materials for it's reactors that a weapon would be on the order of months should it feel the need to do so. Large population with low poverty rate and strong technological sector. Japan has a comparatively weak military and political power, however it's lead in the above three areas is enough to keep it ahead of countries like France and the UK, which have strong militaries but aren't as economically strong. Germany is in a similar position to Japan, with smaller edges in those areas. Incredibly influential culture, a vibrant (though stagnant) economy, and geostrategic importance.

• The Netherlands is a financial powerhouse and has strong political alliances. Israel has an incredible military and is technologically advanced. Israel isn't irrelevant in regards to economics or culture, but its power primarily stems from its military.
• Saudi Arabia and Iran are not "global/world powers" SA and Iran both have immense petro carbon wealth to fuel geo political activities (Irans economy has been devastated by US sanctions, otherwise they could be in a similar position to SA, using pure wealth to project power). You've just described a regional power. Do either of those nations have tremendous influence over North/South America? East and South East Asia? Western, Central, Northern, Southern or Eastern Europe? Or even across Africa? It's parts of North Africa and the Middle East at best. KSA can't even project power into Jemen and Pakistan would've problems projecting within. KSA having military trouble in yemen doesn't mean that they don't dominate the Gulf (GCC) , have influence in some of the Muslim world due to money power (distribution) and stewardship of Mecca and a few other holy places, and have oil and money power elsewhere. They certainly have power to disrupt yemen significantly. The KSA is projecting power into Yemen. The limits of their projection are clear. However the project is clearly inside Yemen. A pair of regional powers. That's it. If they had extensive influence across the globe THEN I'd call them a "global/world power". Leading oil producer, center of the Muslim world, massive exporter of conservative Muslim ideology, sizable military capability, diversifying economy.
• At least South Korea has a better case than Turkey, Iran, Brazil or SA. South Korea rules the semiconductor trade and Samsung is one of only three foundries that can produce 7nm semiconductors and for mobile phones there literally is just them and TSMC. Semiconductor trade is so hard to do and so complex that even China been trying for years to acquire this technology and didnt succeed. Also SK control the worlds NAND and memory chips since the most advanced memory chips are from Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron and Samsung and SK are Korean. Australia and Canada population is smaller than SK and does not have the advanced, critical manufacturing capability possessed by South Korea. As to Brazil, Australia, and Canada, they are all commodity based economies. Canada does have vast economic resources, advanced economy, good relations with numerous other states. South Korea is a technological based economy. Apart from semiconductors SK also has developed a very impressive military technology such as the K2 Black Panther which is considered to be one of the most sophisticated tanks on the world. Currently experiencing an economic boom, home to numerous multinational corporations, has a growing cultural footprint.
• A Reunified Korea could very well become a great power. Combining the expertise, technology and capital of the South with the cheap labor pool and natural resources of the north could be a recipe for an economic powerhouse. Goldman Sachs estimated that a Reunified Korea would be the third or fourth largest economy in the world by 2050, depending on where India was. And South Korea is already an economic and military power in its own right. This is all assuming reunification happens relatively peacefully relatively soon, which is not a guaranteed
• India in particular is interesting. It could either become another China or another Brazil. China has more international influence, I am not saying India is not an economic power, with great regional influence but people in south america and west Africa probably don't put much consideration into what India is doing. However they may consider what China is doing. China is in early talks of building a competitor to the panama canal through Nicaragua for example. Why is India above Japan? India GDP for 2015 was 2073B, while Japan was 4123B. Military wise, both countries do not project much influences to the globe. Neither country could invade the other. Soft power wise, Japan is leading more than India is leading, in terms of business models, company structures etc. Sure, no one is going to change their mind on major stuff because of Pokemons, but it is nevertheless an advantage over India. India has more nations supporting it's ascension as permanent member in UN security council than Japan, even with Japan's generousity. Apparently having 1/5 of the world's population and one of the oldest civilizations and top 10 economy is sufficient to override Japan's deep money bags. Oh, also India is dominant in a significant chunk of Asia, whereas Japan needs foreign protection to remain safe. Soft power wise, Japan is more modern and ahead of India in terms of living standards. Too many domestic issues, but huge potential. It's near major chokepoints for maritime trade, it has around five times the population, and it has the second largest body of English speakers in the world. I'd say that India has a lot of internal issues and is too multi-ethnic (even though most western perspectives see Indians as a homogeneous bloc) and the legacy of the caste system still pervades everything. Regional and domestic issues will rock india long before they are able to become a superpower, too many different people all with different goals. Neither Nigeria nor India have really been able to capitalise on their large populations. Other countries with much smaller populations have much greater global relevance. Booming economy and population, nuclear weapons state, prime location in the Indian Ocean. India's cultural impact on the globe is growing as well.
• Brazil, Italy, Indonesia, don't have strong enough economies (or the political unity) to commit to any kind of foreign intervention. Italy and Indonesia are also so outmatched by local powers, Indonesia will never be able to pursue anti China or anti US policies openly, the same with Italy in regards to northern European states/Turkey. If Indonesia or Italy existed in sub Saharan Africa, sure they could dominate the region, but where you are matters just as much as anything in geopolitics. Italy has an incredible cultural impact, large economy, sizable population. Brazil was doing well, but fell back a bit. They also have the land mass, and the population will grow. The Socio-cultural/Economic factors are complex. Brazil is the country of the future and it always will be. It's tongue-in-cheek - hence "always will be." Also Australia and Canada don't have sufficient concentration of very critical mineral deposits like Rhenium, Chromium, cobalt to control world supply. Brazil funny enuf has niobium which produces 90 percent of the world niobium hence making them influential in global trade. I think that Brazil as a regional hegemon over Latin America is plausible, but I don't see Brazil-as-world-superpower coming to fruition in our lifetimes. Brazil is regressing to the state of playground for the rich. South Africa is on its way of becoming a failed state. Large population, incredibly large access to natural resources, growing economy. Brazil only has a large market with good resources but its population is aging and its pension system is pretty broken.
• Australia, at least geopolitically, is just an extension of the US. Australia simply doesn't have the population to defend its massive size and vulnerable sea routes, so they will always exist under the wing of a superpower who can protect them in exchange for following the super powers agenda. AU will always exist as a client state of someone, Britain in the past, now US, possibly China in the future. Economic hub for the Southeast Asia and the South Pacific, anglophone, advanced economy, massive immigrant attractor.
• How is Germany a world power, they barely have a military. German forces as they stand today are under-equipped but could be fixed easily and they're not undertrained in any way. There is no political will though. Germany definitely has the tech and manufacturing base. They are investing money and modernization isn't the problem, procurement and maintenance are the problem. Germany rised it's budget over 10 billion € since 2014 and fields very modern equipment. Problem is mostly making the modern equipment, like IFV PUMA, A400M, etc. Or the long time needed for upgrading the Leopard to A7V. In Land system, the UK would be even more a problem as their MBT and IFV weren't upgraded that often. Older equipment like the Tornado has thankfully found replacement. And I don't think the current and future leadership is ready to invest the money. The more advance the tech, more expensive and time consuming it is to build it. No one is expecting Germany to field an armed force as big as the US. But it's current state is simply inadequate. The current state is mostly due bad saving options and Bureaucracy. Biggest economy in Europe, fourth biggest economy in the world, third biggest exporter in the world. Power is not only about military. Pretty similar position as Japan, actually. They also have a lot of influence within the EU and in their partnership with France. Stop falling for shallow Power = Big Military assumptions. You can project power using economics too.
• The UK and France are firmly great powers, at least whilst we have nukes. The UK-less relevant each decade/nuclear weapons, UNSC seat and historical ties what matters. France's armed forces and budget are very similar to Germany's, yet they are able to maintain a strong overseas presence as well as a nuclear program. Their titles to Great power will be nominal claim from their historical legacy as colonial empires and outdated UNSC permanent seats from post-WW2, which won't change without a WW3 to alter the structure of international order. France is a stable great power. Being the host nation of Europe's space program (French Guiana in South America is home to Europe's main space port), a nuclear weapons nation, member of the P5, having territories and departments scattered all over the globe, a powerful culture, a leading member of francophone nations, and one of the few nations in the world that can deploy relatively quickly just about anywhere on Earth. The United Kingdom has settled nicely into great power status, but the looming Brexit and possible Scottish cecession that could follow it signal that it could slip into middle power status. Regardless, it maintains a robust military (and is in the process of expanding its naval capability), a nuclear weapons capability, a leader in financial and other commercial markets, leading NATO member, P5, etc.
• They have NATO's second largest land force and standing army, growing economy, geographic location is at a global crossroads, respectable population size, land area, and economy size. Also their strategic location and ties with Islam can give it unique position to influence Middle East regions. Turkey has a population of 80 million with a fertility of <2.2 and falling. They could become an important regional power in the MENA, but they simply dont have the population to be a great power. Turkey's economy is smaller than Italy. (Italys is labelled a PIGS country, a large economy doesn't help if your overburdened by employment and excessive debt.) Their recent internal issues also don't help. Turkey is catching up. Turkey is a highly polarized country who can explode at every moment, I'm not sure it will keep her current borders in 50 years. https://tradingeconomics.com/italy/indicators
• China is a rising power. It's unclear whether it'll actually become a superpower in the short or medium term, or whether it'll stagnate like Japan did in the 1990s. Regardless, China is a nuclear weapons state, a P5 member, it's experiencing a booming economy (though slowing as of late), and has a massive labor force and incredible natural resources.

Another possibility I could see is things spiraling out of control like say China claims an island so the Philippines or whatever land troops on it and then China shells the island and then the Philippines launches a jet to sink the ship. But this situation is far, far less likely. Countries always have back channels of communication between militaries, ect.
Another possibility is some conflict in the Middle East that slowly pulls everyone in but again less likely then simply being a regionally confined conflict.
It's also likely WWIII wouldn't be a total war. There would be no final invasion of the loosing side, as the nuclear threat would be too great, and we don't have the stomach for the casualties any more. More likely, after defanging the military capability, the winner would just blockage the looser until they surrendered.

Proxy wars might be the status quo, but direct war seems obsolete to me. I think for a war now to reach a global level, it would have to be largely financially based (and we may be in one now). Management of markets and trade embargoes would lead to internal conflicts within governments that would extend across borders. It's not a war in the traditional sense, but I think it could still be considered a war. I'm doubtful of the utilitarian value of detonating a nuke during a proxy war. I believe in terms of military value there's more useful tactical weapons which also have less fallout..

War used to be more about territory because physical control over large territories was more profitable. Now countries and corporations can exert more economic control without a military presence. Rather than destroying factories with bombs, it's more profitable to exert control and get a slice of the pie. A nuclear war destroys value. Business (ideally) creates value. Since war is just a means of achieving a political or economic end, if Russia invades Europe or the Baltics, I don't see it going nuclear nor being conventional. People realize this day and age you can't conquer a country and rule it from afar as Germany did in WWII, so tanks won't be rolling into Europe any time soon. War used to be more about territory because physical control over large territories was more profitable. Now governments and corporations can exert more political and economic control with a political rather than military presence. If any country wants to resettle a territory it's better to do it politically with hybrid warfare, then you can start to resettle people like Russia is doing in Crimea.

It's impossible to outright conquer a country and cleanse it and resettle it, at least everywhere but Africa. Much more likely is smaller wars like Syria that create refugee flows that help spread Russia and Trump's version of nationalism and xenophobia. There could be small conflicts in limited circumstances for some strategic gain of resources, or physical security, or for regional geopolitical hegemony. For instance battles for strategically important choke points like the Strait of Hormuz, access to deep harbors like Crimea, and access to hydrocarbons, water resources, or for territory to use for renewable energy installations (like hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, solar), fights for food sources, rare earths, and other scarce resources.

The West Coast is less busy, with the traffic concentrated at a few ports and going straight in and out, rather than along the coast. Otherwise, the Russian Federation would have to deploy through the GIUK Gap which has been continuously monitored by a chain of underwater listenings posts. And then sale across some of the world's busiest seaways.

Since WWII its been the stated mission capability of the US military to be able to maintain two full scale wars on two fronts (think the pacific and western front in WWII)

 

[Celerity]

• It is likely that we have hit a point where a true force on force war is extremely unlikely to happen due to things like global economy, increased lethality of every system, our technological advances, nukes, and more. Means it is likely that insurgents and asymmetric forces are our biggest enemy, but we still have to have a military large enough and ready to deal with a conventional force due to military industrial complex the off chance Russia, China, or anyone else goes crazy.
• For WWIII to happen, NATO would have to some how break up along with the UN Security council. And I just don't see that happening. Given that NATO has a monopoly on military power, any conflict would be stopped before escalating to full blown World War. NATO has a monopoly on military power in Western Europe. Only the US has any realistic reach into Asia. Pax is a state of peace that occurs when one power holds an overwhelming military force. Examples of Pax are the Pax Romana (27 BC to 180 AD) or Pax Britannica (1815–1914 AD). When one global military exists, it is easy for people to conduct trade safely, and for people to go about their business as normal. For a good portion of the world, there is no need for the people to worry about protection from foreign invasion or from injury from violent internal conflict. Yes, there are areas in which violence occurs, but nothing compared to what would happen if people were invading left and right. The world is in a state as close to perfect as it is going to get. We are currently in a state of Pax Americana. We aren't seeing another world war for a while.
• There is something called, "The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" which was based on the observation that "No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's" and Friedman's point is that due to globalization, countries that have made strong economic ties with one another have too much to lose to ever go to war with one another. There have been a few minor counter examples since this theory was proposed, but I think the underlying justification and logic still holds.
  • WW3: I'd say it's not only possible, over the span of the next century, it's very likely. Nuclear war before 2100 is a very real possibility because of the oil crisis and the stock market crash that will happen
  • Just before World War 1, the common rhetoric among everyone was that the telegraph, the huge surge in global travel, trade and commerce, and the rise of Enlightenment philosophy had made Western civilization was too interconnected and trade too vital that the world could never be at war on such a massive scale, the Napoleonic Wars could never happen again. Everyone was linked together and it was in the sovereigns best interest to not go to war because they were making too much profit. When World War 1 broke out, and turned out to be much more deadly than the Napoleonic Wars, there were a lot of economists and intellectuals who were shocked. And "they were mistaken back then, but now it really is true" is not much of a counterargument.
  • - After World War 1, there was a great deal of effort put into ensuring that it would never happen again. The League of Nations was founded for that purpose, Germany was disarmed and closely monitored, and there was a belief in places like Great Britain and America that the absolute horror of WWI had made it a "war to end all wars". Of course, the restrictions on Germany backfired, the Nazis used the horror of WWI to fuel more violence by scapegoating the Jewish community, and we had WWII.
  • - If economic interdependence and nukes can fail to prevent war individually, they can be fail to prevent war together as well. The argument that combining interdependence and nuclear weapons will create a uniquely powerful combined incentive for peace is flawed. You're assuming (tacitly or otherwise) that these two major factors feed into each other, when in reality they exist in two separate spheres. It's not like adding nuclear weapons to the mix affects the absolute economic gains and mutual incentives of peace, and it's not like increased economic interdependence actually changes the nature of the security dilemma, which is defined in terms of military capabilities possessed by sovereign actors in an anarchic international system. If nukes don't cure the security dilemma (they don't seem to) and economic interdependence doesn't negate the importance of relative gains and subjective security interests (it doesn't seem to), then there's nothing that really proves that combining them will be able to prevent war better than either one has been able to individually. The point regarding the ambiguous and inter tangled alliance structure that exists today is an interesting one. However, the ambiguity and overlap present in the alliance structure of the international system is not a good thing necessarily. There's a prominent school of neo-realist thought that argues that the bipolarity of the two-bloc cold-war system actually contributed to peace and stability, and that the complex and intertangled European alliance system prior to WWI created conditions permissive for war.
  • - The same power structures and incentives are still in place.
  • People have been proclaiming "The End of War" for centuries, based on the idea that states will act "rationally".
  • My current thinking is that we are in a period comparable to the 1860s in Europe, shortly before the Franco-Prussian War. There is a lot of tension, and the preeminent power (France/USA) is still seen as powerful, but the rising powers (Germany and Italy/China) are putting new pressures on the overall framework of the region. There's a flavor of the 1890s, as well, with its foreign adventurism (The Scramble for Africa didn't start until the 1880s!) and the self-recriminations of the Third Republic of France (because of the failures in the FP War and the Dreyfus Affair), mixed with the greying of that republic and the failure to progress compared to the other European countries in the Second Industrial Revolution. They even had to deal with international terrorism in a form that supported violence (bombings and killing national leaders) and whose advocates could self-radicalize outside of established networks (Anarchists!) If there is a shift in power, like the FP War, it would rebalance things rather than rearrange them. France was at the end of the one of the greatest periods of culture and power that they have lived through, lead by a somewhat competent, somewhat stupid man in Napoleon III. Germany was under the expert control of Bismark, which helped create tensions but also knew how to relieve them as needed; WW1 didn't start until after Bismark left the government. It was the knife's edge of brinksmanship, but they didn't fall off. I think we're looking at something similar, where the rising powers are in a position to make small gains without repercussion, just as Russia was able to invade Crimea and the Donblas region, China (and Vietnam) extend their positions in the South China Sea, the various players in the Middle East make their moves (Iran into Iraq; Saudi Arabia against Qatar), but we don't have the tangle of commitments in unstable regions that we saw prior to WW1, and while the leadership of most of these countries cannot be compared with Bismark, none of them can exactly be compared to Wilhelm II, either.
  • how unstable is the current world order, and is that instability likely to grow or fade?
• This is an interesting question. I would argue that its current level of instability is moderate, but not critical. However, I think it will become critical in due time. The unipolar nature of the balance of power is inherently unstable and forces other powers to balance against. Predictions are generally more foolish the more precise you make them, but we can make some general predictions that can help us gauge future instability.
  1. China has three main avenues to pursue in the next century: stagnation, regress, or progress. Each presents its own challenges to stability in the world order. Stagnation can abate fears abroad but pressurize them at home. Economic strife can arise out of mere stagnation if well-being is tied to growth (which it is, in many cases). But stagnation need not produce stress levels that alter global stability. Japan is a great example of that. Its stagnation was managed as well as one might expect. Regress obviously would exacerbate domestic problems and would likely be a result of domestic problems going unsolved. If the Chinese slump backwards, the gains they have made will be circled by geopolitical vultures. The US would likely toy with the possibility to reasserting itself in the region. States like Japan and others may seek to carve out their own spheres in the region. Progress would further heighten tensions between Beijing and Washington as control over East Asia becomes more intensely an issue that cannot be ignored. All three options present global challenges to stability.
  2. Europe may further unify or it may bid fare-thee-well to its grand experiment. I do not think it is worth while to debate which is more likely, but the status quo is not really sustainable, imo. Further centralization would likely include some degree of military centralization. This could change the dynamic of NATO both within itself and abroad. The unification of Germany was a major destabilizer in 19th Century Europe, and a European unification would likely be sufficiently destabilizing as well. This would put states like Russia and China is a position of peer status with Europe in military terms. European disintegration presents stability concerns as well. If the EU fails and is curtailed or abolished, power politics will almost certainly return to the continent. To what extent that would threaten the European (and by extension, the global) economy is uncertain, but I think we can all appreciate the claim that a stable Europe is in the interest of everyone.
  3. The United States can choose to continue its role in world affairs and seek to limit challengers, or it can take a step back and allow, encourage, or hope another power takes over. American restraint would likely embolden others to take action where they otherwise might not, and it may hasten the onset of a multipolar order, one that is unstable as well. Continuing its current role, the US could affect the timing of other events like EU unification or Chinese forward strategy or Russian aggression. If the US were to continue its roll, current tensions would only heighten. These are just a few scenarios painted in broad brushstrokes. But I think it is fair to say that instability is likely to increase in time. Right now I think we are in the 4-6/10 range of stability.
  4. There are a lot of creeping issues that are slowly transforming our current world beneath our feet. Some of the major issues right now are: the digital and especially the mobile digital revolution, which is making computer power and Internet connectivity available to large rural sections of developing countries; the current lack of clear prosperity granted by the democracy/ capitalist model, especially in the forms championed by the United States; the United States beginning one of its cyclical periods of pulling back from direct involvement in international leadership; the greying of many of the biggest economies in the world (esp Japan/ US/ Europe), which cuts into the available workforce and redirects large chunks of the economy; the encroaching effects of climate change. Many of these are likely to help transform the world we're living in at various points in the next 20 years, but it's hard to say how much they form a present danger. Overall, about 5/10.
  5. I think that the current circumstance is comparable to pre-World War I, when Britain was feeling pressured to contain the growing German industrial economy and was trying to prevent European mainland unification (by doing things like undercover blocking of Germany's railway building).I would say that today, USA is Britain, China is Germany, and the Eurasian landmass is the European mainland. There are more flashpoints and destabilizing points now than there were any time since the end of the Soviet Union
• There are probably others that I am listing above. The prime mover here is how the United States reacts to the breakdown of Pax Americana. There are several reasons why I think the United States will only be able to engage in limited security competition with China/Russia (as opposed to full out war) in the form of covert action and containing (through arming rivals and competing for influence):
  • Obviously the nuclear disincentive
  • The United States would have limited support in creating an image of legitimacy behind any major conflict with large powers (China/Russia). Every conflict since Vietnam has been met with wide resistance, and guiding public opinion now is the hardest it has been due to the internet. I think the world is simply going to become more multipolar in the medium term (10-20 years), but there is still plenty of room for economic growth to discourage major war. Long term (50-100 years), I am very pessimistic about humanity's ability to not drive itself into extinction, as growing population and resource strains will inevitably lead to conflict that could easily lead to a nuclear dark age. I'd give today a 6/10 for instability.
  • I think it would most likely start over a resource grab - either over the range of valuable ores/minerals or fresh water that are starting to become accessible in the arctic circle thanks to permafrost getting yeeted in the course of global warming....or the metric fuckton of crude in veneuzela. Possibly a bunch of African countries due to the growing demand on lithium, cobalt (all the big raw materials for battery tech). A lot of it will probably be proxy wars (i.e funding of local extremist groups from the three largest players: US, RUS, CHN) although for an Arctic circle conflict - thats probably going to be more reliant on large naval resources more than anything else.
  • India and China start by fighting over their Himalayan border. Iran and Pakistan side with China. America and NATO side with India. Russia has a choice. They're allies with both India and China - no telling. I have a hunch they would side with NATO and India since that would possibly be the winning side but again it isn't a certainty. North Korea sides with China. China would probably end up getting blown to bits by nukes and India would face a lot of damage as well.
  • Most likely a small country with strong allies being attacked by a neighbouring country, with hopes to expand and create wealth. It will start a chain reaction, until two major players get involved, one on each side. Probably something like China and the US, in the future when the USA has lost its status as the only superpower. It will become mostly politics, in which the public will obey due to the hopes of getting out of their current poverty/poor quality of life. That said, with technology as advanced as it is now, it's hard to say how it would end. Nukes exist, so the next world war would make a visible dent on the earth. It's pretty scary to think about.
  • I'm not seeing much consideration of apolitical (or not-inherently-political) factors in these answers. I think that's a major error; not to say that things are more dire than they're being made out, because we could well find solutions to these issues, but thinking about geopolitics entirely within the realm of... well, world politics, is a very dangerous gaff lacking in interdisciplinary context. A quick and easy example: we know that irreversible climate change will alter conditions in certain areas such that ways-of-life in those locales will be forced to adapt or suffer. Most likely this will incite violence and instability in those regions, as we see occurring in tandem with rising heat and lowered resource availability even in first-world countries. One could call that a regional issue that might not have tremendous effect on 'world order' in that the major powers, excepting Europe, can largely push those ramifications to the side. However, we have a few other issues that I think demand contention. Late-stage capitalism is a fairly clear example. Capitalism as constructed requires a constant acceleration of growth; we can continue to inflate economies and push that growth into the third world in the form of free trade zones and other imperialist proxies, but eventually we'll either run against hard resource, environmental or political boundaries that will demand a deceleration that the current system is not prepared for. Can we reasonably predict that our societies will handle this problem before it becomes a geopolitical issue? This is already too long for a criticism so I won't go into more detail, but at the least I think we need to be looking at issues like environment, technology, economy (in the abstract), rate-of-growth in general (i.e. exponential growth as applied across all fields), population growth, and distribution of power in addition to simply extrapolating upon current international political tensions.
  • Main world conflicts have and will continue to start in Europe, and the stability and the balance of European powers will be the main factors in avoiding a new World War.
  • War will be fought not on the battlefield but one of intellectual space. Our leaders will converse on behalf of the population to achieve singularity on rising issues.
• Just kidding, we will send the poor (not white) people to die for the needs of the rich.
  • Proxy wars might be the status quo, but direct war seems obsolete to me. I think for a war now to reach a global level, it would have to be largely financially based (and we may be in one now). Management of markets and trade embargoes would lead to internal conflicts within governments that would extend across borders. It's not a war in the traditional sense, but I think it could still be considered a war. I'm doubtful of the utilitarian value of detonating a nuke during a proxy war. I believe in terms of military value there's more useful tactical weapons which also have less fallout..
• - Economic sanctions and cyber warfare. Tariffs and trade sanctions. Look at the headlines and you'd swear we were already at war, wouldn't you? ;-)
  
  - A hybrid warfare scenario such as cyperattacks, influence OPs, and/ or wagner/little green men is more likely with russia vs nato than outright hostilities. you could box that into state sponsored terrorism IMO...
  
  - WW3 has already begun: Cyber-warfare. Cyber terrorists hack into New York City's power mainframe. The largest city in America suddenly loses access to electricity, clean water, and communication. Or perhaps a remote destabilization of the Three Mile Island reactor? The Chernobyl scenario which would follow would have the same effects. Cyber warfare is well underway and attacks happen every day, thank the Air Force for keeping cyber space safe. But what i meant is that cyber-warfare is probably on its early stages.
• • The majority of Wars throughout the ages have been fought for the following reasons, trade routes, to secure areas of land to further the offensive, natural resources, raw material and the bringing together of a people or to unite and area by building a sense of family, camaraderie or nationality.
  • As George Friedman said: "... [E]very century has a war. The 21st century is not going to be the first century without major warfare." You can read his predictions about a WW3 scenario here: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/40th-anniversary/george-friedman-on-world-war-iii-776748/?no-ist Personally, I think the following scenario is more likely. George Friedman offers a divergent scenario to the one below. One where China fragments and Japan emerges as the Asian hegemon, with its maritime ambitions leading to hostilities with the U.S. George Friedman has the belief that advances in technology will lead to war unlike the previous. One where the scale of casualties and destruction is lower.
  • The smart money in geopolitics is a small conflict between China and the US, China and Russia or China and India, sometime within the next few decades. The Middle East has been relatively well contained, in part through American financial and military largesse.
• The US power advantage is far greater than it currently seems if they get truly serious. And even the US alone, if given sufficient provocation, could pretty much cut off China's oil and end China at little cost to the US provided world opinion was on its side.
• The President has no intention of putting boots on the ground in Syria. There will be some modest amounts of deployments in Iraq, but they will mainly be for training and advisory positions; perhaps some light combat in terms of defending certain posts or cities. If the ISIL (and you should call it ISIL; not IS or ISIS) threat continues to the next President if its a Republican, you can pretty much bet there will be some deployments, the scope of which are still difficult to predict.
• North Korea... never going to happen. You have to understand the politics of that whole region. China has NK on a short leash lately. They don't like it when NK starts making trouble. It impedes economic flow and China's economy is the most important thing to them right now. NK will never act without China's absolute commitment and approval. Just before he died/was killed, Kim Jung Ill made a trip to China. Now, here was a guy not know for his international travel, even to China. Leaded documents suggested that it was because he was asking for approval to launch an attack on South Korea or even funds from China to help do so. What happened? He came home a week later and suddenly "died." More leaks suggest China didn't trust him to stay put so they had him killed. There won't be a conflict in North Korea until US/China relations go completely to dust. I'm not saying that won't happen, but it would take decades of slow decline or some major revelations to make that the case.
• Africa - any deployments in Africa will be short-term and won't be in the context of a full-scale "war." These will be temporary missions meant to free some villages from warlords or track down medium size militias. The reason Africa might be more active in the future is because the jihad movement in the Middle East is spreading more there and that China has invested heavily in Africa. If we are ever to balance China's influence in the region, we will need to start showing local governments in the reason we are willing to help in terms of economic aid as well as defense. Remember, Clausewitz said "War is just the continuation of politics by other means." In Africa, that could not be more true.
• Russia - Listen, nobody on either side wants a conflict between Russia and NATO. Too many world economies would take a hit and there would be no definable end-game. You never start or go into a war unless you have a clear idea it is you want to achieve. The reason Iraq was a disaster? The goal was to set up a functioning democracy. That's an incredibly broad goal with subjective definitions as to what that means. The reason the first Iraq war was a success? The goal was to remove Sadaam from Kuwait. Very easily defined and was to clear to everyone when it happened. What would be the goal with Russia? If it's "to remove Russian forcer from Ukraine" then that could be a possibility. If it's "react Russian advancement" well then, anyone who takes us into that war would need to have his/her head examined. There is the possibility that some of the former USSR countries could follow Ukraines lead and start pushing for closer NATO and Western European ties. If Russia decides to react to them as it did with Ukraine, the possibility exists that NATO could get involved. However, the sanctions levied on Russia since invading Ukraine have been damaging to their economy. Putin is no longer pounding his chest and is trying to put out fires left and right in Moscow. He would have to be desperate or very well funded by the oil billionaires to want to try something that like again.
• The arctic powers are going to be diverting resources to the arctic circle, but I don't really see any open conflicts happening. Everyone has very well agreed and defined borders. There is some disagreement with how much neutral territory is being claimed, but no one is overstepping and claiming seas that are already claimed by someone else.
• Between the US and Russia for example, there is an extremely hard line at the Bering Strait that both sides fully respect. Russia isn't going to do any oil drilling, etc, on the US's side of that line, and the US has no plans to do anything on Russia's side. The greater international community might be in disagreement that either of them should have rights to the arctic waters north of their shores, but the arctic players themselves are respecting their neighbor's already established borders. In a way, it mirrors (and imo will continue to mirror) what has transpired in Antarctica minus the formal treaty. A formal treaty could come later. Export is a main driver for the Chinese economy. And a arctic connection to the Atlantic would be boost for their export. The naval route from Rotterdam to Shanghai can be reduced by 30%. A new port on the Russian east coast connected with the North Sea Route would give north China a competitive advantage. So instead of friction I can foresee a situation where Russia and China cooperate on a arctic Route.
• South America, literally everything I said about Africa applies here. Chinese influence, local militias, everything. Except replace jihad warlords with narco-warlords and it's almost an exact copy. We might be more willing to get involved in any conflicts mainly because it's in our hemisphere, thus the recent diplomatic moves with Cuba. Don't be fooled, that wasn't about helping the Cuban people. That was about trying to pull them out from under China's wing. The Castro have looked at China as their new major benefactor for years now. Restoring diplomatic relations was a move to try and keep that from happening.
• Lastly, there's the Pacific. DoD has made a pivot to focus on the Pacific more recently. Everything from the new uniform being more "jungle ready" to sending top brass to advice Filipino forces; the Pentagon at least sees the island nations on the Pacific rim as the next probable are of involvement. This could mean Islamic extremists groups in South East Asia or it could just be a show of force intended to slow Chinese advancement in the region. The Pacific is hard to judge because of all the moving parts in the region. I would say that if you see Japanese Defense Forces start ramping up, with the approval of the US of course, then the area might become more active. Until then, the Pacific is more about posturing. Deployments yes, combat likely no.
• Korea: The South believes air supremacy will cripple the operations of an obsolete North Korean military, while the North believes that its growing air defense grid and powerful artillery park will more than make up for their aerial fire support disadvantage. Further, the North has resorted to asymmetric tactics, deploying thousands of commandos to South Korea, and having tens of thousands more in reserve to deploy through invasion tunnels and its huge fleet of small landing craft, to disrupt the South when a war begins. The North is also counting on the admittedly backwards US-South Korean strategic plan, OPLAN 5027, which places the best assets of the South just miles from the DMZ, in range of the North's artillery. At present, reconciliation governments are in power in both Pyongyang and Seoul, but this situation won't last forever. When talks start to prove fruitless, Moon Jae In's star in the south might set. Meanwhile, politics in Pyongyang are and always have been "dogs fighting under the carpet", and there's no telling when the faction of O Kuk Ryul might once again gain favor and chart a more militaristic course.
• No one has a crystal ball. That said, the CCP values stability above all other concerns. I do not believe they'll ever instigate a conflict themselves, and that it's unlikely they'd allow an ally to drag them into one. So my prognosis for the next 20 years is essentially a continuation of what we've seen. China will continue to shore up their regional power, but only via carefully calibrated provocations that stop short of sparking real conflict. The US will maintain freedom of navigation and will otherwise back the status quo in Taiwan, NK. China depends on America much more than the other way round. China is still critically reliant on the U.S and its allies, the EU and Japan, as its principal export markets and sources of advanced technologies and know-how. Overall, China's dependence on international markets is very high, with the trade to GDP ratio standing at 53 percent. China imports many vital raw materials, such as oil and iron ore. As most of its commodity imports are shipped by the sea, China would be extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade, which is likely to be mounted by the U.S. in case of a major conflict. Both for economic and strategic reasons, the Chinese government pursues policies to reduce the country's reliance on foreign markets, trying to shift from an export-oriented model to domestic sources of growth. It is also making efforts to secure raw materials in the countries and regions contiguous to China, like Central Asia, Russia or Burma, so as to reduce dependence on sea-born shipments.
• - China doesn't have to defeat the entire American military and it's certainly not going to engage in a first strike nuclear attack. With regards to a possible invasion of Taiwan, all China has to do is make it impossible for America to stop them, either by sinking an American carrier fleet or making the likelihood of that happening too risky for them. And that is the single capability the Chinese navy is being bred for at present. The blue water stuff is more for show and long term investment. The only country coming close to this number is... Italy, with a whopping 2 Aircraft carriers. We need way more! I want a god damn floating city out there full of fighter jets.
• The Euphrates: Turkey and Iran have been strange bedfellows these last few years, united by a common desire to see the US leave the Middle East. However, many analysts believe they'll go back to their old habit of fighting over the region, as they had done for five centuries before the arrival of Westerners. This fear is exacerbated by the ongoing deployment of both Iranian forces and (illegally) Turkish forces in Syria. The Assad regime believes the Turkish advance is an invasion. Turkey has bought off Russia with a rapproachement, and it's likely that Russia will go back to its old tactics of divide and conquer, balancing the two Middle Eastern powers against one another, and being perfectly comfortable with a war. The confidence of Iran's forces have been buoyed by years of unbroken success, while on paper Turkey is indisputably the strongest military in the region. It's very possible that in the next years, clashes between Turkish and Syrian troops will lead to direct Turkish military action against the Syrian government.
• The Persian Gulf: The scariest of these conflicts where much of the global oil supply is at risk. Iran believes that swarms of missies and speedboats can overwhelm the targeting computers of the US Navy's missile defense system - Phalanx - while the US believes Phalanx will hold. Before Phalanx, the US's own simulations predicted disaster in this conflict, but that platform has largely evened the odds.
• Taiwan: The rise of the DPP has led to Taiwan's increasing isolation. Meanwhile, China in suppressing Hong Kong and defying its basic law has cast suspicion on peaceful reunification, as many Taiwanese think the country will simply go the route of Hong Kong. Taiwan believes its rapid mobilization, urban territory, and advanced army can hold its own until they get international help, while China has upgraded its navy and missile capabilities and will most likely be able to pull off a blockade. Taiwan used to be one, but not any more after Xi's last meeting with former KMT president. Xi sent a clear message that he doesn't want to talk to President Tsai's government, but he has no intention to invade Taiwan in short term either. As long as Chinese internal politics is stable, Taiwan policy would not likely to change. I don't think Xi will lose power soon.
• South China Sea, the main dispute is between China and Vietnam. Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Taiwan are not interested in joining the SCS disputes. There are reasons neither China nor Vietnam would go to war. Both countries are developing fast and trying to avoid wars. Vietnam holds more islands than China so Vietnam doesn't want to change the status quo. China is heavily investing in Vietnam, which suggests it has no intention to invade Vietnam either. If you read a lot of American news you probably would think Taiwan/SCS are going to war, but they are not going to. US utilizes its propaganda to justify its military presence in east Asia.
• Kurdistan: Abadi and the Iranians temporarily put a lid on the Kurdistan issue this year, but the KRG is still in power and angling for a second chance to declare independence. The next war actually might be started by the Shi'a bloc instead of the Kurds. Iran is in the finishing stages of a 2-year project to secretly unite the Iraqi oil reserves with Iran's national oil companies. Once they're finished, they have a huge financial incentive to make a move on the fields in the Kurdish lowlands. Far from the difficult mountain territories, the Kurdish oil reserves are easily assailable, and Iran has every legal excuse to attack.
• Kashmir isn't going to war. All three countries involved(China/India/Pakistan) are developing very fast, nobody can afford a war. China is throwing billions in Pakistan, so it clearly doesn't want a war there. Pakistan's newly elected president sent a message to India that they are willing to talk. India is having historical growth rate so it doesn't want a war to disrupt it either. Also keep in mind all 3 countries are nuclear powers.
• What makes Iran unique is that it has an unstable internal power struggle. Significant amount of Iranians believe it is their government's fault for the declining economy. If you think about China/India/Vietnam/Pakistan/Taiwan, they are all stable, much different from Iran. There is no plausible reason for US to quit the Iran deal other than it is trying to incite a regime change. (I don't rule out the possibility Trump simply hates everything about Obama.) The Iranian regime is brutal and awful but they're not crazy. And the one thing they want more than anything else is to retain power, that's it. And I think they look at the idea of a direct military conflict with US, and this not to say that their proxies wont strike out at some place around the world at some point, but the regime looked at that and thought nah, we're not gonna do this. They can't afford it. We have the ability to take out their entire energy infrastructure, their missile bases, their key military facilities. It's not in China & Russia's best interest to do anything. They're consistent about acting in their own best interests. They most likely wouldn't do anything. I can't imagine a scenario where Russia would come in. If the Russian military was there we would liaise with them, we're gonna advise them shits coming down because the last thing we want to do is drag them into it by hitting some of their facilities or personnel or whatever. So there would be that level of coordination which there always is no matter who are parties are. There's always some element of coordination. Russia and China are not significant players with this drama going on, and no country really wants to start a world war and potentially nuclear war. The UK, France & Germany all have real strong financial incentives for continuing to do business in Iran as do Russia and China.
• As for Syria, the talk between SAA and SDF could go wrong and result in a new civil war. SDF is backed by US but it has no popular support from local Arabs. SAA is backed by Russia and is clearly winning the war against ISIS and FSA. If US quits Syria, SDF is likely to join SAA. However, if US continues to back SDF, a new civil war would start. Syria also has territorial dispute with Israel. Would a united Syria back down to Israel?
• Qatar was thrown out of the bus of Arabic countries. Saudi Arabia and UAE cut all diplomatic ties with Qatar. The tension between UAE/KSA and Qatar has been rising very fast. If KSA decided to invade Qatar, there's not much anyone else can do. Qatar went China for help, and China told KSA to cool down. However, as the closest ally of US, could China hold KSA back?
• Turkey is an interesting country now. It probably won't go for a war, but it clearly isn't very friendly to its NATO allies.
• Georgia wants to join NATO, but if Russia invaded Georgia there's no way for NATO to defend it. Also I highly doubt NATO countries would even honor the alliance if Georgia were attacked.
• Sahel, Nigeria, etc. as Islamic extremists gain power in Africa
• I would say the odds of American military action in North Africa and the Sahel as something I would not be surprised at all though we may just direct and supply the French. Well at this point more overt action in support of the National Unity Govt against ISIL in Libya is not beyond the pale. And a far more likely state to stabilize around a national govt than Iraq or Syria. Russia has next to no interest in North Africa. Hard to see them taking an active role in Libya. Russia has an interest in keeping their Syrian Naval Base as a foothold in the Med, but the surrounding areas I doubt they really care. Also, depending on the state, it could be in a position to trouble important trade routes as Somalia was doing for a time.
• Fundamentalist coup in Pakistan, loss of control over nukes. Pakistan. If the government collapses, which is likely, the U.S. military has contingency plans to eliminate their nuclear weapons stockpile, which I find very reassuring. the U.S. military has a metric shit ton of contingency plans in place for multiple scenarios. A US contingency plan developed from a series of wargames in the latter part of the bush administration actually predicted an Arab Spring style series of revolts snaking across north africa and built around a scenario where nuclear or biologically armed nations experiencing outright civil war had to be intervened and disarmed. The most dangerous thing however is the constantly growing nuclear armament that Pakistan is producing. I find it hard to believe the Pakistani government wouldn't keep at least some of their stockpile buried under a mountain range. The plan would include special ops teams on the ground to secure stockpiles I'm sure.
• The missiles can't be hacked. They run on a closed network of cables. It's not like you can find the IP address of Oscar 8 at Minot. Launch codes are not kept on networked computers. It's pretty disingenuous to take a maintenance fuckup and call it proof that the missiles are vulnerable. The people can be hacked. Communications and news can be hacked.

How do you think World War 3 will start: Well if world war 3 is a nuclear war then I don't really think it matters because all of us are gonna die probably anyway. How do I think world war 3 would start? The Pakistanis and the Indians are always at each other's throats but I don't know how that could turn into a world war because I'm not sure how size would play out in that. But Russia has weight to throw around. They seem to have forgotten that since the beginning of the '90's. It just seems to have dawned on them one day, oh yeah we have the second largest nuclear stockpile on the planet and are by extension the second most powerful country on the planet. Are they gonna start throwing their weight around more? We'll see. That could be a problem. Are they gonna try to reclaim some of their former Soviet republics? I don't know but thats something to lookout for. Are the Chinese ever gonna make any real moves on Taiwan? That would be something to lookout for. This one's a little bit more farfetched but there has been an increase in sympathetic towards fascism again especially in places in Italy and some places in Eastern Europe. Could a totalitarian upswell occur in the European Union? Maybe. That's something to lookout for but thats a little bit more farfetched. But you want ideas so I'm giving them to you. With any of the current players right now it would probably be something that started between us and China that's my personal opinion. Or something got fucked up and there was a mistake and everyone thought that somebody launched something. They really didn't or something like that and we end up nuking each other all on accident but the chances of that happening are very low.

Which future world is more likely, a world that is completely controlled by fascistic governments or a world where humanity has completely destroyed itself with nuclear weapons or in some other way?

Why does it have to be a fascist government? Is a world where we've fucked ourselves up considerably possible? Yes. And it remains very possible as long as things like religion have not been taken care of. But I've said this before, I'm not necessarily against the concept of a one world government. Who says it has to be fascist?

I did not read even half of this, but there is a lot of interesting speculation here. Just chiming in to say kudos to you for offering such a thouthful response.

 

[Wayfaerer]

There is not going to be a third World War, at least not for decades if not longer. The geopolitical balance is far too lopsided in favor of the west right now and the countries in opposition to NATO are too disorganized (you need more to hold countries together other than "Death to America!") and refuse to back one another in any meaningful way, not to mention the terrible technological gaps they have compared to the western world. As of now they are only capable of impotent threats but that may very well change in the comes years particularly with the PRC. The leadership all across the world would also not risk such a devastating conflict unless they had something to tangibly gain from it or if their national interests are existentially threatened.

 

[DarkRange55]

There is not going to be a third World War, at least not for decades if not longer. The geopolitical balance is far too lopsided in favor of the west right now and the countries in opposition to NATO are too disorganized (you need more to hold countries together other than "Death to America!") and refuse to back one another in any meaningful way, not to mention the terrible technological gaps they have compared to the western world. As of now they are only capable of impotent threats but that may very well change in the comes years particularly with the PRC. The leadership all across the world would also not risk such a devastating conflict unless they had something to tangibly gain from it or if their national interests are existentially threatened.

If you read my above posts you will see that I do generally agree with you. However, the world is indeed becoming increasingly multipolar.

China is the second largest economy in the world, its an emerging superpower and the United States is threatened by China. Otherwise it wouldn't be such a kerfuffle. Their economy, at least historically, has been growing faster than the United States and its entirely possible that it could continue to do so into the future. 1.4 billion people. The Soviet Union competed with the United States with a fraction of the population and a fraction of the economy. China is even in proximity to a huge part of the global population. They basically dominate Asia. Obviously the United States has its little alliances with Japan and Australia counter balancing the Chinese in that respect. But they're a big player in Asia. The most populace region and country in the world.
I mean China doesn't need to invade the United States. They just wanna control their region and they want access to Europe and Africa. I mean basically we kind of have them like pinned in on the water because you have the Philippines, Taiwan, S. Korea, and Japan (possibly Vietnam) are all our allies so its like a ring around China. So we could really interrupt their sea lanes. And they get a lot of their oil obviously from the middle east and they have to ship it and there's a lot of narrow straights we could cut off. But once they develop that belt and road initiative they're like connected to Europe and Africa through pipelines and roads and stuff. I mean China doesn't have to spend as much as the US. They can't invade us. They should be able to control their area around China to free up their sea lanes. They don't need to conquer the United States to defeat us. If there were to be a third world war, among the current players, it would most likely be something between the US and China.

Some examples:
- Israel/Palestine
- Russia/Ukraine
- China/ Taiwan

These have potential to mushroom but even then it may not be WWIII and actually just wars between great powers.

 

[DarkRange55]

We're still a huge degree of a larger economic power than China. And by a huge even bigger degree a much more powerful military power than China.

If we are a bankrupt power in anyway, its that our people are bankrupt

There's been this impression that China has all this immense power somehow and I just don't feel that this is the case. They own a large quantity of our debt. But in reality its a fraction of it. Their economy is based mainly off of exports. And those exports are mainly to us. They cannot use debt as leverage until they become self-sufficient. In other words until they become a consumerist culture like us. So its gonna be at least another 20 or 30 years before China can even consider that.

I think Russia is the second most powerful country in the world. It has an experienced and active military. They have demonstrated that they are willing to use it to go to war with other countries. That the United States and NATO have refused to back. Putin is a very, very scary & powerful man. Not to mention they have the second largest nuclear stockpile on the planet.

 

[waived]

The third world war is already happening and it's in the form of social rupture, insurrection, proxy skirmishes, economics, and opportunistic waiting as integral and holiest pieces of the world previously taken for granted break off and fall in the abyss.

 

[DarkRange55]

Back to 2-and-a-Half Wars?

For decades, the ability for the U.S. military to simultaneously conduct two-and-a-half major regional conflicts was the standard, until the 1990s cuts.

www.theepochtimes.com

The third world war is already happening and it's in the form of social rupture, insurrection, proxy skirmishes, economics, and opportunistic waiting as integral and holiest pieces of the world previously taken for granted break off and fall in the abyss.

Thats an interesting take but I'm not sure if thats fits the classic definition.

 

[real person]

if ww3 happens we all lose

 

[DarkRange55]

Back to 2-and-a-Half Wars?

For decades, the ability for the U.S. military to simultaneously conduct two-and-a-half major regional conflicts was the standard, until the 1990s cuts.

www.theepochtimes.com

Thats an interesting take but I'm not sure if thats fits the classic definition.

Not unexpected, and it really isn't a world war with countries, but classes. The increasing divide between the wealthy and poor will make a French Revolution, but with Planet Earth.

War used to be more about territory because physical control over large territories was more profitable. Now countries and corporations can exert more economic control without a military presence. (China stays powerful by having a strong economy which results in a strong military and a bunch of other benefits around the globe).
Rather than destroying factories with bombs, it's more profitable to exert control and get a slice of the pie. A nuclear war destroys value. Business (*ideally*) creates value. Since war is just a means of achieving a political or economic end, if Russia invades Europe or the Baltics, I don't see it going nuclear nor being conventional. People (hopefully) realize that in this day and age you can't conquer a country and rule it from afar as Germany did in WWII, so tanks won't be rolling into Europe any time soon. War used to be more about territory because physical control over large territories was more profitable. Now governments and corporations can exert more political and economic control with a political rather than military presence. If any country wants to resettle a territory it's better to do it politically with hybrid warfare, then you can start to resettle people like Russia is doing in Crimea.

It's impossible to outright conquer a country and cleanse it and resettle it, at least everywhere but Africa. Much more likely is smaller wars like Syria that create refugee flows that help spread Putin and Trump's version of (ultra)nationalism and xenophobia. There could be small conflicts in limited circumstances for some strategic gain of resources, or physical security, or for regional geopolitical hegemony. For instance battles for strategically important choke points like the Strait of Hormuz, access to deep harbors like Crimea, and access to hydrocarbons, water resources, or for territory to use for renewable energy installations (like hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, solar), fights for food sources, rare earths, and other scarce resources.

I just have so little faith in the government and you're not supposed to say this but I just don't trust that the US military can do all that the shit that it says it can. I recognize they're probably on paper better than anything than anybody else's shit certainly the naval and air assets. But I don't know, I just don't just assume that just because the shit is better that we're gonna win. We probably could win a war with China but its gonna be really costly. We could win a conventional war with China if nukes were not allowed like if you changed that setting in the game. So they could kill a lot of people, they've upped their ICBM's, they've done a lot of shit. I do not trust the government when they say that they're able to stop these ballistic missiles or enough of them. Maybe they'll stop 80% of them and 20% of a couple hundred thermonuclear weapons is a lot.

 

[leavingthesoultrap]

Either China or US... hard to tell

 

[DarkRange55]

Either China or US... hard to tell

You can make an argument that the US is loosing influence in certain regions of the world and that they might not win a major conflict centered around southeast Asia or eastern Europe, a successful invasion of the continental US remains unrealistic.
The Soviet Union competed with the United States with a fraction of the population and a fraction of the economy of China.
Obviously the United States has its little alliances with Japan and Australia counter balancing the Chinese in that respect. But they're a big player in Asia.
I mean China doesn't need to invade the United States. They just wanna control their region and they want access to Europe and Africa. I mean basically we kind of have them like pinned in on the water because you have the Philippines, S. Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Japan (and possibly Vietnam) are all our allies so its like a ring around China. So we could really interrupt their sea lanes. And they get a lot of their oil obviously from the middle east and they have to ship it and there's a lot of narrow straights we could cut off. But once they develop that belt and road initiative they're connected to Europe and Africa through pipelines and roads and stuff. I mean China doesn't have to spend as much as the US. They can't invade us. They should be able to control their area around China to free up their sea lanes. They don't need to conquer the United States to defeat it.

I just have so little faith in the government and you're not supposed to say this but I just don't trust that the US military can do all that the shit that it says it can. I recognize they're probably on paper better than anything than anybody else's shit certainly the naval and air assets. But I don't know, I just don't just assume that just because the shit is better that we're gonna win. Because we're being positioned and everything in a way to just think that we can out win a war with China. Like we probably could win a war with China but its gonna be really costly. We could win a conventional war with China if nukes were not allowed like if you changed that setting in the game. So they could kill a lot of people, they've upped their ICBM's, they've done a lot of shit. I do not trust the government when they say that they're able to stop these ballistic missiles or enough of them. Maybe they'll stop 80% of them and 20% of a couple hundred thermonuclear weapons is a lot.

 

[WhenTheyCry]

China is a paper dragon, in reality they have no power.

 

[DarkRange55]

I think the CCP is very smart with TikTok. Its scary. One of my favorite strategy authors wrote about how they use trade routes to rope in countries since ancient times. History doesn't always repeat but it rhymes.

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674066427

China Is No Paper Dragon | National Review

In attempting an honest assessment of the threat China poses, David Frum downplays some of its strengths.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Blurry_Buildings]

New Zealand

 

[JealousOfTheElderly]

I have set myself on fire outside the Trump Trial.

My name is Max Azzarello, and I am an investigative researcher who has set himself on fire outside of the Trump trial in Manhattan.

theponzipapers.substack.com

This man spoke the truth. May he rest in power.