The Next Major War...

[Patine]

More like, if we were on the beaten path we would have already met them. But then why use logic?

But people keep reporting flying saucers and those big-headed, grey-skinned aliens of ubiquity, who have appearances, modus operandi, activities, and surrounding circumstances that are uncannily similar to each other, despite all these people making said reports never having met each other. So maybe we have met them, or at least one species of them, already...

 

[Patine]

I think that Europe is mostly settled regarding international borders. There are still some messy situations to the east but no one wants to annex territory with a hostile population. Diplomatic issues is one thing, but why bring into the country political problems? That is a bigger problem, and the reason why several "empires" (including the USSR) dissolved on their own accord. That lessons seems to have been learned.

The places where instability still exists are those where populations got stuck inside countries they do not wish to be part of. Just a few bits in the Baklans and eastern Europe, some in India and in China, many in Africa. Many in the Middle East. Apparently none in America.

By far the continent suffering greatest danger of wars is Africa, followed closely by the middle east.

Ahem - Catalonia, the Basque Country, the Canary Islands, Veneto, Sardinia, Sicily, Brittany, Flanders/Wallonia, Schleswig-Holstein, Alsace, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall, one Ireland or two, Aland, and Sapmi, while not currently military hotpots ready to boil over into armed insurgency at the moment, are not really "settled," or "resolved" to the satisfaction of all concerned.

 

[Imaus]

My current guesses, from most to least likely

• Saudi-Iran conventional war, with Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain dragged in.
• Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan against Tajikistan and Kirghizistan - the latter two have the water, the lower three have the oil.
• Everyone in South America against those Socialist Zombies such as Bolivia (down the road) or Venezuela (sooner and most likely an 'intervention')
• Thailand vs Burma over the Shan or some other ethnic minority and new found revanchism.
• Some major civil war in a developing power. Mexico is basically already here, but none of the Cartels want to go full political like it was 100 years ago.

A nuclear terrorism incident won't start a war unless it was sponsored. India and Pakistan aren't going to do anything: Kashmir didn't go anywhere and neither did the clashes this summer or so. No one with Nukes is going to do anything more than shoot another's proxies. Now, if the current holders break up and/or fall into civil war, sure. Russia didn't nuke Chechnya...though I bet someone wanted to.

The EU, PRC, NK, Israel, USA, Russia, India, Pakistan, and whoever comes on in the next few decades is basically untouchable.

That just leaves the developing powers; and I don't think we've seen the last of war. Democracies are becoming rarer, armies have been modernised, and dictators abound. We already have Chad acting like a regional power hitting far above it's weight (Libya, Agadez-Niger, Boko Haram, Darfur, CAR); we have the Saudis showing their ineptedness, we have the Thais switching generals like clothes...and it's not wholly unreasonable to assume they won't ever, ever find a reason to march over to their neighbors. Especially as this world dries up and expands the already dry and stressed deserts of the world: the conflicts will multiply there. The Sahara, the Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia.

And the worst thing is that most of them will probably go under the radar if no one in power in the developed/first/High HDI/whatever World doesn't even talk about them.

 

[Patine]

Everyone in South America against those Socialist Zombies such as Bolivia (down the road) or Venezuela (sooner and most likely an 'intervention')

As someone with a respect for Morelos and what he's done for his country given he's had had to work with and in defiance of big U.S. and Brazilian corporate plutocrats, and the genuine popularity he has with his people, I resent him being thoughtlessly lumped in with Maduro as a "Socialist Zombie." But many people nowadays are taught to view political labels within broad but inflexible, and often bad, stereotypes, and this simplistic thinking is drilled hard into heads, despite how counter-productive it is.

 

[rah]

But people keep reporting flying saucers and those big-headed, grey-skinned aliens of ubiquity, who have appearances, modus operandi, activities, and surrounding circumstances that are uncannily similar to each other, despite all these people making said reports never having met each other. So maybe we have met them, or at least one species of them, already...

If that's how you want to support your argument, fine. I think I'll wait for a little more proof.

 

[Patine]

If that's how you want to support your argument, fine. I think I'll wait for a little more proof.

"I won't even consider climate change is real until I'm surrounded by parched, cracked desert."

 

[Birdjaguar]

"I won't even consider climate change is real until I'm surrounded by parched, cracked desert."

So a quick trip to Timbuktu will convince you?

 

[Patine]

So a quick trip to Timbuktu will convince you?

It wasn't my personal opinion. It was a mockery analog to his logic. Hence the quotation marks.

 

[Hygro]

The next big war will probably be similar to the last big ones: systemic differences and a psychological impetus. There’s a last psychiatrist quote, a bit grandiose but it was an ordering of grand ideology/system breaks and consequences:

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/01/can_narcissism_be_cured.html

B.

"Why are you so obsessed with narcissism?"

Describe the march of history over the past 100 years. Answer: Fascism, then Marxism, then Narcissism.

What distinguishes the three? Technology.

What followed fascism? War. What followed Marxism? War.​

For those of you like “well the communist rev was in 1848” or “the Soviet’s took power before there were fascists” he means WW2 and Cold War, a very long hot war for a lot of people.

 

[rah]

"I won't even consider climate change is real until I'm surrounded by parched, cracked desert."

So you believe in little green men but not climate change. Makes sense.

 

[Patine]

So you believe in little green men but not climate change. Makes sense.

I explained this post to @Birdjaguar, but obviously EVERYONE needs spoonfeeding now. And, for the record, the potential aliens in question are grey, and their gendered qualities are unverified.

 

[innonimatu]

Ahem - Catalonia, the Basque Country, the Canary Islands, Veneto, Sardinia, Sicily, Brittany, Flanders/Wallonia, Schleswig-Holstein, Alsace, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall, one Ireland or two, Aland, and Sapmi, while not currently military hotpots ready to boil over into armed insurgency at the moment, are not really "settled," or "resolved" to the satisfaction of all concerned.

They lack both the ability and the will to cause any war for independence. And there are no external powers interested in propping them up or using them as an excuse for an attack. That may come to happen but it is not a current risk not one that we can find likely until the world changes quite a lot. Even in the event of the EU breaking up the larger countries do not have an interest in fomenting separatism lest they are repaid in kind. And the smaller ones lack the ability to cause trouble.
Even looking outside the formally more stable EU, where countries cannot appear to be "mean", conflicts turning into wars required the intervention of imperialist powers. I mean, puny Albania would never have caused the latest balkan war over "kosovo albanians" on her own, just like Macedonia is not able to do anything to its neighbors on its own. Or become a victim of Albanian ambitions. It takes some major country with an weapons industry and/or ambitious establishment (military, "foreign affairs experts", etc), and public money to burn, to intervene dumping weapons on a regions or go bomb it to start a war. Otherwise separatism just causes constitutional crisis, Which may or may not lead to divorces.

 

[r16]

Planes being shot down don't really start wars.

... a East German pilot bailed out and his jet flew into West Germany and crashed into a residential area killing a kid.

... Incidents like this happen all the time.

that was a Russian , his throttle was stuck in afterburner or something , he ejected , the palne came to its senses happily flew all the way to Belgium while its F-15 escort had no chance to shoot it down , because everyplace under the flight route was built up urban areas .

this was going to be the casus belli of WWIII https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown

The shooting down of the jet would only result in a Russian New Turkey war , to make it happen USAF "ran away" with its F-15s , as much as the Saudis , who might be the real shooters even . Which discouraged New Turkey , so there is this S-400 crisis now . And oh my , Macron says NATO shouldn't defend New Turkey , if Syrians open fire ! Hare and Tortoise is a story ı like , but let me tell ı won't honour Europeans with anything honourable like the qualities of a tortoise .

saving the thread as ı might rant later on .

 

[Thorgalaeg]

that was a Russian , his throttle was stuck in afterburner or something , he ejected , the palne came to its senses happily flew all the way to Belgium while its F-15 escort had no chance to shoot it down , because everyplace under the flight route was built up urban areas .

It was a Mig-23 IIRC. That model was cursed, or simply was awful. The pilot didnt show too much professionalism either.

 

[r16]

when the plane goes Skynet , there is hardly a thing you can do in the cockpit and they are parts of the aviation lore . You eject thinking it will crash just short of the runway and it says "I fly better without you" and belly lands perfectly on the runway . Or you are shot down by the British and Ju-88 sees you parachuting and it's like "Why are you abandoning me?" and turns back on you to crash into you while you are helplessly hanging up there .

 

[El_Machinae]

Ice asteroids are there just for the taking.

When it comes to extraterrestrials, if we're writing a storyboard that allows humans to fight, then I like the idea of them protecting Terran biodiversity.

Each species is the result of an extensive computational calculation unique to its history and biosphere. From an informational perspective, biology is astounding. Completely outstripping all human invention by many orders of magnitude.

So, if they wanted to stop us from reducing our biodiversity, they couldn't use planet killers or kinetic kill weapons, or whatever.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"I won't even consider climate change is real until I'm surrounded by parched, cracked desert."

To be fair, the evidence presently available for those two topics is a LITTLE different.

At differing points in history it was widely believed that bloodletting was medically useful for a significant number of ailments, that the Earth was center of the universe, etc.

Speaking of parched, even several decades ago sports professionals actually thought that drinking water during the activity was bad for you.

So yeah, the evidence boundary for "aliens" is nowhere near decent. We're forced to consider which is more likely: aliens that randomly let people see them but can't ever be verified with controlled trials (screwing with us maybe?) vs "what humans report seeing is similar to what other humans report seeing". The latter can easily be formed by prior popular media suggestion/depiction of aliens, or even actual spotting of "flying saucers" that ARE actually there but AREN'T alien in origin.

 

[Lexicus]

The next big war will probably be similar to the last big ones: systemic differences and a psychological impetus. There’s a last psychiatrist quote, a bit grandiose but it was an ordering of grand ideology/system breaks and consequences:

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/01/can_narcissism_be_cured.html

B.

"Why are you so obsessed with narcissism?"

Describe the march of history over the past 100 years. Answer: Fascism, then Marxism, then Narcissism.

What distinguishes the three? Technology.

What followed fascism? War. What followed Marxism? War.
For those of you like “well the communist rev was in 1848” or “the Soviet’s took power before there were fascists” he means WW2 and Cold War, a very long hot war for a lot of people.

I find this interesting because as far as I'm concerned an equally valid perspective is that the Cold War was caused by capitalism, which of course doesn't count as a "grand ideology/system" because reasons. If the Nazis had won WW2 we would remember that war as having been caused by Communism, not Fascism. Similarly, we only remember the Cold War as having been caused by Communism because Capitalism won.

 

[CurtSibling]

What a shame that the wicked capitalist nations shamefully stifled Stalin's wonderful worker's paradise.

 

[Patine]

I find this interesting because as far as I'm concerned an equally valid perspective is that the Cold War was caused by capitalism, which of course doesn't count as a "grand ideology/system" because reasons. If the Nazis had won WW2 we would remember that war as having been caused by Communism, not Fascism. Similarly, we only remember the Cold War as having been caused by Communism because Capitalism won.

The Cold War was caused by the egos of national leadership on both, the fears of the people, and propaganda machines built on McCarthy and Kalugin jump-starting the heart of Goebbels' tactics of dehumanization of target demographics and brazen misinformation.