Heating Up?

[Grallon]

It seems to me the World, in this spring of 2014, is ripe for some major... shaking up?  A century ago the long XIXth century ended in a frenzy of warring enthusiasm.  It has now been almost 60 years since the end of the last great war.  Aren't we due some 'interesting times' yet?

Watching the headlines these days it appears things are heating up again.  What with Russia growling, unopposed, left and right - China scheming behind the scene - the Divided West befuddled as usual (or more so than usual) - isn't the table set for some 'adventure'?




G.

[Phillip V]

Nah. Nobody seems radicalized yet.

[Grallon]

What does that even mean?  As if you needed to be a radical to start a war to protect your prerogatives?!




G.

[alfred russel]

I doubt it. The world is too interconnected, and economies too linked. A major war would wreck the stock market and international trade, which would destroy a good bit of the upper and middle classes, plus the loss of tax revenue would cause governments to severely contract (if not default).

Take the case of Russia. They make a move in Crimea over the weekend, and when their stock market opens it plummets 10%. I've read some speculation that the market drop spooked Putin into backing off some more aggressive moves. Whether that is true or not, imagine what would happen if he tried to conquer the entire Ukraine--and even that wouldn't spark a major war.

[Razgovory]

Do you guys have a different calendar in Quebec?  60 years ago was 1954.  No we aren't going to have a big war.  We still live under the Pax Atomica, which suits me just fine.

[Eddie Teach]

Apparently fighting communist superpowers by proxy in Korea was a major war, but not in Vietnam. 

[Ideologue]

No.  Everyone is a pussy now.  No one* will fight for anything, except maybe money, and only with air and armored support, and perhaps this is wise, because God knows it wouldn't be very smart to fight someone with it, without it.

*In the West, obviously.

[Valmy]

Apparently fighting communist superpowers by proxy in Korea was a major war, but not in Vietnam. 

Well yeah China versus the UN is way bigger than holding Vietnam against NVA incursions.

[Valmy]

I doubt it. The world is too interconnected, and economies too linked. A major war would wreck the stock market and international trade, which would destroy a good bit of the upper and middle classes, plus the loss of tax revenue would cause governments to severely contract (if not default).

This is almost exactly what people thought in 1914 right?

But it seems like the world is shaking itself up just fine without a major war.  Though man that Syria war is something in its length and brutality, even the 20th century would be impressed.

[Josquius]

I doubt it. The world is too interconnected, and economies too linked. A major war would wreck the stock market and international trade, which would destroy a good bit of the upper and middle classes, plus the loss of tax revenue would cause governments to severely contract (if not default).

This is almost exactly what people thought in 1914 right?

Knew that was coming from someone, it always does.
Though there is something to it were a lot more interconnected today than back then

[Ideologue]

I recall reading somewhere (dunno where) that the level of international trade before WWI wasn't restored till very recently (like the 90s or something).

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I doubt it. The world is too interconnected, and economies too linked. A major war would wreck the stock market and international trade, which would destroy a good bit of the upper and middle classes, plus the loss of tax revenue would cause governments to severely contract (if not default).

This is almost exactly what people thought in 1914 right?

But it seems like the world is shaking itself up just fine without a major war.  Though man that Syria war is something in its length and brutality, even the 20th century would be impressed.

still small beer when compared to the decade long struggle in the Congo with it's millions of dead.

[jimmy olsen]

Putin is a hostile but rational actor. I think he'll know where to stop.


The situation in the Pacific is much more unstable. I think an incident spiraling out of control with the Chinese is possible given the inexperience and politicization of their officer corp.

[alfred russel]

I doubt it. The world is too interconnected, and economies too linked. A major war would wreck the stock market and international trade, which would destroy a good bit of the upper and middle classes, plus the loss of tax revenue would cause governments to severely contract (if not default).

This is almost exactly what people thought in 1914 right?

Well no, the situations are barely comparable at all. The world is much more economically connected today--take a look at the companies in the dow jones and ask yourself how many get the majority of their revenue domestically, or have supply chains that go beyond the US. Also, just think about the banking system. The whole world economy wobbled badly a few years ago (at least according to conventional wisdom) because of mortgage defaults. How do you think the world banking system would hold up if Europe was destroyed, and Japan carpet bombed into oblivion?

Also, in 1914 a major war was seen as a definite possibility in a way that it just isn't today. Some people even welcomed the war.

[Legbiter]

I doubt it. The world is too interconnected, and economies too linked. A major war would wreck the stock market and international trade, which would destroy a good bit of the upper and middle classes, plus the loss of tax revenue would cause governments to severely contract (if not default).

This is almost exactly what people thought in 1914 right?

Yes.