World War 3

[sserafim]

What are the possible scenarios leading up to the eruption of World War 3? Do you believe that a global war is likely in the future, or has it already begun? I believe that WW3 will be between the US and its allies against China, Iran, Russia and North Korea

 

[DarkRange55]

No

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

You've got to vote for the bad orange man to make WW3 happen, or so I've been told.

 

[DarkRange55]

Okay, this will likely be a reposting from the WWIII mega-thread but screw it. I'll indulge.

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 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 (more) 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.

I would argue that the world's 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.

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.

Main world conflicts have and will continue to start in Europe, and the stability and the balance of European powers may be the main factors in avoiding a new World War.
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.
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. Assuming Iran acquires and exercises nuclear capabilities there would be some pretty serious retaliation that you might call a World War III scenario. That being said, the arms race between India and China seems like a greater threat at the moment, though the likelihood that any countries large enough to make a war a 'world war' would jump into a conflict is incredibly slim at best.

Possible scenarios:

• Any seizure of Baltic territory by Russia. Putin starts feeling the heat from protests and starts a war of liberation in the Baltic's, and fires off a tactical nuke when NATO arrives.
• Due to Russia and the US pulling out of the INF treaty, nuclear warheads are placed in Norway and Japan by the Americans, Russia responds by planting missiles in Ecuador and Cuba and China places missiles in the South China Sea and in Brazil.
• Saudi Arabia & Iran go to war risking a possible nuclear exchange.
• Starts with the Middle East destroying itself. Probably someone nuking Israel.
• North Korea who is starving takes this as an opportunity to invade the south. The United States Bombs North Korea into oblivion which pisses off China.
• Any obstruction of the Suez or Strait of Hormuz by belligerents. Plus I would put a Strait of Malacca issue in the same vein. The US, to maintain its hegemonic influence wants a world that is interdependent yet divided. These vital sea lanes help guarantee that.
• China will the try to absorb Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, and claim full ownership of the South China Sea.
• A border conflict between China and Russia. They've happened in the past and never in recent centuries has the power imbalance favored China as heavily as it does now. Siberia and the Russian Far East are empty to all intents and purposes and China's Goliath population will covet room to grow all the more over coming decades. In 50 years, Russia's population may be close to Germany's today. Holding as much territory as it does now with that small a population isn't feasible in a neighborhood less friendly than the US/Canadian border (to use the only comparison that I can think of). (Plus gold & oil fields).
• Depending on what US-Russia relations look like by then, the Arctic opening up could create another source of conflict. Resources, routes, area, etc. Probably won't happen in the next half decade though, although the pawns may start moving into place. The Arctic is going to be incredibly important in about 20-30 years. The next decade or so will probably see the forward thinking factions within the US, China, and Russia military angling for some sort of early presence before the region truly opens up. Russia is a clear winner, with the amount of Arctic coastline they enjoy and the fact that the warmer temperatures means more warm water Pacific ports.The US is likely to strengthen ties with Canada to take advantage of their Arctic coastline. As ascendant as China is, they have no natural Arctic presence - the Russian Far East is likely to become a fresh point of friction in the Sino-SovietRussian relationship, and China's coastal claims and ambitions tend to extend south rather than north. There might be some sort of trilateral Bering Strait treaty to ensure neutrality and access for all nations wanting to utilise the new shipping lanes. Even so, it will probably end up being a heavily miltarised area with a glut of naval bases within a stone's throw from each other. There will probably be a big economic boom for the Russian Far East, Canada, Northern Norway, Alaska, and possibly Japan as a 'Western' East Asian port. In addition to the coastal Arctic resources, access to land resources in regions of thawing permafrost could be an economic game changer for those areas. Returning back to the Sino-SovietRussian split, I think a tide of Chinese investments will spur on economic development in the area, much to the consternation of the Kremlin - but if there's one thing Russian oligarchs love more than ruling a corrupt 'democracy', it's the chance to make practically unlimited amounts of money.
• Pakistan/India doesn't have as many interwoven diplomatic issues as China/Taiwan, but if the tensions their ever heat up and turn to open warfare, that would be two of the largest nations in the world who both have nuclear weapons and hate each other. It could be catastrophic even if it doesn't bring in the rest of the world like a true WWIII scenario. India and China have fought at least one small scale war in the past half century. China's alliance of convenience with Pakistan and occupation of part of Kashmir don't bode well for dependably excellent relations between New Delhi and Beijing going forward. India is not a particularly popular country with the West (the non-aligned movement nonsense gummed up decades of foreign policy - they were a giant, inconvenient Yugoslavia) so it's hard to see which side the other great powers would take when forcing mediation. Or you could be cynical and assume that China would be the favored side because India's ability to cut off its nose to spite itself is truly remarkable internationally.
• Internal order within the US crumbles (doesn't have to break down) due to implosion of the banking cartel, erosion of the welfare state and/or ethnic strife. China seizes the opportunity to invade Taiwan. And Russia takes the rest of Ukraine simultaneously.
• The number of foreign bases in Djibouti is a major potential flashpoint. I think the most likely nuclear event (is the Middle East and to a less extent), is a dirty bomb going off on the US/Mexico border. There are talks that some cartels are working toward that with some uranium that went missing several years ago. I think bioterrorism is a bigger risk than a nuclear war. An apocalyptic world caused by a weaponized virus.
• Most likely Chinese territorial aggression/military expansionism

 

[DarkRange55]

People were talking about how the Golden Arches Theory was broken when Russia invaded Ukraine, (1996 theory of Thomas Friedman: 'Countries with McDonald's within their borders do not go to war with other countries with McDonalds within their borders.')
But it was already disproven with the Balkan War. Theo Golden Arches Theory assumes rational actors.

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.

This is an interesting example



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.

Pentagon Moves to Wrest Rare Earths Control From China

www.theepochtimes.com

Infographic: China's Rare Earth Monopoly is Diminishing

This chart shows rare earth mining around the world (1994-2021).

www.statista.com

I wonder how reopening that is rare earth mine is going? I've known About that rare earth mine for a while I was actually looking into how to invest in it but it's a private company.

A US rare earths miner is staging a comeback to take on China

The Mountain Pass mine in California was shuttered in 2002, squeezed by China's low prices. Now it's part of an effort to rebuild the US rare earth supply chain.

qz.com

China's New Rare Earth Policy Shakes Global Tech Industry | OilPrice.com

China has expanded its restrictions on the export of technology related to refining rare earth minerals, impacting the global tech and clean energy sectors.

oilprice.com

IN-DEPTH: US Fails to Grasp China’s Rare Earth Dominance, Analysis Finds

www.theepochtimes.com

They do have a tight hold on rare earth elements

Infographic: China Leads Critical Minerals Production

This chart shows the top countries by share in global processing of selected critical minerals in 2023.

www.statista.com

Rare earth elements aren’t the secret weapon China thinks they are

Despite the name, rare earths just aren’t that rare

www.theverge.com

Joint Korean-Australian Project Targets China’s Rare Earth Control

A joint South Korean-Australian mineral processing research project is showing potential to eat into China’s dominance of the rare earth industry.

www.forbes.com

US Urgently Needs to Challenge China's Chokehold on Rare Earth Materials

The Chinese Communist Party's near monopoly on most of these 17 rare earth materials (REM) is by now a US national security vulnerability of enormous strategic importance.... China's October 13 decision to curtail the export of these vitally needed rare

www.gatestoneinstitute.org

There's rare earth minerals in Afghanistan that down the road some country is gonna go in there, probably China and harvest. But China plays the long game so they're not necessarily in need of getting in the trucks and going to Afghanistan immediately. There's really no energy there, it's not really an energy related issue.

 

[Jay Sea]

as of 2 august 2024, a "large-scale" armed conflicts have yet to emerge in the Asia pacific region. In the absence of which it may be tenuous to suggest that ww3 is currently underway.

The situation may change in the future, given the multitude of geopolitical contentions in the Asia pacific region

 

[DarkRange55]

as of 2 august 2024, a "large-scale" armed conflicts have yet to emerge in the Asia pacific region. In the absence of which it may be tenuous to suggest that ww3 is currently underway.

The situation may change in the future, given the multitude of geopolitical contentions in the Asia pacific region

Yes, I would say the West and Russia and China are certainly engaged in a New Cold War 2.0 but not WWIII.

Second Cold War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Certainly races for dominance in AI, space, hypersonics, diplomatic, geopolitical (Artic, SCS, Africa, ect) and economic influence, ect.

 

[Adûnâi]

You've got to vote for the bad orange man to make WW3 happen, or so I've been told.

But Trump literally prevented WW3, whereas both Obama and Biden have invaded Russia so far? (I know, may be sarcasm, but you never know).

My take would be the following.

The American élite have to hurry if they want a world war because AGI would scramble their plans. Their time is limited. This year overall has been heated to infinity. America is a powder keg. Israel is likewise. And Belarus. A massive conflagration might flare up on either of the frontlines.

There are of course a number of scenarios:
1) America prompts Poland to invade Belarus, prompting Russia to use its nuclear shield against Berlin;
2) Israel invades Lebanon, prompting Hezbollah for a massive retaliation on their desalination plants and stuff;
3) China makes a bid to retake Formosa;
4) America goes down the drain in a civil war if either of the deranged puppets wins/loses;
5) all of the above;
6) neither of the above;
7) Elon wakes up from the simulation.

 

[DarkRange55]

I was reading that we don't currently have the domestic shipbuilding capacity to quickly ramp up shipbuilding if we had a war. I found that alarming. This was the primary goal of a provision of the Interstate Commerce Act.
I'd rather subsidize domestic shipyards, particularly ones capable of building larger Navy ships if we needed to ramp up our Navy. If we need them for Navy purposes, we should maintain them on the public dime, and count it fortunate whenever we can recoup part of the costs with ship sales.

 

[DarkRange55]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/us/politics/biden-nuclear-china-russia.html

President Biden approved in March a new nuclear strategic plan that includes preparations for a simultaneous nuclear war with Russia, China, and North Korea. The US nuclear strategy is updated about every four years or so and is highly classified.