[Pops]

Triple Quote Score!

The Economist argues that there are ominous parallels between the conditions which led to the first world war and today:

The United States is Britain, the superpower on the wane, unable to guarantee global security. Its main trading partner, China, plays the part of Germany, a new economic power bristling with nationalist indignation and building up its armed forces rapidly. Modern Japan is France, an ally of the retreating hegemon and a declining regional power. The parallels are not exact—China lacks the Kaiser’s territorial ambitions and America’s defence budget is far more impressive than imperial Britain’s—but they are close enough for the world to be on its guard.

--
I don't know if it is just returning to CA or what but this has been on my mind ...

Whadda you think?

.

[GHung]

Yes, I'm doing my part by going shopping for seeds and a couple of new apple trees. Get those victory gardens going folks! I always buy extra seeds to share and to keep my doomsday seed bank up to date, just in case. One never knows when the bombs will start to fall...

...and, yes, Pops, your move to California has affected your judgement in noticeable ways.

[Ibon]

--
I don't know if it is just returning to CA or what but this has been on my mind ...

Whadda you think?

.

Separating ones intuition from the collective field of neurosis is a huge challenge when living in areas where there is high cerebral activity in the local population. lol

I don't know about war happening. I am torn. On one hand it seems unavoidable and an almost vital arsenal in our pathway down to being once again within carrying capacity. On the other hand, the global economy and inter-connectedness acts as a huge inertia against entering into conflicts.

The US is slowly reaching the point where it cannot jump in anymore to maintain global hegemony in defending our particular version of freedom. The number of hotspots are slowly becoming unmanageable and entropy and chaos is gaining ground resulting in a less cohesive global society.

War is part of the Night that will help define the Day of more enlightened adaptation. I fear to say we need a good chunk of war to be able to counter this with a more enlightened social organization.

It's coming.

[Paulo1]

What if you planned a war and no one bought into it?

Sure, there is a standing army. If there was a large scale war, do you think 'they' could scale it up? I don't. Not with hate towards politicians and the political process apparent everywhere. There is little trust in Govt or what 'they' say. Besides, all the joking aside about Millenials, I have a nephew who is a Business Manager for a large multi-natiaonal company. When he interviews millenials for jobs they are somewhat less than committed but full of expectations. An expectation for a 4 day work week is common. Do you think you can fill an army with that? I don't.

[PeakOiler]

The last I looked, war is already happening, unless one considers the precision bombing of ISIS in Iraq and Syria not a war, or Ukraine, or bombings of mosques, or other upheavals elsewhere in the world, so the poll question needs clarification.

[Tanada]

As far as I can tell the war that began with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 to see who would guide world events has not been settled as of this date and if anything the Arab Spring phase was just a bump up in tensions. Since then we have had Russia getting really ticked off by first Syrian naval bases being threatened, then Crimean naval bases being threatened, both of which resulted in actual shooting between people armed by the USA and people armed by Russia. It has been a proxy war on quite a large scale and the USA has done things to increase tensions that have resulted instead of trying to calm things down.

On the Gripping Hand China is fed up to the eyebrows with USA spend and borrow and spend some more monetary policy leading to a network of trade deals between China and Russia that have now grown to include many other countries ranging from Australia on one side of the planet to Europe on the opposite pole.

At this point it looks more every day as if the USA has succeeded in offending just about everyone on the Earth outside of our physical borders to some degree and with the rhetoric spouted around here you can see how a civil war between the hardline elites, Old Money Elites, Ivory Tower Elites and whatever other kind of self important elites I didn't mention could spill out into actually fighting between those who think they will come out on top of such a faction fight. The truth is in a war everyone but the warmongers lose, and they also lose if they happen to be on the wrong side.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, those who learn history are doomed to see their leaders often make the same mistakes made by other leaders of the past.

[radon1]

"No" is no-loser.

Either you will be right, or no one will be able to know that you are wrong.

[MD]

Yes, similar to past conflicts, but definitely a new animal when you add today's complexities in global trade and communications.

This one isn't and won't be a great conflict between two well defined groups of nations though.

Instead of drifting I think the better metaphor is a stew very slowly coming to boil. Or a progressive and deadly disease that affects all the bodies systems.

[Pops]

...and, yes, Pops, your move to California has affected your judgement in noticeable ways.

great

collective field of neurosis

I like it!

[onlooker]

I do not feel their can be a war between the superpowers. Simply because everyone knows that it would escalate to nuclear and would render Earth pretty much uninhabitable. MAD= mutually assured destruction is still in effect

[Newfie]

It's not a question of "if." It is a question of scale and with whom.

I'm no lover of ISIS, but I suspect that we are being directed to that theater. To have justification for some future action? Is it as a diversion away from some other action? I'm just naturally suspicious I guess.

[Don35]

I wonder if our pentagon leaders no longer believe in MAD. With missiles shooting down missiles and laser defense, I bet they think we would sustain minimal casualties in a thermonuclear exchange. "Acceptable risks".

[onlooker]

Nothing would surprise me about military folk, they have always seemed to me to be trigger happy. In fact after WWII for at least awhile their didn't they play mock simulations or war games about how to not only survive but win a nuclear war. MAD.

[AgentR11]

I selected going shopping. But I'm kinda more on the No side. Unlike Germany in the cited example, China lacks the motivating force to go to war. With Russia turning towards them as the reliable customer for their energy; and Beijing being more than happy to build enough infrastructure to make it happen; long term, there's just no gain to be found.

That said, a condition does exist that disturbs me. If I were a Chinese hawk deep in the guts of the PLA, looking to take on the US, and win; I know what I'd do. Almost nothing. Almost. China is always long-game; I will want to see Russia and the US/NATO bump against each other, repeatedly and corrosively. The USSR did not fall because they were defeated militarily by NATO; they fell because they over-reached on defense expenditure. Their government budget killed their government. I'd want to repeat the same trick with the US, slowly, same time period, 40 years or so; get / keep the US spending a large multiple of what China spends, continuously increasing, while the post modern economy putters along at near zero growth. Just let health care and defense spending gradually consume the US. Never, ever, talk about the unsustainable nature of their budget. (remember they used to do that ALL THE TIME, now.. mums the word).

Russia's not really in on the game, they're just being themselves given lessons learned (no aircraft carriers, no economic propping up of useless regimes abroad); but given them being themselves; they'll be like sandpaper on skin for NATO, because without Chinese participation, NATO can't cause regime change in Russia, and the Euros hurt themselves as much as Russia with sanctions.

The object is to cause NATO to collapse in the same manner, and the same cause as the USSR; at the same time that China should be achieving the ability to project global power. First training carrier in the water now; first domestically constructed carrier hull is in dry dock now; more suitable construction facilities are being built; and Russian/Chinese partnership guarantees future numerical superiority of blue water attack subs and coastal defense corvettes and frigates.

The difference in that 40 year outlook, is that the economy of 1 billion people with no particular resource crunch, really can afford to keep 10-15 supercarriers in the water.

So nuclear war? no. but ask the Russians if they felt like they were suffering as if they had lost a war in the late 90s.

But maybe China is more benevolent, and NATO will learn to be more fiscally responsible. One can hope. No?

And yep, London. London will be on the ground floor.. smirking, happy to play fast and lose with those banking books, regardless of the currency involved. I hope NYC can tag along for the ride as well; but our foreign policy actions will make it very tough.

[Plantagenet]

US defense spending still outstrips the rest of the world by far and the US military is still extremely capable. I don't think its likely Russia or China will attack the US, but I worry that Russia and/or China or other countries will look at a weak Obama in the White House and his weak response to Syria's use of chemical weapons or Putin's invasion of Ukraine and decide that they better make some military moves right now before Obama leaves office and tough ol' Hillary takes over.

In the next two years I could see Putin invading more of Ukraine to seize Odessa, for instance. Or Putin could take all of Ukraine. I could even see Putin arming "Russians" in Estonia or Lithuania, and a dirty little war starting there.

I could see China aggressively enforcing their territorial claims to all the seafloor all the way to the Philippines, or moving to seize the Senkaku Islands from Japan before Obama leaves office.

And now that Obama is apparently going to pull back on US support for Israel, I could see our new friends in Iran and Hezbollah starting a little war against now isolated Israel.

Does anyone really think Obama would go to war to defend Ukraine? Would Obama go to war to defend the Senkaku Islands Would Obama go to war to defend israel?

I vote that wars are imminent. For that matter, several wars are going on now. But will the US go to war with China or Russia over Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, or the Senkaku Island? Not a chance.

Would Obama help Israel in a war with Iran/Hezbollah?

I don't think so

[Pops]

Good Agent. I tend to agree with all of that - I was thinking as well of the US going broke just as RU did and for that matter as the UK did by overextending. Which of course is a big dot in the overall story, declining empires typically go out with a bang and of course the ascendent power makes their rep by taking out the dominant power.

I want to believe in MAD but then I've never seen us on the ropes.

And of course it all ties into the fact that pretty well everything we do now is digital, wired, and connected. I'm thinking not all that secure because let's face it, when were we ever attacked where we expected it?

If you all read the rest of the OP article there are many interesting points and linked stories and sources
.

[AgentR11]

Does anyone really think Obama would go to war to defend Ukraine? Would Obama go to war to defend the Senkaku Islands Would Obama go to war to defend israel?

Here's an even more disturbing picture for you, on the Island thing. Russia right now owns Islands that bump right up next to Hokkaido in the North. A long island chain that's been contested nearly forever. Russia doesn't actually *do* anything with those islands, especially not the ones closer to Japan.

I think China / Russia can bag Japan as an ally, if we aren't careful.

Russia "gifts" those Islands to Japan, Japan offers the Senkaku to China as a peace offering for WWII atrocities. Japan agrees to increase their purchases of, and participate in the development of resources in the Russian arctic. Its really a slam dunk win-win-win and solves Japan's security issues both territorial and energy; it gives the Chinese that tangible "I'm sorry" they seem to need so desperately, and gets the Russians more cash flow; cash flow that everyone over there will find more convenient if it goes through Shanghai instead of NYC.

Maybe that's thinking too big, and none of those three can do such a thing; but a decade ago people would just assume China was as much a natural enemy of Russia as the US; and that didn't turn out so true either.

[careinke]

Nothing would surprise me about military folk, they have always seemed to me to be trigger happy.

1. The military is NEVER trigger happy.

2. Militaries don't start wars, politicians do.

3. In a war, the military is most at risk, hence number one.

[onlooker]

Nothing would surprise me about military folk, they have always seemed to me to be trigger happy.

1. The military is NEVER trigger happy.

2. Militaries don't start wars, politicians do.

3. In a war, the military is most at risk, hence number one.

I agree Care, now days politicians do start wars. However I do disagree with your premise that the military is never trigger happy. Maybe not the foot soldiers but generals who many times are not in harms way and whose whole career has been in the military and tasked with ways to win in a potential war are many times exuberantly optimistic about winning a war. What's more they fact that they are in the military already tends to show that they are the type of person who does not have qualms about entering into open conflict and can believe as a matter of principle that sometimes war is the only option.

[Ibon]

What if you planned a war and no one bought into it?:)

I agree that there would be a societal rejection of war in the mass scale of millions of soldiers fighting a conventional type war.

But you can have 85% not buying into it but we will have even more candidates available in the future coming from the ranks of the unemployed to keep the war machine going. Not to mention the guy with a joystick somewhere in Texas blowing up targets half way around the world.

For how long can we continue to draw on our unemployed as fodder in fighting wars and using technology to keep these wars isolated and hermetically sealed in far away places?

Take a moment and think about the war technology that we have at our disposal. And then think about those extremist terrorists blowing themselves up or the absolute irrational violence you see with ISIS. These two extremes might seem like polar opposites but this asymmetry is part of a dance that will continue long into this century.