considering the current state of the world and things like the resurgence of fascism and other authoritarian ideologies, do you think there is still a chance to avoid a new world war or now is unavoidable?
It’s already underway.
China will attack Taiwan before Christmas. That’ll likely be the flashpoint. That’s been my two cents for over a year now.
North/South Korea going at it.
North Korea supplying Russia arms to fight Ukraine.
US okaying more and more, blurring NATO lines. NATO is basically involved in the Russia Ukraine war.
China and India appear to be buying Russia oil/gas still, keeping their war machine afloat. Amongst other financial vestments.
Then we have Israel pummeling Palestine. Iran attacking Israel. NATO countries don’t agree about whether or not this is a genocide.
When China invades Taiwan, TSMC will shut down their facilities. The US has been pouring billions into semiconductor manufacturing on US soil, because when China invades Taiwan and tscm shuts down, Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Nvidia, AMD, Intel, IBM, Meta, Amazon, and many more will be in hot water. Because of this, the US has an insane naval presence and alliance with Japan to protect the South China seas.
This is world war three. It’s happening now.
What makes you think China will attack Taiwan before Christmas?
Because thats what he said.
Maybe I missed it but that article doesn’t say anything about Christmas, December, or any actual timeline of when they plan to attack. Where does it say “before Christmas?”
I didnt downvote ya there.
That was a quick Google result it might not be in that article. I just chose it because AP. There’s dozens of articles about conversations between Xi and Biden.
The discourse is generally “By 2025” “in 2027” and “before 2030”. Given the discourse and tension in the South China Sea, it looks very much like a “By 2025” situation. Just my bet. Ties into computational supremacy, embargos, TSMC, Taiwan reunification, and more.
Is there a remind me bot for lemmy?
@remindme@mstdn.social in 7 months
deleted by creator
@remindme@mstdn.social in 196 days
@remindme@mstdn.social on December 24, 2024.
It’s always avoidable. It’s also still quite possible
The term “world war” is a propaganda term. First, the only reason the world was involved was because the world was mostly colonies of the belligerents. In reality it was a European war, and European holdings were involved due to their economics.
In the second one, there were 2 distinct wars where the belligerents were allied for strategic reasons. The US was at war with Japan and Europe was at war.
Since the end, peace has been held with a bunch of strategic alliances, so in any real war, all countries take sides. But with the current 2 notable wars going on, it appears that that alliance structure is breaking down. Alliances are not in line with the economic realities of these countries. The more real things get the less these alliances will hold. This is probably a good thing, as it prevents everything from getting out of hand.
The term “world war” is a propaganda term
Why is it propaganda and not just a misnomer?
Because it was deliberately designed to instill a certain sense about history.
The term “world war” is a propaganda term. First, the only reason the world was involved was because the world was mostly colonies of the belligerents. In reality it was a European war, and European holdings were involved due to their economics.
In the second one, there were 2 distinct wars where the belligerents were allied for strategic reasons. The US was at war with Japan and Europe was at war.
Since the end, peace has been held with a bunch of strategic alliances, so in any real war, all countries take sides. But with the current 2 notable wars going on, it appears that that alliance structure is breaking down. Alliances are not in line with the economic realities of these countries. The more real things get the less these alliances will hold. This is probably a good thing, as it prevents everything from getting out of hand.
You forget the pacific theatre totally if you think it was an America Russia war exclusively. That’s a very European centric view for someone calling it a European centric view for those who call it a world war.
-
I didn’t call it an america Russia war,
-
I mentioned Japan.
You’re talking about world war 2 right?
-
I’d say that two wars is also oversimplification. There were 3 in Finland alone with two different sets of belligerents.
The biggest issue is extremism on both sides of the political spectrum. Division and hate are extremely easy to stoke and the left is at least as complicit. Unless people change their mindset to and remove the barriers they put up between people, conflict will be inevitable.
Can you describe the extremism left of spectrum?
Honest question, not JAQing off, and I won’t jump down your throat no matter what you say.
Hmmm can you describe the extremism of the right? Perhaps you’d characterise it by racism, violence, and repression of certain people?
The hard left wants exactly the same thing, with the same violent methods, just slightly changed racism and repression.
Have a laugh at this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://m.piped.video/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Umm… What?
no, nobody’s stupid enough to take on NATO
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.
— Albert Einstein
true but anyone stupid enough to take on a NATO ally is going to be surprised how quickly that “world war” is over
A big part of the alliance is credibility. Far right political parties have called into question weather NATO is worth it. Even if we are a strong alliance the mere appearance of questioning can cause an opponent to misread and attack.
agreed thankfully the far right is still small and with a bit of immigration reform should be wiped out
Hopefully NATO isn’t stupid enough to take on anyone either
NATO has only ever started a war in Bosnia/Kosovo so I too hope they keep their cool
Didn’t they start wars in Iraq and Libya too?
Iraq was led by the US with few partners and was a huge mistake.
Libya was a UN sponsored brief air/missile strikes to try to stem a horrible civil war but yeah that was NATO and didn’t end well either. Probably should have been a larger operation with peace keepers.
Okay so NATO waits until a NATO member or members start something, then they join?
usually, but if the UN approves they will get involved
Not so long as nuclear weapons exist. I don’t think any country is reckless enough to risk a nuclear exchange, and that won’t change until the stress from climate change changes the math.
Climate change is there though. It’s not yet reached the “death by the millions” point, but that point being inevitable now, a nation could start thinking about the potential benefits from being the first to strike.
We’re already in it. There are currently 57 conflicts in the world, of which several are international. Things will escalate. World tension is rising, the far right is on the rise, it’s the 1930’s all over again. Or at least, in some parts of the world. In other parts it’s already the 1940’s, with totalitarian regimes, genocide and concentration camps.
