Oil exporting People wrote:Shofercia wrote:Not really. World War means a war that takes place all over the World at the same time, not just various countries getting it on. The Crimean War involved Russia, France, and the UK, but it wasn't a World War in the sense that the UK and France probed Russian defenses, but they didn't prepare for an all out invasion. There was no objective to take Moscow and St. Petersburg. Prussia launched a series of wars, but the goal was to unify Germany, rather than conquer Europe; Bismarck was actually against the latter.
Fighting, besides in the Balkans and Caucasus and of course Ukraine, also occurred across the Pacific and even in the Baltic as the British probed Russian defenses around St. Petersburg. This was actually an event that led to the creation of Finnish Nationalism, oddly enough.
The British tried to create local nationalism numerous times, but it was the policies of Csar Alexander the III and Csar Nicolas the II that led to the solidification of Finnish Nationalism. The same attempt with Crimea failed, in part due to the policies of Csarina Catherine the Great. And yes, fighting was in quite a few place, but, like you said, it was to probe Russian defenses, not to attempt the capture of St. Petersburg and Moscow.
Oil exporting People wrote:Shofercia wrote:World War I had two giant coalitions with opposing goals, so that war was destined to happen. That's not the case today. First, the World's a lot more globalized, and second, the coalitions are focusing on local goals, rather than global domination. While the SCO might rule Central Asia, they're not interested, (or unable,) when it comes to expanding to Latin America. The Middle East is a clusterfuck, the East African Community knows their shit and can go toe to toe with others in their region, and so on.
The Globalization argument was made before WWI and its backers had useful statistics to point out, such as the fact Germany and France were the largest trading partners of each other. We saw how that turned out. More importantly, Globalization is ending and has been since 2008
URL is quoted in spoiler, after my response. During WWI, you had two powerful coalitions, ruling the World. If you take a look at the countries that participated in WWI, you'd realize that they controlled half of the World, if not more. And unlike the Iraq War or the Syrian Civil War, for some Great Powers, such as the Ottoman Empire, it was a battle of survival. It was a battle for Global Supremacy. There was nothing regional about it. And although Globalization might be ebbing, regional institutions are on the rise. In Asia you have SCO, ASEAN, and OIC. The problem with the EU is that the leaders failed to listen to the public, rather than the original concept, as well as the point that regional institutions should be limited in scope as to how they affect the countries within them. That's an EU problem, not a regional problem. NAFTA ain't going anywhere.
Oil exporting People wrote:Shofercia wrote:Furthermore, there is no one country that has the power of Napoleonic France, and there are no coalitions that could reach the power of the Entente. And even if those existed, there are no barriers to them. The World stood by as the US invaded Iraq for shits and giggles. There is no block that could actually attack NATO or SCO countries. Furthermore, with modern advances in PR and missile warfare, the attacker is the likely loser, unless a technological disparity exists.
The World stood by because the U.S. has 25% of the Globe's GDP and military that, at least then, could take on any competitors and destroy them utterly. The reason for a lack of a World War in recent times was that, in the Cold War, there was no ability to fight a conflict without a high degree risk of it turning bad and lower cost alternatives being available. Since then, the only nation with the ability to be aggressive is the United States. No one else has the economic and military power to do so.
The Millennium Challenge 2002 showed just how utterly the US would be able to destroy Iran, if Iran was to be commanded by someone like van Ripen. Whoops, I don't think that's how that one went. The US is a Democracy, which stifles a nation's aggressive character, as can be seen by the public's outcry about increasing US involvement in the Syrian Civil War. The US is still a Superpower, but unlike Nazi Germany, it's a Democracy, and thankfully lacks the capacity to start a World War. You correctly note that the reason is that the cost of warfare outweighs the benefit, when said warfare is truly massive.
I respectfully disagree. In other news, I found out what my problem was with you earlier, and I think you'll agree, so that we can more forward as debaters, respecting each other once again.
The problem:
OEP studying US History:
OEP studying World History: