Even without Nuclear Weapons a World War 3 in this day and age would destroy the world?

Because I feel the military of powerful nations in this day and age has enough fire power to level the whole world if they can even without the use of Nuclear Weapons.

And that I feel if Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction wasn't a thing, heck World War 5 would have happened last week. Are there plenty of reasons for the superpowers of the World to got to War with each other right now if deterrence didn't even existed and neither the weapons to make deterrence possible?

Such a world war would likely cause the use of nuclear weapons, in any case.

And I would tend to agree, capitalists would have eventually tried to fight the Soviet Union if nuclear weapons weren't a thing. I say eventually because if they had tried it in 1945 it's not clear that they would have won.

If nukes weren't acting as a "You invade me, everyone dies" hostage threat, and we had WW3 break out, I have no idea how it would play out.

I mean, think about it. We have missiles that can fly across multiple continents. The age of standing armies and defensive chokepoints is basically over. If you send a whole army up against another one, they're both sitting ducks for long range strikes. It's one of many reasons why the many nations the US is sticking it's dick in resort to guerilla strikes and car bombs and so on.

I do agree that we have enough ammo and ordinance to black our species back to the stone age thrice over though.

Seanchaidh:
And I would tend to agree, capitalists would have eventually tried to fight the Soviet Union if nuclear weapons weren't a thing. I say eventually because if they had tried it in 1945 it's not clear that they would have won.

As they say, war is a racket, and the military industrial complex REALLY likes it.

Honestly? WW3 is not how I'm worried about the world ending. We're doing a fine job with carbon.

Well part of the appeal of globalisation is that every country production capacity is tied to every other country, and so a global war would wreck all countries economy (even for the winning country). There's also a couple of country that aren't fully self sufficient as far as food goes, they would probably eventually be able to be, but they would be a couple of very rough years during the transition.

As far as conventional weaponry, they would do a lot of damage in cities, but even if a country was dead set on completely destroying there adversary they would have a hard time doing so. There's a lot of people around, and there good at running away when the bomb come. Bomb are also devastating in close range, but over large area aren't to damaging. People were still living relatively normal live in London even during the most sever bombing. And the Nazi tried real hard at exterminating people and they quickly found out that it was way harder than they though.

Honestly if we forgo nuclear weapon the next biggest problem wouldn't be conventional weapon, it would be biological weapon. Make a super plague or some virus/bacteria that attack the main foodstock of the enemy country and you would do way more damage that way than by lobbing millions of bomb.

The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more than Nagasaki.

It did go for longer, so you could take that into account.

I'm not actually convinced "World War 3" would ever happen at this point, short of a conflict over dwindling natural resources or climate change causing some form of conflict that spirals into that.

Seanchaidh:
Such a world war would likely cause the use of nuclear weapons, in any case.

And I would tend to agree, capitalists would have eventually tried to fight the Soviet Union if nuclear weapons weren't a thing. I say eventually because if they had tried it in 1945 it's not clear that they would have won.

I do agree that without nukes, the Cold War would have turned hot at some point in some way. However I'm not sure how hot and how direct it would be. The Red Army was quite formidable and was ahead of the curve in several ways, which we were somewhat aware of. Even without nukes, there may have still been pause at the idea of an open conflict with them.

Nedoras:

I do agree that without nukes, the Cold War would have turned hot at some point in some way. However I'm not sure how hot and how direct it would be. The Red Army was quite formidable and was ahead of the curve in several ways, which we were somewhat aware of. Even without nukes, there may have still been pause at the idea of an open conflict with them.

The red army wouldn't have been able to win a prolong war, especially toward the end of the cold war. They would have done really well initially, probably some invasion of europe, but wouldn't have been able to seriously damage the US. The US manufacturing and technological advantages would have given it a massive advantage over time.

The soviet were always weaker than the US (https://nintil.com/2016/03/26/the-soviet-union-gdp-growth/) and most of Europe would have also sided with the US, hell even china might have decided to attack the soviet and japan would probably also have attacked it, the soviet having grabbed a couple of island at the end of WW2 from japan. Nuke saved the soviet more than it help the US.

You don't need nuclear weapons to deter war. Hell, lots of non-nuclear nations don't go to war with each other for fear of the consequences. Pre WW1, the Germans built up their navy not to defeat the British navy, but to ensure that defeating Germany would be painful enough to end British naval supremacy over everyone else. Of course, things didn't go quite to plan.

As an aside, a big issue in WW2 was suddenly needing a massive amount of weapons and ammunition that you didn't have before, and didn't have the capabilities to easily make. Most powers had to design and build cheap new weapons that could be pumped out quickly. Not fancy new stuff to deal with the changing nature of war (though there was that as well), but good enough guns, notably ugly, cheap SMGs like the Sten. Most places still have that problem, a lot of nations don't produce their own weapons (and thus don't have the facilities to build them), they buy from places like Germany. If you have to double the size of your military suddenly, and everyone wants to buy from a small number of nations who also need lots of new guns, that's a problem. You can, of course, start your own weapons industry, but that takes time (and skill), and you're still likely to get a product unlike your current standard issue as well.

I do wonder if WW3 would be more of a war of information than ballistics. Why spend millions on ammunition when a few decent cyber attacks can paralyse governments, cripple information and wreck economies?

Meiam:
Well part of the appeal of globalisation is that every country production capacity is tied to every other country, and so a global war would wreck all countries economy (even for the winning country). There's also a couple of country that aren't fully self sufficient as far as food goes, they would probably eventually be able to be, but they would be a couple of very rough years during the transition.

As far as conventional weaponry, they would do a lot of damage in cities, but even if a country was dead set on completely destroying there adversary they would have a hard time doing so. There's a lot of people around, and there good at running away when the bomb come. Bomb are also devastating in close range, but over large area aren't to damaging. People were still living relatively normal live in London even during the most sever bombing. And the Nazi tried real hard at exterminating people and they quickly found out that it was way harder than they though.

Honestly if we forgo nuclear weapon the next biggest problem wouldn't be conventional weapon, it would be biological weapon. Make a super plague or some virus/bacteria that attack the main foodstock of the enemy country and you would do way more damage that way than by lobbing millions of bomb.

Agree with pretty much all of this.

The big global multinational corporations, who have interests across many borders and not much loyalty to any one country, and who also have significant influence and control over the governments in the countries in which they do business, are probably the biggest deterrent to a global war these days. There's just too much money to be lost.

Nuclear war was the biggest threat of the 20th century. But I see the biggest threat facing the 21st century to be automation and AI technology. As more and more people become unneeded in the work force, the world is going to have to figure out what to do with them all. I think it's going to be hugely destabilizing, and it has the potential to overturn the apple cart.

Also, as Meiam pointed out, disease outbreak is an ever present threat that could happen at any time.

Kerg3927:

Meiam:
Well part of the appeal of globalisation is that every country production capacity is tied to every other country, and so a global war would wreck all countries economy (even for the winning country). There's also a couple of country that aren't fully self sufficient as far as food goes, they would probably eventually be able to be, but they would be a couple of very rough years during the transition.

As far as conventional weaponry, they would do a lot of damage in cities, but even if a country was dead set on completely destroying there adversary they would have a hard time doing so. There's a lot of people around, and there good at running away when the bomb come. Bomb are also devastating in close range, but over large area aren't to damaging. People were still living relatively normal live in London even during the most sever bombing. And the Nazi tried real hard at exterminating people and they quickly found out that it was way harder than they though.

Honestly if we forgo nuclear weapon the next biggest problem wouldn't be conventional weapon, it would be biological weapon. Make a super plague or some virus/bacteria that attack the main foodstock of the enemy country and you would do way more damage that way than by lobbing millions of bomb.

Agree with pretty much all of this.

The big global multinational corporations, who have interests across many borders and not much loyalty to any one country, and who also have significant influence and control over the governments in the countries in which they do business, are probably the biggest deterrent to a global war these days. There's just too much money to be lost.

Nuclear war was the biggest threat of the 20th century. But I see the biggest threat facing the 21st century to be automation and AI technology. As more and more people become unneeded in the work force, the world is going to have to figure out what to do with them all. I think it's going to be hugely destabilizing, and it has the potential to overturn the apple cart.

Also, as Meiam pointed out, disease outbreak is an ever present threat that could happen at any time.

The radical solution would be to outlaw and make illegal the use of automation and AI.

Samtemdo8:

Kerg3927:

Meiam:
Well part of the appeal of globalisation is that every country production capacity is tied to every other country, and so a global war would wreck all countries economy (even for the winning country). There's also a couple of country that aren't fully self sufficient as far as food goes, they would probably eventually be able to be, but they would be a couple of very rough years during the transition.

As far as conventional weaponry, they would do a lot of damage in cities, but even if a country was dead set on completely destroying there adversary they would have a hard time doing so. There's a lot of people around, and there good at running away when the bomb come. Bomb are also devastating in close range, but over large area aren't to damaging. People were still living relatively normal live in London even during the most sever bombing. And the Nazi tried real hard at exterminating people and they quickly found out that it was way harder than they though.

Honestly if we forgo nuclear weapon the next biggest problem wouldn't be conventional weapon, it would be biological weapon. Make a super plague or some virus/bacteria that attack the main foodstock of the enemy country and you would do way more damage that way than by lobbing millions of bomb.

Agree with pretty much all of this.

The big global multinational corporations, who have interests across many borders and not much loyalty to any one country, and who also have significant influence and control over the governments in the countries in which they do business, are probably the biggest deterrent to a global war these days. There's just too much money to be lost.

Nuclear war was the biggest threat of the 20th century. But I see the biggest threat facing the 21st century to be automation and AI technology. As more and more people become unneeded in the work force, the world is going to have to figure out what to do with them all. I think it's going to be hugely destabilizing, and it has the potential to overturn the apple cart.

Also, as Meiam pointed out, disease outbreak is an ever present threat that could happen at any time.

The radical solution would be to outlaw and make illegal the use of automation and AI.

That's less 'radical' and more "let's preserve this outdated capitalist structure by suppressing technology." Using automation and AI to deliver everyone a comfortable life without needing to work is the truly radical solution.

Samtemdo8:

The radical solution would be to outlaw and make illegal the use of automation and AI.

Or, you know, make use of stuff like a UBI and other socialist ideas so that mass unemployment doesn't end up with mass starvation. Rather than block progress like a bunch of luddites.

TrulyBritish:

Samtemdo8:

The radical solution would be to outlaw and make illegal the use of automation and AI.

Or, you know, make use of stuff like a UBI and other socialist ideas so that mass unemployment doesn't end up with mass starvation. Rather than block progress like a bunch of luddites.

I don't know what is an UBI and what these Socialist ideas are.

Kerg3927:
Nuclear war was the biggest threat of the 20th century. But I see the biggest threat facing the 21st century to be automation and AI technology. As more and more people become unneeded in the work force, the world is going to have to figure out what to do with them all. I think it's going to be hugely destabilizing, and it has the potential to overturn the apple cart.

Yes, though it's something societies have survived in the past. Not much fun for the lower classes who suddenly get disposable, but not usually nation killing.

Samtemdo8:
I don't know what is an UBI and what these Socialist ideas are.

Universal Basic Income, the state pays everyone equally a certain amount of money. It has a serious problem in that many people who look at that see it purely as the government giving out free money, but in a tax system where you don't tax earnings under $X, that's not so different from what you are doing anyway.

Thaluikhain:

Kerg3927:
Nuclear war was the biggest threat of the 20th century. But I see the biggest threat facing the 21st century to be automation and AI technology. As more and more people become unneeded in the work force, the world is going to have to figure out what to do with them all. I think it's going to be hugely destabilizing, and it has the potential to overturn the apple cart.

Yes, though it's something societies have survived in the past. Not much fun for the lower classes who suddenly get disposable, but not usually nation killing.

I think AI will be different than anything we've ever seen before. It won't be just the unskilled or low skilled that will be affected. AI will also replace the highly skilled... doctors, lawyers, scientists, accountants, CEO's, etc., and everything in between. There really won't be an economic need for human intelligence anymore once AI eclipses it in every way exponentially.

So if we keep going as is, there will be a small number of corporations and wealthy investors who control the AI technology and the rest of us who don't. And that's assuming humans can control it, which is an open question. But those who don't are going to have to rely upon government welfare to survive, like animals in a zoo, contributing nothing to the economy and cared for like pets. And that's assuming they decide to keep us alive, because there will be no economic incentive to do so. We will have to hope that they do so out of pity.

Seanchaidh:
I say eventually because if they had tried it in 1945 it's not clear that they would have won.

Honestly it's pretty clear who would have won, and it wouldn't have been "the capitalists". The atom bomb was the only ace in the hole the West had.

Samtemdo8:

I don't know what is an UBI and what these Socialist ideas are.

Universal basic income is actually a pretty capitalist idea. Capitalist require consumers and UBI ensure that there's always going to be consumer around but in a way where company still compete with each others. It's also done in a way that let people still have free time to develop new idea/start business and so on. And it's main advantage is that it doesn't stop people from getting job, since it's distributed regardless of income and you don't get into a situation where working for a low income end up costing the person more in lost revenue from losing access to service for unemployed and such.

How many countries are involved in the middle east currently? How many countries need to be involved for it to be a "world" war? Do proxy wars count?

Meiam:

Samtemdo8:

I don't know what is an UBI and what these Socialist ideas are.

Universal basic income is actually a pretty capitalist idea. Capitalist require consumers and UBI ensure that there's always going to be consumer around but in a way where company still compete with each others. It's also done in a way that let people still have free time to develop new idea/start business and so on. And it's main advantage is that it doesn't stop people from getting job, since it's distributed regardless of income and you don't get into a situation where working for a low income end up costing the person more in lost revenue from losing access to service for unemployed and such.

UBI is an interesting concept. But if it's not done worldwide, I wonder what's to stop the wealthiest people and corporations from simply moving to countries that don't have it, and thus don't have the resulting higher taxes, gutting UBI's tax base in the process.

Kerg3927:

Meiam:

Samtemdo8:

I don't know what is an UBI and what these Socialist ideas are.

Universal basic income is actually a pretty capitalist idea. Capitalist require consumers and UBI ensure that there's always going to be consumer around but in a way where company still compete with each others. It's also done in a way that let people still have free time to develop new idea/start business and so on. And it's main advantage is that it doesn't stop people from getting job, since it's distributed regardless of income and you don't get into a situation where working for a low income end up costing the person more in lost revenue from losing access to service for unemployed and such.

UBI is an interesting concept. But if it's not done worldwide, I wonder what's to stop the wealthiest people and corporations from simply moving to countries that don't have it, and thus don't have the resulting higher taxes, gutting UBI's tax base in the process.

Yeah it would need to be done in concert with a change in the way tax are done, so that company are taxed on the profit they make in the country rather than based on where there headquarters is (even without UBI this needs to happen at some point). This would also require a lot of tweak to tax (with way that investment can be tax free and so on). Ideally multiple country would switch at the same time, forcing company to adapt. If, say, just Denmark does that then company might just leave the market, but if the EU and US do it at the same time they company won't have a choice.

Kerg3927:
UBI is an interesting concept. But if it's not done worldwide, I wonder what's to stop the wealthiest people and corporations from simply moving to countries that don't have it, and thus don't have the resulting higher taxes, gutting UBI's tax base in the process.

UBI does not necessarily mean greatly higher taxes, lots of places have a welfare system and don't tax the lowest earners as it is.

For that matter, lots of places already tax people to different amounts, and we don't see all the rich people moving to places with less taxes. It's an issue, but it's greatly overstated by people who seem to think taxes should only apply to other people.

Samtemdo8:
Because I feel the military of powerful nations in this day and age has enough fire power to level the whole world if they can even without the use of Nuclear Weapons.

And that I feel if Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction wasn't a thing, heck World War 5 would have happened last week. Are there plenty of reasons for the superpowers of the World to got to War with each other right now if deterrence didn't even existed and neither the weapons to make deterrence possible?

Level humanity and most if not all other precious life forms, but the earth will keep on spinning.

Meiam:
Universal basic income is actually a pretty capitalist idea. Capitalist require consumers and UBI ensure that there's always going to be consumer around...

I believe it's Moody's Analytics that does regular reports on the ROI for every federal dollar spent in terms of GDP growth, and consistently the most lucrative expenditures, beyond debate, are social programs and infrastructure. Precisely because they maintain and expand the consumer base upon which corporations rely for profit while reducing logistical outlays, which overall increases money velocity.

Meiam:
Universal basic income is actually a pretty capitalist idea. Capitalist require consumers and UBI ensure that there's always going to be consumer around but in a way where company still compete with each others.

I mean, technically capitalism doesn't "require" consumers. For example, defence contractors don't sell to consumers, they sell to national governments, and yet they are still business organised in a capitalist way with capitalist forms of investment.

But you're correct in that one of the interesting things about UBIs is that they integrate fairly easily into a capitalist economic system and can help to alleviate the problems of a traditional welfare system, but their purpose isn't to help capitalism, their purpose is to counter the extreme wealth disparity a capitalist system produces and ensure that everyone can provide for their basic needs.

I think people who are in favour of capitalism and who want it to be successful in the long term should be looking at things like UBIs as a necessary means of preventing people who are hurt by capitalism from turning against it, but that's more just pragmatism than anything else.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here