Possibility of World War Three

[Buck Edwards]

Looking at the recent turn of events where wars are being carried out without a flinch of moral culpability, it shouldn't be too far fetched to at least consider the possibility of a world War in the next few decades. The world is right now in a turbulent grip and chaotic leaders like Trump and Netanyahu are just examples that carry some renewed version of historical relics like Hitler and Mussolini. Of course we don't see something on a monumental scale, yet it's not hard to imagine how history can still be repeated (if not to the fullest extent) in very dysfunctional metaphorical ways in the future. 

[PurpleTree]

had always been a risk since the cold war

a few times it was close

[Danioover9000]

@Buck Edwards

11 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Looking at the recent turn of events where wars are being carried out without a flinch of moral culpability, it shouldn't be too far fetched to at least consider the possibility of a world War in the next few decades. The world is right now in a turbulent grip and chaotic leaders like Trump and Netanyahu are just examples that carry some renewed version of historical relics like Hitler and Mussolini. Of course we don't see something on a monumental scale, yet it's not hard to imagine how history can still be repeated (if not to the fullest extent) in very dysfunctional metaphorical ways in the future. 

   So you think world war 3 would happen in the next few decades? By few decades, you mean by 20 to 30 years? Okay, we'll wait 20 to 30 years, then come back here so you can tell us how world war 3 went.

[Buck Edwards]

1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Buck Edwards

   So you think world war 3 would happen in the next few decades? By few decades, you mean by 20 to 30 years? Okay, we'll wait 20 to 30 years, then come back here so you can tell us how world war 3 went.

It doesn't seem immediate to me. Yet considering the timeline with wars every few years, I can estimate the earliest being around another 10-15 years and to the maximum of 2 decades. But it's not too far in terms of human lifetime. So we might be on the cusp of witnessing a world war here right now in our lifetime. At first I thought such a thought would have been preposterous. Yet with the current flow of extremely chaotic events, this does not look like an unlikely outcome. What do you think? 

[Buck Edwards]

@Danioover9000 what I mean is that it's not completely out of question given the high instability in the geopolitical situation. 

[Danioover9000]

@Buck Edwards

19 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

@Danioover9000 what I mean is that it's not completely out of question given the high instability in the geopolitical situation. 

   Sure I partly agree it's not out of question, just that if it's more likely or less likely is probably where we'd disagree.

21 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

It doesn't seem immediate to me. Yet considering the timeline with wars every few years, I can estimate the earliest being around another 10-15 years and to the maximum of 2 decades. But it's not too far in terms of human lifetime. So we might be on the cusp of witnessing a world war here right now in our lifetime. At first I thought such a thought would have been preposterous. Yet with the current flow of extremely chaotic events, this does not look like an unlikely outcome. What do you think? 

   I'd agree it could be not immediate. Not sure about considering the timeline with wars every few years, seems to be those are either border disputes or skirmishes, types of conflict mostly small scale that I wouldn't consider a full out traditional war and invasion. You could estimate and predict the likelihood, yet you're not the only one, and even some people try to predict Armageddon and keep on failing when it comes to the precise timeline and location, so in terms of probability I think that the ego and the collective ego is too selfish to just self terminate or terminate other egos, so it could easily be 50 years from now as the earliest, to some centuries later on. My main reasoning for 50 to 200+ years is that in 50 years scientists estimate that global warming would be so severe it could melt the ice caps, and with melting ice caps comes rising sea levels, and with rising sea levels comes shrinking of land mass available for living, plus increasing temperatures would effect weather patterns, and agriculture, induce famines and droughts more often, which would reduce consumption for a population which would lead to more conflicts over natural resources like land, biosphere and food production, hydrosphere and water, and atmosphere changes would increase migration to colder or warmer regions away from hotter or colder places. I also estimate at centuries because it's long enough to include some key events.

   And all this depends on developmental factors like Stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality typing/traits, 9 stages f ego development, Integral Theory's other lines of development from individual to sociological domains, and ideological beliefs indoctrinated by culture, family upbringing and information ecology, and our self biases and preferences so far in life.

   As Daniel Schmachtenberger often talks about in his podcast features, we haven't even consider nuclear technology, C.R.I.S.P.R and other DNA and gene splicing technology, environmental pollutions and issues brought on by carbon emissions via human technology, or even emissions from nature itself which would lead to other existential crises, and many other human advancements from technology to science to sociology, psychology and many other fields, each advancement comes with it's varying degrees of devilry and bad faith ideological groups with their own agendas wanting to weaponize each advancement to suit it's own goals at the expense of harming other parts of the system.

[Buck Edwards]

9 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Buck Edwards

   Sure I partly agree it's not out of question, just that if it's more likely or less likely is probably where we'd disagree.

   I'd agree it could be not immediate. Not sure about considering the timeline with wars every few years, seems to be those are either border disputes or skirmishes, types of conflict mostly small scale that I wouldn't consider a full out traditional war and invasion. You could estimate and predict the likelihood, yet you're not the only one, and even some people try to predict Armageddon and keep on failing when it comes to the precise timeline and location, so in terms of probability I think that the ego and the collective ego is too selfish to just self terminate or terminate other egos, so it could easily be 50 years from now as the earliest, to some centuries later on. My main reasoning for 50 to 200+ years is that in 50 years scientists estimate that global warming would be so severe it could melt the ice caps, and with melting ice caps comes rising sea levels, and with rising sea levels comes shrinking of land mass available for living, plus increasing temperatures would effect weather patterns, and agriculture, induce famines and droughts more often, which would reduce consumption for a population which would lead to more conflicts over natural resources like land, biosphere and food production, hydrosphere and water, and atmosphere changes would increase migration to colder or warmer regions away from hotter or colder places. I also estimate at centuries because it's long enough to include some key events.

Skirmishes is how World War 1 began. It takes a spark. Then it becomes a full blown explosion in no time. 

9 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

   And all this depends on developmental factors like Stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality typing/traits, 9 stages f ego development, Integral Theory's other lines of development from individual to sociological domains, and ideological beliefs indoctrinated by culture, family upbringing and information ecology, and our self biases and preferences so far in life.

You never leave this out of any discussion. Yea developmental factors in short and we're ages behind on that calendar. 

9 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

   As Daniel Schmachtenberger often talks about in his podcast features, we haven't even consider nuclear technology, C.R.I.S.P.R and other DNA and gene splicing technology, environmental pollutions and issues brought on by carbon emissions via human technology, or even emissions from nature itself which would lead to other existential crises, and many other human advancements from technology to science to sociology, psychology and many other fields, each advancement comes with it's varying degrees of devilry and bad faith ideological groups with their own agendas wanting to weaponize each advancement to suit it's own goals at the expense of harming other parts of the system.

Do you mean the environment will get to us before any human conflict? That's not far fetched either. So basically we're doomed on both fronts. Human conflicts don't seem to cease and environmental conflicts might actually increase human conflicts. In that case this might further propel the possibility of world war much quicker than estimated. Again not far fetched. 

[Danioover9000]

@Buck Edwards

1 hour ago, Buck Edwards said:

Skirmishes is how World War 1 began. It takes a spark. Then it becomes a full blown explosion in no time. 

You never leave this out of any discussion. Yea developmental factors in short and we're ages behind on that calendar. 

Do you mean the environment will get to us before any human conflict? That's not far fetched either. So basically we're doomed on both fronts. Human conflicts don't seem to cease and environmental conflicts might actually increase human conflicts. In that case this might further propel the possibility of world war much quicker than estimated. Again not far fetched. 

   Skirmishes still happen in parts of Africa, yet no world war 3 in Africa, same with few parts of Asia, middle east, and even in eastern Europe involving gangs and freedom fighters, yet no world war 3 because scale is very small, and different types of conflict.

   Yes, it's important to consider the developmental factors at play, at least for argument's sake for contextualization;.

   Sure, there are two sets of possibilities for extinction level events: human caused, or nature caused. Human caused set is like nuclear warfare, bio engineered weaponry, cyber warfare, and so on. Nature caused set includes meteors/asteroid impacting earth and other celestial causes, volcano eruptions powerful enough to causal chain other natural disasters like tsunamis, earth quakes, and season to yearly long blocking of the sun, and other nature caused disasters that leads to extinction of the current ecosystem. To some extent we're doomed on both sets of possibilities. However, this doom and gloom mentality, or nihilistic realism or techno optimism to me is limited and impractical. More practical is philosophy, idealism, and naive optimism rather than nihilism and naive realism. At least with philosophy and idealism the person contemplates their LP, why they exist on this earth, and what should they do to contribute to this world, versus fantasizing about the dark ages or human extinction and steeping into nihilistic, self destructive thoughts.  

[BlueOak]

I used to be completely opposed to the idea 10 years ago, but the historical patterns are very obvious and have been to me for some time.

I'd say it's more likely than not yes that we'll get increasingly larger conflicts. Though i'd also say it could just be a series of larger regional conflicts that keep happening, that avenue isn't closed yet. Also, the population as a whole has a rising level of consciousness, generally speaking, but whether that is enough given the current imbalance of power toward corporations and a few holders of it, I would doubt.

1) Further right governments continued to move ever to the right. Which means nationalism and fascism. Fascism requires an external opponent to exist. Generally, far-right-wing governments are more likely to go to war to solve an issue.
2) Nationalism benefits from war. A level of nationalism can be healthy for a country's stability, but when out of balance it isn't.
3) No care about civilian casualties, civilians specifically targeted in wars, and no longer a reason they won't happen.
4) Two rising competing global powers, BRICS and NATO designed to compete. No matter what they say, or how they frame it, BRICS is specifically trying to compete, that's its purpose and design.
5) increased militarization across the globe as a result of increasing tensions and wars. More guns and a reliance on them, means they are more likely to be used.
6) Justifications for just about anything are possible now given all the threats, invasions, genocides, espionage, stealing of land or territorial water, and spheres of influence overlapping. There are so many border disagreements now that further wars or skirmishes are inevitable on some scale.
7) Rising dissatisfaction with governments across the globe that need an outlet.
8)The population is too large for the available resources, so resource wars arise out of necessity. The climate will continue getting worse, with increasing the pressure to take resources like water or food access by force.
9) Prisoners have been used in war, and forced conscription, showing an increased contempt or at least lack of concern for human life.
10) Populations are more easily led than ever across my lifetime, they'll buy anything if it makes them feel good, and the mechanisms for control are stronger than ever. So much so that conspiracy and outright obvious inventions can be used as policy when required.
11) Increasing unilateral action to solve problems.
12) Willingness to burn things down rather than work to better them.
13) The younger infatuation with the far right.
14) The generations that experienced the World War(s) are no longer here to tell you how horrific it was. I can only give you a few vague descriptions my grandfather gave me, he didn't like to talk about it much. He lost most of his friends at Dunkirk and the rest at Monte Cassino, I think, because he wasn't there, he'd left for the airforce after Dunkirk to be a navigator, or I wouldn't be here.

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by BlueOak

[bebotalk]

Humans are aggressive. Thus, war is a reality in any context. 
Since WW2, there have been many wars. The point may be that the likelihood of WW3 occurring is higher than at the height of the Cold War. 

Even then, right now, I don't see it as likely. 

 

[bebotalk]

10 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I used to be completely opposed to the idea 10 years ago, but the historical patterns are very obvious and have been to me for some time.

I'd say it's more likely than not yes that we'll get increasingly larger conflicts. Though i'd also say it could just be a series of larger regional conflicts that keep happening, that avenue isn't closed yet. Also, the population as a whole has a rising level of consciousness, generally speaking, but whether that is enough given the current imbalance of power toward corporations and a few holders of it, I would doubt.

1) Further right governments continued to move ever to the right. Which means nationalism and fascism. Fascism requires an external opponent to exist. Generally, far-right-wing governments are more likely to go to war to solve an issue.
2) Nationalism benefits from war. A level of nationalism can be healthy for a country's stability, but when out of balance it isn't.
3) No care about civilian casualties, civilians specifically targeted in wars, and no longer a reason they won't happen.
4) Two rising competing global powers, BRICS and NATO designed to compete. No matter what they say, or how they frame it, BRICS is specifically trying to compete, that's its purpose and design.
5) increased militarization across the globe as a result of increasing tensions and wars. More guns and a reliance on them, means they are more likely to be used.
6) Justifications for just about anything are possible now given all the threats, invasions, genocides, espionage, stealing of land or territorial water, and spheres of influence overlapping. There are so many border disagreements now that further wars or skirmishes are inevitable on some scale.
7) Rising dissatisfaction with governments across the globe that need an outlet.
8)The population is too large for the available resources, so resource wars arise out of necessity. The climate will continue getting worse, with increasing the pressure to take resources like water or food access by force.
9) Prisoners have been used in war, and forced conscription, showing an increased contempt or at least lack of concern for human life.
10) Populations are more easily led than ever across my lifetime, they'll buy anything if it makes them feel good, and the mechanisms for control are stronger than ever. So much so that conspiracy and outright obvious inventions can be used as policy when required.
11) Increasing unilateral action to solve problems.
12) Willingness to burn things down rather than work to better them.
13) The younger infatuation with the far right.
14) The generations that experienced the World War(s) are no longer here to tell you how horrific it was. I can only give you a few vague descriptions my grandfather gave me, he didn't like to talk about it much. He lost most of his friends at Dunkirk and the rest at Monte Cassino, I think, because he wasn't there, he'd left for the airforce after Dunkirk to be a navigator, or I wouldn't be here.

 

Are you British? Given point 14, it may seem so. 
If that is the case, then hasn't Britain been involved in many conflicts since 1945? Korea, Kenya, Falklands, Malaya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, etc. all count in this regard. As for being manipulated, well that's common in practically all eras. When has it been the time in the past that we were so enlightened and now we've regressed? imho, that seems quite naive. Mass global alliances have existed for well over a century. What you're describing is nothing new. 

[BlueOak]

47 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

Are you British? Given point 14, it may seem so. 
If that is the case, then hasn't Britain been involved in many conflicts since 1945? Korea, Kenya, Falklands, Malaya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, etc. all count in this regard. As for being manipulated, well that's common in practically all eras. When has it been the time in the past that we were so enlightened and now we've regressed? imho, that seems quite naive. Mass global alliances have existed for well over a century. What you're describing is nothing new. 

Of course, whatever period propaganda existed was used. In the last couple of decades, the capacity for state systems to not only understand people on a deeper level due to personal data collection, their ability to survey the population, has certainly within my lifetime (of 40 years or so), increased drastically their ability to control the population. It brings us back to earlier periods almost, whereby religion, or ideology was an effective method of control. Now the control is harvested individual data and trends (which is why nothing in politics has permanence). I'm only speaking about my personal lifetime, or maybe from the 70's onwards.

Why do you think things like obvious conspiracy or propaganda works? Even if it's absolutely absurd on its premise, and this premise could be investigated in a total of 5 minutes to check its validity, because that trend was identified within the population as a topic of conversation, or interest and then played to. They can do this so much better now than the guesswork of the 80's allowed. As well as the debasement or perception of corruption within institutions magnified to an absurd degree, by virtue of highlighting one example out of a million in daily operations within an institution, and the drama necessary to sustain a media organization's requirement for eyeballs on their content. To be clear, it's these institutions that keep demagogues in check and breaking them will lead to more conflict.

 As i've said this takes us back pre 1970's at least in methods of control, and the level of danger that perceived strongmen can save us from the corruption they thrive off.

I am half Scottish and half english. Of course, we were involved in smaller conflicts, but the prime example of what makes a world war, or larger regional conflicts, is larger powers going to war with each other. This hasn't happened since WW2, only by proxy with spheres of influence testing or trying to replace each other. Right now those two large blocks of competing interests are directly trying to undermine or replace each other, so larger scale conflicts are obviously more likely.

Don't normalize world war. You've never seen it. You've never experienced it. Most don't comprehend what war will do to your country and life, because the 'wars' they've experienced are from the comfort of their own armchair at home, watching it on TV and rooting for a side. Which is part of the problem globally.

Edited November 29, 2023 by BlueOak

[bebotalk]

37 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Of course, whatever period propaganda existed was used. In the last couple of decades, the capacity for state systems to not only understand people on a deeper level due to personal data collection, their ability to survey the population, has certainly within my lifetime (of 40 years or so), increased drastically their ability to control the population. It brings us back to earlier periods almost, whereby religion, or ideology was an effective method of control. Now the control is harvested individual data and trends (which is why nothing in politics has permanence). I'm only speaking about my personal lifetime, or maybe from the 70's onwards.

Why do you think things like obvious conspiracy or propaganda works? Even if it's absolutely absurd on its premise, and this premise could be investigated in a total of 5 minutes to check its validity, because that trend was identified within the population as a topic of conversation, or interest and then played to. They can do this so much better now than the guesswork of the 80's allowed. As well as the debasement or perception of corruption within institutions magnified to an absurd degree, by virtue of highlighting one example out of a million in daily operations within an institution, and the drama necessary to sustain a media organization's requirement for eyeballs on their content. To be clear, it's these institutions that keep demagogues in check and breaking them will lead to more conflict.

 As i've said this takes us back pre 1970's at least in methods of control, and the level of danger that perceived strongmen can save us from the corruption they thrive off.

I am half Scottish and half english. Of course, we were involved in smaller conflicts, but the prime example of what makes a world war, or larger regional conflicts, is larger powers going to war with each other. This hasn't happened since WW2, only by proxy with spheres of influence testing or trying to replace each other. Right now those two large blocks of competing interests are directly trying to undermine or replace each other, so larger scale conflicts are obviously more likely.

Don't normalize world war. You've never seen it. You've never experienced it. Most don't comprehend what war will do to your country and life, because the 'wars' they've experienced are from the comfort of their own armchair at home, watching it on TV and rooting for a side. Which is part of the problem globally.

That hasn't happened since WW2 due to the presence of nuclear weapons. It nearly happened in the Bay of Pigs Crisis. There were noted near misses before and after where individual personnel decided to see radar ghosts as not nuclear strikes. I don't think people have really ever changed. It's a fallacy to think as such, or that we somehow became more enlightened and smarter and we're regressing. 

 

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, bebotalk said:

That hasn't happened since WW2 due to the presence of nuclear weapons. It nearly happened in the Bay of Pigs Crisis. There were noted near misses before and after where individual personnel decided to see radar ghosts as not nuclear strikes. I don't think people have really ever changed. It's a fallacy to think as such, or that we somehow became more enlightened and smarter and we're regressing. 

 

I was not arguing enlightenment so much as threat level. These patterns are cyclic, even at an easily demonstratable neutral position taking out all other factors, or historic trends, can you not see the increased tensions, and understand that means an increased level of potential violence? However that manifests itself.

We certainly have changed, I change over time. Don't you? That's all countries are people, and their leaders, institutions, businesses, problems, challenges etc. Individuals can change quicker than the overall whole but the country slowly reflects it by necessity or increasing civil unrest ensues. 

As far as safeguards to larger conflict. World war, or rather conflict as a whole (because these things are cyclic), has brought about a lot of what we'd call a drive for peace, for example, the UN, civil rights, a desire to never lose 80 million people in a few years again, recognized international waters. The EU, Nuclear proliferation treaties, NATO, etc. Even if you don't believe anything changes, heck that's more pessimistic than even me! As we slide back on all these things, the likelihood of it happening again increases. We keep breaching written and unwritten rules, ripping up old safeguards, these are barriers to a world war happening put in place for that very reason.

You are correct about nukes to a point. Sure people are very likely not going to fire a hundred nukes on a whim, but to me that only increases the likelihood of regional conflicts, because of the animosity states have, the level of competition, factors I've listed such as justifications people feel for war will take a different form. Besides which we were pretty close with Russia vs Ukraine of a tactical nuke being used. Where Russia advanced the use of nuclear threats as a part of its war strategy, so that's another threshold breached. Nuclear threat always remained a terrifying unspoken threat and it was more terrifying because it was unspoken. Now threats while obviously fearfully intimidating, are a bit like the boy who cried wolf or at least more normalized, until a nuke is used again, they are taken slightly less seriously than they were before. Additionally, as more countries get nukes the likelihood of their being used increases, if that is normalized too, then nukes are no longer a guarantee of anything except devastation on a huge scale.

Edited November 29, 2023 by BlueOak

[Danioover9000]

@bebotalk

3 hours ago, bebotalk said:

Are you British? Given point 14, it may seem so. 
If that is the case, then hasn't Britain been involved in many conflicts since 1945? Korea, Kenya, Falklands, Malaya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, etc. all count in this regard. As for being manipulated, well that's common in practically all eras. When has it been the time in the past that we were so enlightened and now we've regressed? imho, that seems quite naive. Mass global alliances have existed for well over a century. What you're describing is nothing new. 

   I have to say something here about Great Britain. Yes, Great Britain has controlled a third of the world, and yes due to colonialism there were some atrocities and such when it created colonies on those Islands or lands. However, the negatives of being an imperial and colonial empire, doesn't outweigh the good Great Britain did for the world.

1. Great Britain, so far in my understanding of world history, only nation/country with a very staunch, very strong opposition to slavery, and has anti slavery indoctrination that dates back to William the Bastard(Conqueror when he became king of England) when William outlawed slavery trades and slave ownership in Britain after conducting the doomsday survey, which shows less than 10% then owned slaves. Outlaw IMO isn't altruistic motives, but out of fear that a competing lord would hire slaves on mass and promise freedom if they overthrow William, so more likely outlawing slave trade is power motivated. Also, while Great Britain did participate in the slave trade in Africa, it's marginal in comparison to the rest of the world, and even Africa's participation of the slave trade, selling their own people to Arabian masters to then be castrated later on. Great Britain did dedicate a few battle ships to patrol African coasts to hunt down these slave ships from Africa.

2. We're speaking the English language thanks to Great Britain. Oh, and if Britain won during the war of Independence in America, Great Britain would have outlawed and heavily sanctioned the slave trade there as well. The civil war later was mostly driven by economic competition from the North and South, not just because of differences in northern and southern culture but who gets the bigger slice of profits and control of slave industry. Therefore, if Great Britain won in the past, the civil war would have either been much later or squashed all together.

   I think that's it for now, maybe few more points would come up. 

[bebotalk]

22 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@bebotalk

   I have to say something here about Great Britain. Yes, Great Britain has controlled a third of the world, and yes due to colonialism there were some atrocities and such when it created colonies on those Islands or lands. However, the negatives of being an imperial and colonial empire, doesn't outweigh the good Great Britain did for the world.

1. Great Britain, so far in my understanding of world history, only nation/country with a very staunch, very strong opposition to slavery, and has anti slavery indoctrination that dates back to William the Bastard(Conqueror when he became king of England) when William outlawed slavery trades and slave ownership in Britain after conducting the doomsday survey, which shows less than 10% then owned slaves. Outlaw IMO isn't altruistic motives, but out of fear that a competing lord would hire slaves on mass and promise freedom if they overthrow William, so more likely outlawing slave trade is power motivated. Also, while Great Britain did participate in the slave trade in Africa, it's marginal in comparison to the rest of the world, and even Africa's participation of the slave trade, selling their own people to Arabian masters to then be castrated later on. Great Britain did dedicate a few battle ships to patrol African coasts to hunt down these slave ships from Africa.

2. We're speaking the English language thanks to Great Britain. Oh, and if Britain won during the war of Independence in America, Great Britain would have outlawed and heavily sanctioned the slave trade there as well. The civil war later was mostly driven by economic competition from the North and South, not just because of differences in northern and southern culture but who gets the bigger slice of profits and control of slave industry. Therefore, if Great Britain won in the past, the civil war would have either been much later or squashed all together.

   I think that's it for now, maybe few more points would come up. 

The point was the UK's actions since WW2, and not colonialism. The British Empire ended after the Second World War concluded, as many of the colonies gained independence.