do you think we are going into ww3?

[readmorebooks@lemmy.zip]

No, we are not headed for WW3.

The military-industrial complex must be fed, our weapons sold or used. But, a large magnitude hot war has far more social and economic risk and not enough return on investment relative the alternative of multiple proxy wars. We've currently proxy wars in Israel and Ukraine. Economic growth is optimized by beginning a proxy war with China.

If Trump was smart then he might internally convince others in his administration to diplomatically and operationally over-commit. Then we could have WW3. But, he's a puppet ruling by fear. We've been fighting our proxy wars since Reagan. Trump isn't capable of overcoming capitalism's mandate for optimized growth.

[sarothazrom@lemmy.world]

Not WW3, but Cold War 2.

[erika3sis@hexbear.net]

Well, I'm not going to jinx it, am I?

[fourpacketsofpeanuts@lemmy.world]

"and now class I would like to draw your attention to a footnote that existed between the ancient empires of Britain and the Glorious Peoples Empire of China.. for a time there was a thing called 'America'..."

[paradedugrotesque@lemmy.sdf.org]

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.

[fourpacketsofpeanuts@lemmy.world]

Maximum profit is extracted being in a perpetual state of "will they/won't they WWIII" which is why we'll be right here in this mood for a long time..

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

I don't think the PRC will be taking on the mantle of "Empire." Hegemon, sure, but their strategy thus far has been starkly different from the British and US Empires with respect to the Global South. The current US Empire dominates the Global South largely through massive Financial Capital and control of the World Reserve Currency, and is largely de-industrialized, while the PRC focuses more on selling to other countries as a heavily industrialized country. For example, in the US, "Made in USA" is a rarity, and usually just assembled in the USA, while in China "Made in China" goods are by far the norm.

[dragonsinaroom@lemmy.world]

Ww3 is too high risk due to nukes, but it will get to that point and hopefully not over it

[lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml]

We've been in it for decades it's just more covert and low intensity. The war never stops until we overthrow capitalism I'm afraid

[geese_feces@hexbear.net]

I feel like we're already in WW3 but everyone has to pretend we're not to avoid escalating it to nuclear.

[gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works]

Mmm if Iran and Israel really start to go at it, I could absolutely imagine Trump finding a way to use nukes on Iran. He wants to use the nukes.

[tabitha@hexbear.net]

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

[sooper_dooper_roofer@hexbear.net]

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

[buboscandiacus@mander.xyz]

Already there

[indulgence@lemmy.world]

I sure hope so

[jacksilver@lemmy.world]

UK went through industrialization leading to its empire, and the US was the industrial power during its ascent. Same thing with Japan before WWII.

Many imoeralistic powers seem to go through big industrial growth before expansion.

[cowbee@lemmy.ml]

Sure, but that evidently doesn't seem to be the course the PRC is taking. Rather, as Marxist-Leninists, they appear to be more interested in building up the Global South through favorable trade deals as an investment in future customers for their exports. This is fundamentally a different strategy from focusing on exporting financial and industrial Capital to the Global South. Further, China is too populous to offload their productive forces to the Global South, even if we doubt them as dedicated Communists it doesn't appear to be an economically viable strategy to adopt an Imperialist stance to begin with.

[shimmeringkoi@hexbear.net]

As the Axis, yes

[thepreciousboar@lemm.ee]

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

[objection@lemmy.ml]

In the long term, yes. The bourgeoisie are rich and comfortable with no desire for a war that could jeopardize their position. However, they have lots of financial incentives for military spending because it's rife with corruption. As such, they do a lot of saber-rattling to make WWIII seem like a genuine possibility, while also fighting in proxy wars around the globe.

But the problem is, they're playing with forces beyond their control. If you have a generation raised on constant propaganda to genuinely hate other countries, then all it takes is a couple people in the wrong positions at the wrong time who aren't in on the game. Right now, the rabid dog is on the leash of the bourgeoisie, but the gamble they've been making is that they can keep pumping steroids into it forever and never lose control.

Furthermore, wasting all this money on war and militarism has allowed China to emerge as a credible threat to their global hegemony. China is sitting back and focusing on domestic economic development, and they are winning the peace while the US burns itself out. What happens when the only area in which the US has an advantage is the military? Are people really going to accept becoming #2, or are they going to force a confrontation? Given that we're talking about Americans, who are 1) Riled up on propaganda, 2) Preoccupied with being "#1," and 3) Unused to experiencing the effects of fucking around firsthand, it seems almost inevitable. Ofc, it's true that we somehow maintained a Cold War with the USSR for decades, but it's different today because conditions are declining and the far-right is growing stronger every day.