I think the use of nuclear attacks of any kind are off the table outside of a last ditch ploy to outright win through annihilation. Anything else could easily spin into a total nuclear apocalypse, unless you think in that case world leaders would be able to hold their trigger fingers and retaliating to a nuclear strike on their soil.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Are we heading to WW3 because of Syria?
- Thread starter Pomerlaw
- Start date
- Status
I think the use of nuclear attacks of any kind are off the table outside of a last ditch ploy to outright win through annihilation. Anything else could easily spin into a total nuclear apocalypse, unless you think in that case world leaders would be able to hold their trigger fingers and retaliating to a nuclear strike on their soil.
Gnome Scat
Member
A lot more things need to go wrong for another World War to break out.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
You really think America and Russia would have old fashioned ground combat against each other?
And there is no such thing as "limited exchanges of nuclear weapons", almost a laughable concept
Mammoth Jones
Member
I'm not arrogant to take any option off the table. It's not easily predictable. I can tell you that all players w/ nuclear weapons have contingencies for ground war as well as nuclear war.
We just don't know.
ClosingADoor
Member
No. There are no parties that have any interest in escalating conflict beyond proxy wars. We might see an uptick in Ukraine and Syria like conflicts. Proxy wars coupled with civil wars and having multiple actors involved, making it a mess.
But unless anyone is stupid enough to outright attack a NATO country without being able to spin it as an "accident" or if NATO goes in on Russia for some reason, it will not be an all out war.
But unless anyone is stupid enough to outright attack a NATO country without being able to spin it as an "accident" or if NATO goes in on Russia for some reason, it will not be an all out war.
Well that's the problem - attacking a NATO country isn't unthinkable anymore. The Baltics are basically defenseless on their own, the EU is impotent and fractured and the US is one major scandal away from electing a president who's flirting with the idea of making NATO solidarity conditional.
With a resurgent Russia that's also running on a savings account at the moment, well... history is your guide. Those are the conditions for some terrible mistakes to be made.
WW3 almost happened because of Cuba so nothing would surprise me anymore especially given the clusterfuck in Syria, not to mention warmongering Hillary already wanting a no-fly zone vs Russia and the election hacks. With North Korea making nukes like it was their cash crop and their history of giving weapons to Syria/etc...WW3 would be unlikely but not really surprising.
Also Russia is in "use it or lose it" mode with their demographics and military hardware, not to mention their economy isn't so great and they seem to still love Putin. A dangerous combination.
Also Russia is in "use it or lose it" mode with their demographics and military hardware, not to mention their economy isn't so great and they seem to still love Putin. A dangerous combination.
Fox Mulder
Member
No, at most there'll just be proxy wars in Middle East shitholes no one really cares about anyways.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
This is a reason I think we can stumble our way towards a world war, today we have a critical lack of understanding on who Russia is and what they are capable of. I don't think there would be a deliberate war between the US and Russia but we can absolutely stumble our way into one and it's scary to think that some don't find that horrifying. Even if Russia was in isolation and fought the United States or Nato they still have the conventional capacity to wreck Europe and the world economy talk less of their nuclear capability.
ChronotriggerJM
Member
Who's in Russia's side in this hypothetical world war?
Stolen parts of assorted former Soviet bloc countries of course.
curls
Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience ð¤
Why would they need any? They possess the second must powerful conventional military force in the world and enough nukes to end civilisation.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
All out shooting conflict, no.
Not to say the situation isn't volatile and needs to treated carefully. Russia is assisting the most brutal party in the Syrian civil war, complacent and conducting gas attacks, bombing hospitals, forced starvation and now bombing UN convoys. The "good" part is Russia's inability to project force for too much longer. They even brought heavy bombers into Iran for about 2 sorties then had them fly back out to Russia. They recent downgraded the air fleet and Spetznaz forces in the conflict earlier this year. Combined with their tanking economy and reserves is dire straits we can essentially wait out their ability to contribute to the massacres and work to ground at least Assad's war criminal Air Force.
Not to say the situation isn't volatile and needs to treated carefully. Russia is assisting the most brutal party in the Syrian civil war, complacent and conducting gas attacks, bombing hospitals, forced starvation and now bombing UN convoys. The "good" part is Russia's inability to project force for too much longer. They even brought heavy bombers into Iran for about 2 sorties then had them fly back out to Russia. They recent downgraded the air fleet and Spetznaz forces in the conflict earlier this year. Combined with their tanking economy and reserves is dire straits we can essentially wait out their ability to contribute to the massacres and work to ground at least Assad's war criminal Air Force.
This is correct for eastern Europe. We already know from war games Putin will never roll up his regular forces in uniform. It will be "freedom fighters coming to protect ethnic Russians" supplemented by lots of misleading propaganda designed to retard a unified NATO response.
Theonik
Member
You say that but people said exactly the same thing before WWI and II. One of the reasons these wars ended up happening in fact was that people thought that them happening was unfathomable and the other party would back down to avoid the massive damage they would bring about.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
No, but Syria is basically Iraq #2.
We didn't have nukes then.
titiklabingapat
Member
Nah. Russia is dying on its own, demographically speaking. There is no reason to think that the USA would want a confrontational and direct war with them. All they have to do is wait it out, like they did during the Cold War.
Elfforkusu
Member
No, but:
Syria was plunged into chaos largely because of a historic drought in the region. Such historic events will be more common as the bolts of climate change begin to tighten on the globe.
When a nuclear power falls into chaos, that might do it.
Syria was plunged into chaos largely because of a historic drought in the region. Such historic events will be more common as the bolts of climate change begin to tighten on the globe.
When a nuclear power falls into chaos, that might do it.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
We won't see a true world war until the effects of climate change really start to cripple the west.
Then it will be a scrap to horde as much of the worlds resources as possible.
Then it will be a scrap to horde as much of the worlds resources as possible.
Elfforkusu
Member
I don't think climate change will cripple the west, or any big world powers. The west specifically has more than enough wealth to absorb drought and flood events.
What it will do is crumble weaker governments, some of which will have nuclear arsenals.
Theonik
Member
Nukes don't really make nations more careful. There is a reason why the cold war was so scary. We actually came close to total anhilation several times by the time it was done.
We're at the point where the US and China can't really live without each other. Economies are too interconnected. It would take an apocalyptic event for them to go to war. China would actually be delighted to sit on the fence and reap the benefits.
So who's gonna allign themselves against NATO/Europe/Australia/Japan? Russia and its merry band of misfits? I don't think anti-americanism is a big enough motivation considering how suicidal it would be.
So who's gonna allign themselves against NATO/Europe/Australia/Japan? Russia and its merry band of misfits? I don't think anti-americanism is a big enough motivation considering how suicidal it would be.
sunshine and gasoline
Banned
While nukes certainly are a massive deterrent...never underestimate human stupidity/foolishness. It is certainly possible for someone to fuck up at some point and lead to a domino effect that drags the world into a terrible war.
Theonik
Member
If anything improved communication has played a much more important role in preventing war than nukes have had
I don't think that the conditions for World War III are present today. In both World War I and II, the great powers were highly interested in going to war to achieve their objectives, and that kind of interest doesn't exist any more. That's not to say that such an occurrence is absolutely impossible, but it's certainly not going to happen over as small a matter as Syria. There's a reason why both countries have restricted themselves to limited intervention in the country - their levels of interest in the conflict simply isn't that high.
Germany and France also had highly interconnected economies at the outset of World War I, so that alone isn't enough to prevent war. The difference lies in the countries involved having a lot of interest in going to war, and the public appetite for it being high. This was very much true in World War I, but very much untrue in the great powers today.
I'd assume that this thread is more about a limited war escalating into a general war between the world's great powers rather than a war between roughly equal alliances. Even with this lesser criteria, it's very unlikely to lead to war unless someone badly miscalculates.
Yeah, the importance of the UN as a global forum is often vastly understated.
I'm not sure another war on that scale could even happen today. We'd need multiple major countries to break down for it to even be a possibility.
Globalization, as much as it tends to homogenize various cultures, which some people think kills off individuality and uniqueness inside those cultures (it kind of does) is also fantastic at ensuring major war doesn't break out. The more broad your experiences are with various cultures, the less foreign and scary they are to you, and the harder it is to sway a population en masse to go to war with them.
There's also the issue of money, which is the chief driving force in the world today. A World War on that scale would destroy economies that rely on trade across the globe. If nothing else, loss of profit is a great motivator not to go to war.
If there was ever any danger of us destroying ourselves it was without a doubt the Cold War era. If you go back and read about some of the close calls we had just due to technical and human errors it may keep you up at night.
Globalization, as much as it tends to homogenize various cultures, which some people think kills off individuality and uniqueness inside those cultures (it kind of does) is also fantastic at ensuring major war doesn't break out. The more broad your experiences are with various cultures, the less foreign and scary they are to you, and the harder it is to sway a population en masse to go to war with them.
There's also the issue of money, which is the chief driving force in the world today. A World War on that scale would destroy economies that rely on trade across the globe. If nothing else, loss of profit is a great motivator not to go to war.
If there was ever any danger of us destroying ourselves it was without a doubt the Cold War era. If you go back and read about some of the close calls we had just due to technical and human errors it may keep you up at night.
TheRealTalker
Banned
No.
Are we headed to having our future generations reading about a genocide and diaspora of certain people due to the lack of a strong foreign policy of the so called leaders of the free world?
Yes.
Are we headed to having our future generations reading about a genocide and diaspora of certain people due to the lack of a strong foreign policy of the so called leaders of the free world?
Yes.
Theonik
Member
It's not just that. While countries were prepared for WWI no country thought it would happen or actually wanted a war like that at the time. The actual declaration of war was largely a results of communications and diplomatic breakdown that cannot happen today. The hotline with the Kremlin installed after the Cuban missile crisis might have indirectly helped prevent nuclear Armageddon.
bonesmccoy
Banned
No.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
You have to call it spiritual successor rather that give it the 3 if the ones making it are not the the Europeans. It's a different franchise.
Nuclear weapons did not exist prior to WW1. Countries weren't capable of exterminating millions in a matter of seconds, and trade prior to 1914 isn't at all comparable to the level of integration countries have today.
Also, in 1914 Europe had several countries vying for supremacy, and the strongest countries on the continent at the time were similar in military strength. The US today would flatten any other military in the world and it wouldn't even be close. Contrary to popular belief, China could not win a war against the US. The US couldn't occupy China, but China's ability to wage war on a wide scale would be destroyed within a matter of weeks.
And all that doesn't even factor in the strength of America's allies. Never in history has one nation had such a massive military advantage over the rest of the world. It's not even close.
World War III will never happen. Today's proxy wars are media hype and little more; tragic for their regions but nothing remotely similar to the situation in the Balkans in 1914.
EDIT - Quick tl;dr of the below charts and data - Russia is not as big as either they or most US citizens make them out to be.
One thing I never understood about US foreign policy and the psyche of the US citizen is how much fear or grandiosity they put towards Russia.
I mean get why the propaganda was there due to the whole communism vs capitalism struggle of the 50s to 70s mainly started by Stalin's hope to conquer the world through his brand of communism. There was a brief moment the world was susceptible with Europe and Asia devastated after WW2.
But that time ended. The US foreign policy and US citizen psyche has never changed.
I know Russia is the king of bluster, but here's the facts of modern Russia.
Military Spending (Yes, the US spends close to 10x Russia):
This is what makes Russia look even smaller on the international stage. GDP (nominal):
Now when you look at PPP (the above is nominal), Russia fairs a bit better but is still 6th:
One thing I never understood about US foreign policy and the psyche of the US citizen is how much fear or grandiosity they put towards Russia.
I mean get why the propaganda was there due to the whole communism vs capitalism struggle of the 50s to 70s mainly started by Stalin's hope to conquer the world through his brand of communism. There was a brief moment the world was susceptible with Europe and Asia devastated after WW2.
But that time ended. The US foreign policy and US citizen psyche has never changed.
I know Russia is the king of bluster, but here's the facts of modern Russia.
Military Spending (Yes, the US spends close to 10x Russia):
Rank Country Spending ($ Bn.) % of GDP
1 United States United States 597.0 3.3
2 China China[a] 215.0 1.9
3 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia 87.2 13.7
4 Russia Russia[a] 66.4 5.4
5 United Kingdom United Kingdom 55.5 2.0
6 India India 53.3 2.3
7 France France 50.9 2.1
8 Japan Japan 40.9 1.0
9 Germany Germany[a] 39.4 1.2
10 South Korea South Korea 36.4 2.6
This is what makes Russia look even smaller on the international stage. GDP (nominal):
Rank Country GDP (millions of US$)
1 United States 18,558,130
— European Union 16,477,211
2 China 11,383,030
3 Japan 4,412,600
4 Germany 3,467,780
5 United Kingdom 2,760,960
6 France 2,464,790
7 India 2,288,720
8 Italy 1,848,690
9 Brazil 1,534,780
10 Canada 1,462,330
11 South Korea 1,321,200
12 Spain 1,242,360
13 Australia 1,200,780
14 Russia 1,132,740
Now when you look at PPP (the above is nominal), Russia fairs a bit better but is still 6th:
Rank Country GDP (Millions of Int$)
1 China 20,853,331
— European Union[n 1] 19,205,364
2 United States 18,558,129
3 India 8,642,758
4 Japan 4,901,102
5 Germany 3,934,664
6 Russia 3,684,643
7 Brazil 3,101,247
8 Indonesia 3,010,746
9 United Kingdom 2,756,748
10 France 2,703,378
nephilimdj
Member
And?
BND (German) training Albanians before Kosovo war and now Turkey trying to land grab Syria.
Not like Russia is the only one.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
You may have a point if you ignore:
1. Reconciliation in 90's after the fall of the soviet union. Policy was geared more to nuclear disarmament and diplomatic ties with Russia. That was when things like the ISS were started with including Russia as a major party. The start of the Obama admin was when the new START treaty was ratified.
2. Russian involvement in things like Georgia, annexing Ukraine, coming to the aid of the most brutal party in Syria.
3. Putin consolidating power over the last decade making it a defacto authoritarian regime.
4. Nuclear sabre rattling by Putin over the last few years.
5. Tail diving economy due to oil and rumored monetary reserves starting to dry up.
So sure you have a point if you ignore reality.
- Status
Similar threads
- x2