There are some super knowledgeable folks here when it comes to keeping up with all the going on's in the world. I am NOT one of them, but since the Russian invasion of the Ukraine and now the conflict in the ME, I'm for the first time in my life wondering.....are we headed for a world war?
Love to hear your assessments on the global impact of both wars going on and if you think we're heading toward WW3.
Thanks
It's arguable that we're already in one.
I had a pretty long discussion with former FSO buddy that works with the DOD and he pretty well agrees.
The difference is that in this instance, the major powers involved NATO and allies vs Russia, China, India, North Korea and Iran, the war is unlikely to be fought directly in the major states and more with and among proxies.
Quote from: SirAndrewD on October 17, 2023, 01:45:20 PMThe difference is that in this instance, the major powers involved NATO and allies vs Russia, China, India, North Korea and Iran, the war is unlikely to be fought directly in the major states and more with and among proxies.
So more like Cold War 2: Chilly Boogaloo?
Quote from: al_infierno on October 17, 2023, 01:48:21 PMSo more like Cold War 2: Chilly Boogaloo?
Pretty much. None of the major powers want to risk existential wars on their soil.
Russia is the wild card there as they seem to have exited the traditional risk calculus that has kept the peace, largely because they're already in a self created existential crisis with their population falling off the edge after shedding their former client states.
Still, there's the glass half full part, even with things as crazy as they are right now, they're not that crazy historically. Our connectedness and media tends to amplify what is, in perspective, one of the most peaceful times in human history.
Quote from: al_infierno on October 17, 2023, 01:48:21 PMSo more like Cold War 2: Chilly Boogaloo?
80's flash back right there. Replace Chilly with Electric.
Seriously though I do believe something big, really big is brewing. If it's not Ukraine, it's Taiwan. If it's not Taiwan, it's North Korea. And now the latest crisis in the middle east. Is everyone losing it?
Quote from: W8taminute on October 17, 2023, 02:15:09 PMIs everyone losing it?
No more than they ever have. Actually verifiably less.
There's a Billy Joel song about that.
I would argue the opposite. There's more strife and dis-unity in the world right now than ever. In the past it has been local and rather short-lived. Today people even in the relatively calm West are at each others throats almost constantly. And immediately it becomes personal and hate filled. Probably fueled on by access to the Internet and all the almost constant need for a 24 Hour News cycle and the latest,( Fill in the blank) threat to humanity. The Nation States, some of them, thrived on it for decades but now can't seem to control it or even keep-up with it. It does feel like something VERY BIG is coming our way. And soon. I'll be in my bunker curled-up in the corner with my Teddy Pug if you need me. :HideEyes:
Quote from: Sir Slash on October 17, 2023, 02:33:01 PMI would argue the opposite. There's more strife and dis-unity in the world right now than ever. In the past it has been local and rather short-lived.
The entire swath and study of human history disagrees with you.
It
Quote from: SirAndrewD on October 17, 2023, 02:34:28 PMQuote from: Sir Slash on October 17, 2023, 02:33:01 PMI would argue the opposite. There's more strife and dis-unity in the world right now than ever. In the past it has been local and rather short-lived.
The entire swath and study of human history disagrees with you.
That seems to be true. Apparently for the Middle East (which would be most of the "civilized" or in this case armed to the teeth) human-on-human violence peaked from around 2300 BC (the fall of Akkad) to around 1300 BC (the fall of nearly everybody but Assyria and Egypt). After about 1300 BC human violence at least in the Middle East has declined steadily.
PS...woops I was way off on the dates, but still the general decline in violence seems to hold:
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/violence-in-the-ancient-middle-east-spiked-with-the-formation-of-states-and-empires-battered-skulls-reveal
Quote from: MengJiao on October 17, 2023, 02:45:18 PMThat seems to be true. Apparently for the Middle East (which would be most of the "civilized" or in this case armed to the teeth) human-on-human violence peaked from around 2300 BC (the fall of Akkad) to around 1300 BC (the fall of nearly everybody but Assyria and Egypt). After about 1300 BC human violence at least in the Middle East has declined steadily.
More than just the middle east.
Sociologist and psychologist Dr. Steven Pinker has done extensive historiographical studies on strife and human conflict. You can read some of his data with your own research, but he's shown decisively that the percentage of humans on earth killed in armed conflict is at its lowest point in all recorded history and is still in continued decline.
Wars were only "local" in the past because technology limited them, and really the idea of local is strange considering how extensive and bloody many conflicts have been through history.
And short? The 100 years war, the 70 Years War, the 30 Years war. There were wars in the east that went on for centuries. If anything technology has majorly decreased the times of conflict.
But, as I say, that's the glass is half full side of things.
There's a saying I'm fond of, "Peace is a theoretical state of affairs whose existence we deduce only because there have been intervals between wars".
It's easy to predict a war because we've always had them and always will. The only thing we can really do is keep limiting them, containing them and keep making those intervals bigger.
There's also way too many people on this planet. Leave me alone and get off my lawn.
Quote from: Gusington on October 17, 2023, 03:01:08 PMThere's also way too many people on this planet. Leave me alone and get off my lawn.
You can partly blame that on the decrease in human conflict as well.
Up until the early 20th century human population growth was largely slow and stagnant.
In the 50's we decided to stop blowing each other up as much as a pastime and invented penicillin. That dumped an extra few billion annoying jerks into the pool in just under a century.
There must be consideration of whether China is encouraged to make a move on Taiwan now that Russia played first penguin.
In my estimation China is a major reason why the US and the West support Ukraine as much as they do. They want to prevent China from being encouraged.
Quote from: SirAndrewD on October 17, 2023, 02:55:28 PMAnd short? The 100 years war, the 70 Years War, the 30 Years war. There were wars in the east that went on for centuries. If anything technology has majorly decreased the times of conflict.
But the Iraq and Afghanistan wars took very long.
Quote from: Redwolf on October 17, 2023, 03:17:03 PMBut the Iraq and Afghanistan wars took very long.
Very true. As did the Indochina conflict and Iran/Iraq war.
I think everything is primed toward a larger conflict. Also, I cannot see that Israel will ever allow Iran to get the bomb & how would that play out?
Quote from: SirAndrewD on October 17, 2023, 01:45:20 PMIt's arguable that we're already in one.
I had a pretty long discussion with former FSO buddy that works with the DOD and he pretty well agrees.
The difference is that in this instance, the major powers involved NATO and allies vs Russia, China, India, North Korea and Iran, the war is unlikely to be fought directly in the major states and more with and among proxies.
Would India be on the same side as China? I thought there was tension and occasional skirmishes between them. Also India is a democracy and some Western businesses are thinking of moving production from China to India. I hope India would be on the side of the Western democracies.
Quote from: MOS:96B2P on October 17, 2023, 03:58:19 PMWould India be on the same side as China? I thought there was tension and occasional skirmishes between them. Also India is a democracy and some Western businesses are thinking of moving production from China to India. I hope India would be on the side of the Western democracies.
Brookings institute considers them strategically aligned currently, but it's not a warm "friendship".
I doubt you'd ever see them form a direct military alliance, but they currently are interested in creating a power bloc that is a counterbalance to western interest.
Of the three big "Eastern Coalition" nations I'd consider India to be the one that has the least desire to risk a military confrontation with the west.
An example of them would be Italy's place in the Central powers pre-1914.
Quote from: Redwolf on October 17, 2023, 03:17:03 PMBut the Iraq and Afghanistan wars took very long.
one could argue that the war part was fairly short and the occupation/nation building was very long.
Quote from: SirAndrewD on October 17, 2023, 03:18:18 PMAs did the Indochina conflict
funny how much faster that ended when we stopped dicking around and carpet bombed Hanoi.
I watched a video today that claims that ever since the creation of the united nations there have been more wars on planet earth than in any other time in history.
Need to dig a bit deeper but if this is true I would argue the world is getting more violent, not less.
Quote from: W8taminute on October 17, 2023, 06:59:26 PMI watched a video today that claims that ever since the creation of the united nations there have been more wars on planet earth than in any other time in history.
Need to dig a bit deeper but if this is true I would argue the world is getting more violent, not less.
I'm not sure how you measure number of wars, but human violence over all has declined to an almost incredible degree. The chance of violent human inflicted death is minuscule (less than 1%) in most 21st century societies whereas in the past it could be 60%.
Here's a visual thing:
https://slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-violence/#/title-slide
Quote from: W8taminute on October 17, 2023, 06:59:26 PMI would argue the world is getting more violent, not less.
No, it's not by an extremely considerable margin and it's not even being argued. In fact most studies are exploring the overall decrease in violence and the reasons behind it and what it means for the future.
(https://i.ibb.co/m6z8Vxv/main-qimg-ca57e04510785849e15f25ebac070cf3-lq.jpg)
We have also had long periods of peace which were interupted by war. The Congress of Vienna comes to mind as the most extreme example, a century of peace followed by the two worst wars in human history.
There is also criticism of Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature:https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02148-1
Wait, did someone just call the 1800s after Napoleon a century of peace??
Quote from: SirAndrewD on October 17, 2023, 08:05:09 PMQuote from: W8taminute on October 17, 2023, 06:59:26 PMI would argue the world is getting more violent, not less.
No, it's not by an extremely considerable margin and it's not even being argued. In fact most studies are exploring the overall decrease in violence and the reasons behind it and what it means for the future.
(https://i.ibb.co/m6z8Vxv/main-qimg-ca57e04510785849e15f25ebac070cf3-lq.jpg)
I'm not sure how one would define "violence" when attempting to study whether it is increasing or decreasing overall worldwide. I'm also not sure how one might define "war" when studying the increase or decrease of armed conflict. The definitions could vary widely and so, therefore, could the results or findings. For instance, while "world-wide battle deaths" may be decreasing on average, wars could still be on the rise, again, depending upon how a "war" is defined. Furthermore, "wars" might be found to be decreasing world-wide with "violence" overall still being on the rise. With this in mind, one could literally make a chart or conduct a study that shows a wide degree of differences or variations on the topic.
Yeah. Violence is on the decline globally and has been ever since the end of WW2. The easiest of Pinker's reads is Enlightenment Now, but there are other scholarly works by other folks that try to measure violence and political violence and the world is doing fine right now by almost any standard imaginable.
Of course, easy access to cell phones means that, when a hospital halfway around the world is bombed, we don't have to rely on 5-day old newspaper reports to know it happened. We see not just pictures, but video of the immediate aftermath. That kicks our own fear instincts into overdrive, which makes people feel profoundly unsafe.
Of course, making people feel unsafe is the best way to sell advertising (as Internet/media moguls figured out in the last 10-15 years), so there's more emphasis these days on media triggering emotional responses than on actually informing people. This can be a wholly accidental byproduct of internet search algorithms and doesn't have to involve anybody trying to freak us out intentionally.
The whole problem is made worse by humans being fundamentally incapable of applying math to real world situations.
So, I think WW 3 is maybe more likely than it was 15 years ago, but still far less likely than it was for pretty much all of human history predating the end of WW2. I think a Cold War-like scenario is much more likely than a hot shooting war. But we'll all feel really unsafe, because of the nature of mass media that we've adopted.
Of course, climate change could wreck civilization and kill of 95% of the species on the planet anyways, so maybe we shouldn't be feeling cocky just yet. (or is the media coverage of climate change all fear-based, too?) :Party:
Quote from: Uberhaus on October 17, 2023, 08:06:47 PMWe have also had long periods of peace which were interupted by war. The Congress of Vienna comes to mind as the most extreme example, a century of peace followed by the two worst wars in human history.
There is also criticism of Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature:https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02148-1
I actually agree with the criticism that Pinker is far too optimistic that human nature has improved leading to less military conflict.
I'd argue more that the decrease in war is only partly tied to secular humanistic improvement but much more tied to the great powers being so financially interconnected and inseparable with weapons stockpiles so potentially catastrophic that war is increasingly not a palatable or profitable option.
This has been, to my mind, why wars have gotten smaller and fought more often with and among secondary or lower powers.
Quote from: SirAndrewD on October 17, 2023, 08:05:09 PMQuote from: W8taminute on October 17, 2023, 06:59:26 PMI would argue the world is getting more violent, not less.
No, it's not by an extremely considerable margin and it's not even being argued. In fact most studies are exploring the overall decrease in violence and the reasons behind it and what it means for the future.
(https://i.ibb.co/m6z8Vxv/main-qimg-ca57e04510785849e15f25ebac070cf3-lq.jpg)
Looking at the x axis I see there are approximately 55 data points from roughly 1948 to roughly 2003. Each of those data points is one kind of conflict or another. I wonder what the data looks like from the previous 5 decades?
Edit - If you look at the cumulative deaths from the past 5 decades on that chart do they not exceed the death caused by WW2?
Quote from: W8taminute on October 17, 2023, 08:22:35 PMIf you look at the cumulative deaths from the past 5 decades on that chart do they not exceed the death caused by WW2?
I would expect a 50 year span to eclipse a 5 year war even with limited conflict.
"Cold war? Hell! It was a hot war!" -- MacNamara, Fog of War
Quote from: SirAndrewD on October 17, 2023, 08:26:29 PMQuote from: W8taminute on October 17, 2023, 08:22:35 PMIf you look at the cumulative deaths from the past 5 decades on that chart do they not exceed the death caused by WW2?
I would expect a 50 year span to eclipse a 5 year war even with limited conflict.
True but that doesn't change the fact that the U.N. has done virtually nothing to limit or stop conflicts.
Quote from: W8taminute on October 17, 2023, 08:22:35 PMI wonder what the data looks like from the previous 5 decades?
(https://i.ibb.co/YbXxM41/ourworldindata-wars-long-run-military-civilian-fatalities-from-brecke1-0.png)
Military death rates are one thing but what about civilian death rates?
There needs to be a study on civilian death rates caused by war, crime, dictatorial regimes, etc.
Quote from: W8taminute on October 17, 2023, 08:34:58 PMMilitary death rates are one thing but what about civilian death rates?
There needs to be a study on civilian death rates caused by war, crime, dictatorial regimes, etc.
Civilian death rates are tracked in the above.
Here's actually a great resource that that the graph came from that goes into it way better.
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
Organized wars, yes there are fewer. But there's more people alive today on Planet Earth than ever before. And there's more people alive today that's trying to kill each other than ever before. Point to a nation in Africa that's NOT having a Civil War, Regional War, Ethnic Conflict, Tribal Conflict, or just plain old Army Take-over. There can be no denying that the whole Middle East is ready for a massive bloodletting and the Mexican Drug Cartels have spread death and corruption throughout Central and South America. They own Mexico and soon will own much of the USA as well. Violence in America has never been so high since The Civil War. Immigration has brought cultural and religious strife to every country in Europe.
There maybe fewer wars than before, but there's never been a time with less peace than right now.
Quote from: Sir Slash on October 17, 2023, 10:12:34 PMThere maybe fewer wars than before, but there's never been a time with less peace than right now.
C'mon man.... Everyone who lived through the '30s and '40s would like a word with you. :buck2:
Those were organized state conflicts NOT the massive Ethnic Cleansing ones we have now. Even in the darkest days of WWI or WWII, nobody was actively trying to destroy entire races other than the Jews. Military conflicts certainly but not the personal genocide like we see so often today. And clearly over more wide-spread parts of the world. Come on indeed.
Quote from: Sir Slash on October 17, 2023, 10:27:11 PMThose were organized state conflicts NOT the massive Ethnic Cleansing ones we have now. Even in the darkest days of WWI or WWII, nobody was actively trying to destroy entire races other than the Jews. Military conflicts certainly but not the personal genocide like we see so often today. And clearly over more wide-spread parts of the world. Come on indeed.
This might actually be the single stupidest fucking thing you've ever posted on this board, and that is really saying something.
World War II was statistically speaking the most devastating decade of world history, and also the most widespread ethnic cleansing in history. It wasn't just Jews who were targeted but "Gypsies" (e.g. eastern Europeans as a whole), disabled people, homosexual people, etc. I would also hardly call the mass retreat on the Eastern Front and subsequent destruction of Germany "organized state conflict" but I digress.
How can any rational person describe the Holocaust as anything other than "personal genocide"?
Quote from: Sir Slash on October 17, 2023, 10:27:11 PMEven in the darkest days of WWI or WWII, nobody was actively trying to destroy entire races other than the Jews. Military conflicts certainly but not the personal genocide like we see so often today. And clearly over more wide-spread parts of the world. Come on indeed.
The Cathars, Taino, Dzungar peoples, Aboriginal Tasmanians, Maori, Circassians, Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks and a lot of others in the period from around 1200 to 1915 would probably beg to differ.
Quote from: al_infierno on October 17, 2023, 10:37:10 PMHow can any rational person describe the Holocaust as anything other than "personal genocide"?
and add in what stalin did to his people, what the Japanese did to China or what Mao did to China.
Quote from: Sir Slash on October 17, 2023, 10:12:34 PMThey own Mexico and soon will own much of the USA as well. Violence in America has never been so high since The Civil War.
I beg you to stop watching media for a month and take a painting class at the closest civic center/library/ymca/church. please
Quote from: Sir Slash on October 17, 2023, 10:12:34 PMThere can be no denying that the whole Middle East is ready for a massive bloodletting
literally no middle eastern country wants a regional war right now. theyve all got their own problems and many are barely keeping a lid on their population revolting against religious extremism.
You're the one who needs to get caught-up Star Old Buddy. You just made my point for me. Keeping a lid on revolting populations doesn't sound like very routine problems to me. Does it to you? Your friends Stalin. Mao, and the Japanese in China killed millions but that was for POWER, not Genocide. And all planned to rule over those people. Not bury them. No need to beg me, I am always merciful. :justice:
Quote from: Sir Slash on October 17, 2023, 11:16:35 PMYour friends Stalin. Mao, and the Japanese in China killed millions but that was for POWER, not Genocide. And all planned to rule over those people.
Yeah, I'm sure the Rape of Nanking was purely related to political gain.
If you were truly merciful you would spare us this utter drivel and stop splitting hairs about the intended purpose behind mass murder. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if mass murder is done for political gain or ideological.
QuoteYour friends Stalin. Mao, and the Japanese in China killed millions but that was for POWER, not Genocide.
there are a LOT of ex russian republics and Koreans that would strongly disagree, particularly the Ukrainians.
Quote from: Sir Slash on October 17, 2023, 11:16:35 PMKeeping a lid on revolting populations doesn't sound like very routine problems to me.
its the youth that are tired of religious authority and oppression.
I'll go back to my original statement for those who found it TLDNR.
Mathematically, people are less likely to die in military conflict today than they have been in a long time. Sir Andrew's charts aren't the only ones that talk about this.
Media has played a huge role in making us feel unsafe, because fear sells better than sex or threats to make people smell Gus' unwashed lingerie after it's been in his gym locker for a week.
Before the thread gets RPF-locked, I'll suggest the hypothesis that genocide is always done for the sake of power, though the power involved can vary in kind, scope, and degree.
Also, we're always heading toward a new world war, generally speaking. Moreso than usually sometimes.
Slash, WWI and WWII may have started politically, which is arguable, but devolved into ethnic cleansing on a scale we can barely embrace in 2023 at every conflict point around the globe where those wars were fought. And beyond. Like race riots in the U.S., for example.
Quote from: SirAndrewD on October 17, 2023, 08:36:19 PMQuote from: W8taminute on October 17, 2023, 08:34:58 PMMilitary death rates are one thing but what about civilian death rates?
There needs to be a study on civilian death rates caused by war, crime, dictatorial regimes, etc.
Civilian death rates are tracked in the above.
Here's actually a great resource that that the graph came from that goes into it way better.
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
I agree that we live in a more peaceful world than previous generations.
What is different is that technology has made news reporting more efficient.
Humans are hard-wired to react to danger signals, and the news media happily feeds them to us. It keeps us clicking and driving up their advertising revenues.
This is not new; Hearst and Pulitzer famously made a boatload of money pushing fear and sensationalism during the 1890s and 1900s for example.
What is different is that today, anybody with a decent computer, and some free time can create believable images and stories, real and faked. Good actors and bad actors can then distribute this real and fake news globally in an instant. "Influencers" have used this technology to build careers, large audiences and lucrative revenue streams by feeding us the most recent 'outrage' and 'existential crisis' on a minute-by-minute basis.
This 24-hour cycle of bad news makes us feel like we are continuously in the "s$#t can," to use the technical term.
So even thought I think things are better now than they have been throughout most of history, our constant diet of bad news and outrage still makes us feel like our world is falling apart.
However, having said that all of that, I do think there is a potential major danger on horizon. The situation brewing in the Pacific seems very pre-WWII-like to me.
Quote from: Gusington on October 17, 2023, 03:01:08 PMThere's also way too many people on this planet. Leave me alone and get off my lawn.
That's the spirit Gus!
Quote from: SirAndrewD on October 17, 2023, 08:20:40 PMQuote from: Uberhaus on October 17, 2023, 08:06:47 PMWe have also had long periods of peace which were interupted by war. The Congress of Vienna comes to mind as the most extreme example, a century of peace followed by the two worst wars in human history.
There is also criticism of Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature:https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02148-1
I actually agree with the criticism that Pinker is far too optimistic that human nature has improved leading to less military conflict.
I'd argue more that the decrease in war is only partly tied to secular humanistic improvement but much more tied to the great powers being so financially interconnected and inseparable with weapons stockpiles so potentially catastrophic that war is increasingly not a palatable or profitable option.
This has been, to my mind, why wars have gotten smaller and fought more often with and among secondary or lower powers.
IMO, this is pretty close to the truth.
When physically fought wars become high risk affairs and offer little in potential profit to the combatants' cabals (right word? maybe?), why inflame the masses?
BTW This lowkey internet war we got going needs to be hammered down ASAP, it's already putting long term fractures into western societies.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on October 17, 2023, 11:02:02 PMQuote from: Sir Slash on October 17, 2023, 10:12:34 PMThere can be no denying that the whole Middle East is ready for a massive bloodletting
literally no middle eastern country wants a regional war right now. theyve all got their own problems and many are barely keeping a lid on their population revolting against religious extremism.
Interestingly, the role of water supply will play more importantly in these areas.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on October 17, 2023, 11:50:58 PMQuote from: Sir Slash on October 17, 2023, 11:16:35 PMKeeping a lid on revolting populations doesn't sound like very routine problems to me.
its the youth that are tired of religious authority and oppression.
I think this is true for much of the youth in Iran. I wish we would do more to encourage Iran's youth. Since the Mullahs control the education system and so much of everyday life in Iran I'm surprised there is any resistance from their youth. IMO we need to "assist" said youth.
However in most Middle East countries, outside of Iran, I'm not sure the youth are tired of religious authority and oppression. I wish they were. You can watch videos of the youth marching in the streets, chanting death to America, supporting Hamas ect. This includes youth from the Middle East that attend universities in Western countries. I think this forces many Arab leaders to take anti Israeli positions in public. To keep a lid on their population including their youth.
Surprisingly the Iranian youth seem to be the exception to the rule.
I think the Iranian youth have been under the bootheel of strict religious authority the longest in the region (excepting maybe the Saudis). The Middle East has been a mess for a long time now.
I think most of the Arab and Muslim leaders take anti-Israel positions to scapegoat "the other" and deflect attention away from their own failures. It's the same thing that they do to the Americans, and it's the same thing that the Russian kleptocracy has done to the West in recent years.
I think perceptions are definitely being driven substantially by the nature of the modern media cycle. However, I think anxiety over the state of the world is due to more than just that, and while I think there are a number of factors at play, another major issue in my view is the overall lack of clear strategy and strong leadership, in the US and the West in general. To get too deep into the causes of this I think would encourage crossing over the line into RPFM, so I'll be purposefully ambiguous and general.
In the past, the US and its NATO partners had clearly defined goals with focus and a strategy to pursue achieving those goals. When there were setbacks, tragedies, losses, uncertainty and instability, there were leaders whom we could put our faith and confidence in to choose the proper path, even if it would be costly. Sadly, those days are gone and those who are piloting the ship have lost their insight, wisdom, purpose and compass. So now, when there is uncertainty or instability, we no longer have anyone to look up to with the faith that they will steer us through the night. This in turn, has led to fear, loathing and hopelessness.
^Absolutely agree on that...we need stronger leadership in the West.
In some of the videos I have posted in the last few days on the Middle East (Warographics, mostly, some TLDR) - a good point was made on Iran and Lebanon: their internal problems and crappy economies may be keeping their responses to the current violence tempered a bit.
Internal Iranian dissent probably won't keep Iranian proxies under control, like Hezbollah, but the horrendous Lebanese economy may keep Hezbollah curbed. I also did not know how large Hezbollah was: 100,000 men and equipped with a lot of modern technology. Much larger than Hamas.
Not sure how internal problems in Lebanon or Iran will keep other militias or random rocket attacks like the one near Yemen under control.
The Houthis are sort of like
(https://th.bing.com/th?id=OIP.knVH59ktZd8HOYCHXKMgtAHaFA&w=303&h=205&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&pid=3.1&rm=2)
Though to extend the meme, they may soon be like
(https://th.bing.com/th?id=OIP.B5PxogUXttzAxvjo-f4sLgHaEK&w=333&h=187&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&o=6&pid=3.1&rm=2)
Quote from: Windigo on October 18, 2023, 10:49:04 AMQuote from: GDS_Starfury on October 17, 2023, 11:02:02 PMQuote from: Sir Slash on October 17, 2023, 10:12:34 PMThere can be no denying that the whole Middle East is ready for a massive bloodletting
literally no middle eastern country wants a regional war right now. theyve all got their own problems and many are barely keeping a lid on their population revolting against religious extremism.
Just as an aside, if we're able to totally revolutionize power generation sometime in the 30 years (e.g., fusion reactors), one of the biggest technological capabilities that suddenly becomes easy is desalinization on a massive level. In effect, most of the Middle East would be trading an abundance of fresh water for a crushing shortfall of money from petroleum energy exports.
Lord only knows how that would work out, but it seems unlikely to solve the structural problems, which have more to do with ethnic and religious divisions and poor governance. JMHO, of course. I've never lived or even traveled in that part of the world, so you can take my opinions with a small grain of salt!
Interestingly, the role of water supply will play more importantly in these areas.
I've heard that tokomak (?) fission reactors would be doable now for revolutionizing power generation at local levels, although I'm not sure I want a bunch of small nuclear piles the size of large mailboxes in every neighborhood. But supposedly they're practically foolproof compared to regular reactors, since they aren't expected to generate even distantly the same power output per unit.
Admittedly, I don't know if the people I heard talking about this some months ago knew enough of what they were talking about, but they tend to be reasonably well-informed about tech things. Could just be wishful thinking.