World War III Prediction Thread

[Shofercia]

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.

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.

The growth of trade among nations is among the most consequential and controversial economic developments of recent decades. Yet despite the noisy debates, which have reached new heights during this presidential campaign, it is a little-noticed fact that trade is no longer rising. The volume of global trade was flat in the first quarter of 2016, then fell by 0.8 percent in the second quarter, according to statisticians in the Netherlands, which happens to keep the best data.

The United States is no exception to the broader trend. The total value of American imports and exports fell by more than $200 billion last year. Through the first nine months of 2016, trade fell by an additional $470 billion.

It is the first time since World War II that trade with other nations has declined during a period of economic growth.

Sluggish global economic growth is both a cause and a result of the slowdown. In better times, prosperity increased trade and trade increased prosperity. Now the wheel is turning in the opposite direction. Reduced consumption and investment are dragging on trade, which is slowing growth.

But there are also signs that the slowdown is becoming structural. Developed nations appear to be backing away from globalization.

The World Trade Organization’s most recent round of global trade talks ended in failure last year. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, an attempt to forge a regional agreement among Pacific Rim nations, also is foundering. It is opposed by both major-party American presidential candidates. Meanwhile, new barriers are rising. Britain is leaving the European Union. The World Trade Organization said in July that its members had put in place more than 2,100 new restrictions on trade since 2008.

“Curbing free trade would be stalling an engine that has brought unprecedented welfare gains around the world over many decades,” Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, wrote in a recent call for nations to renew their commitment to trade.

Against the tide, the European Union and Canada signed a new trade deal on Sunday.

It may be hard, however, to muster public enthusiasm in the United States and other developed nations. The benefits of globalization have accrued disproportionately to the wealthy, while the costs have fallen on displaced workers, and governments have failed to ease their pain.


The Walmart revolution is over. During the 1990s, global trade grew more than twice as fast as the global economy. Europe united. China became a factory town. Tariffs came down. Transportation costs plummeted. It was the Walmart Era.

But those changes have played out. Europe is fraying around the edges; low tariffs and transportation costs cannot get much lower. And China’s role in the global economy is changing. The country is making more of what it consumes, and consuming more of what it makes. In addition, China’s maturing industrial sector increasingly makes its own parts. The International Monetary Fund reported last year that the share of imported components in products “Made in China” has fallen to 35 percent from 60 percent in the 1990s.

The result: The I.M.F. study calculated that a 1 percent increase in global growth increased trade volumes by 2.5 percent in the 1990s, while in recent years, the same growth has increased trade by just 0.7 percent.

Hanjin, like other big shipping companies, bet that global trade would continue to expand rapidly. In 2009, the world’s cargo lines had enough room to carry 12.1 million of the standardized shipping containers that have played a crucial, if quiet, role in the rise of global trade. By last year, they had room for 19.9 million — much of it unneeded.

India is not China redux. Most trade flows among developed nations. The McKinsey Global Institute calculates that 15 countries account for roughly 63 percent of the global traffic in goods and services, and for an even larger share of financial investment.

China joined this club the old-fashioned way: It used factories to build a middle class. But the automation of factory work is making it harder for other nations to follow. Dani Rodrik, a Harvard economist, calculates that manufacturing employment in India and other developing nations has already peaked, a phenomenon he calls premature deindustrialization.

The weakness of the global economy is exacerbating the trend. Infrastructure investment by multinational corporations declined for the third straight year in 2015, according to the United Nations. It predicts a further decline this year. But even if growth rebounds, automation reduces the incentives to invest in the low-labor-cost developing world, and it reduces the benefits of such investments for the residents of developing countries.

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.

Missile technology is not to be trifled with.

You're putting way too much faith into that.

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:

[Sneudal]

Perhaps someday, though i don't believe it will happen during my lifetime. AMD is still a thing and will continue to be a thing for the foreseeable future.