Ww3 is too high risk due to nukes, but it will get to that point and hopefully not over it
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
33 points (81.1% liked)
Asklemmy
44623 readers
970 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
You have to define 'we' and you also have to define 'WW3'.
Possible scenarios:
-
USA decides to get actively involved in Ukraine's conflict. Yes, that could spell WW3. Low probability, though, since Trump does not care about Ukraine.
-
Russia decides to attack Western Europe. Probably only a regional conflict, since Trump would probably pull out of NATO. This is the scenario a lot of European nations are gaming today.
-
China attacks Taiwan and/or North Korea attacks South Korea. Probably a regional conflict, but with a high probability of escalation. Trump would drop both South Korea and Taiwan at the drop of a hat.
-
Iran attacks Israel, probably through proxy. Regional conflict. This is already going on, so low risk of escalation.
Not saying any of these would cause WW3, but remeber that, depending on who you ask, WW2 started:
- when Germany and Russia invaded Poland in 1939
- when Germany invaded Checkoslovakia in 1938
- when Japan invaded China in 1937
there is no single point of start for a war, just many actions of variable intensity that escalate
It's possible none of those would technically be WW3 by itself, perhaps the start of heavier US commitment in the first of those conflicts might be perceived as the opportunity for the others to get started. Maybe even some less obvious conflicts are merely waiting for NATO to be preoccupied (e.g. random colonies being invaded or declaring independence). The US will be forced into taking at least one L, or switching back to a war economy.
- India vs Pakistan
- ISIS expansion
- Water Wars (multiple locations)
- USA invading Mexico
- Syrian Civil War
- Greenland War
- IDK if Denmark can defend Greenland, but NATO could article5/split
India vs Pakistan
not plausible, neither of them are that stupid
Afghanistan vs. Pakistan, or Iran, is infinitely more likely. Pashtun supremacists (yea the Taliban) are actually stupid af
You remember how the Tamil Tigers invaded Sri Lanka? Now imagine if they were doing that but to China. That's basically what the Taliban is doing right now lol
(just to be clear, Tamils were actually fighting oppression, Pashtuns are not)
load more comments
(2 replies)
We have been in WW3 since Russia started it's fully scale invasion if Ukraine in 2022. The major conflicts if it just haven't become kinetic yet. China has conducted cyber attacks in the United States, Russia has been attacking undersea fiber. China is building ships that on gave one ouroose to invaide Taiwan. In 100 years thus will be seen as the early days if the war.
There are certainly some folks, who are leaders of various countries, who seem to very much want it. Heck you would think china would not given their economic position but they still do the push push on the south of china sea, taiwan, india, tibet.... Add in putin, kim and trump and a match and we got it.
This war is about control, not by weapons but by controlling minds. It's fairly obvious. Social media forms opinions. It's also full of bubbles where people get reinforcement for their existing beliefs. What people believe doesn't matter so much, just that their beliefs are shaped by social media.
Social media platforms are controlled by big tech algorithms, so they in turn control what information should surface. On computers and phones, you have survellience apps running (called AI) that collects information about each users private life. This is all combined with other info to build an accurate profile of everyone having a device using social media or the web.
The end goal is to watch everyone, keep them in line. In the west I think it's mostly used to sell ads, but in other countries like China and Russia, I think it's more sinister.
Either way, the end goal is control of people. Before, it was control of land and borders.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I sure hope so