jimmy90 ,

no, nobody's stupid enough to take on NATO

Dasus ,

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

— Albert Einstein

jimmy90 ,

true but anyone stupid enough to take on a NATO ally is going to be surprised how quickly that "world war" is over

InternetCitizen2 ,

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.

Dogyote ,

Hopefully NATO isn't stupid enough to take on anyone either

kaffiene ,

It's always avoidable. It's also still quite possible

blahsay ,

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.

awesome_lowlander ,

Damn those libs, fighting for the right to live and love!

blahsay ,

Excellent example

kaffiene ,

Umm... What?

PoliticalAgitator , (edited )

The right: "I think we should deport anyone with brown skin, incarcerate the LGBT community until they learn to stay closeted, execute black people without trial and force raped children to give birth, all the while gutting environmental protections, welfare and anything else that might cost my rich friends money"

The left: "Then you're a cunt"

You: Both sides so divisive!

blahsay ,

You're part of the problem till you can step back and understand others opinions. Generally people mean well.

PoliticalAgitator ,

The worst people you know vote and have social media.

InternetCitizen2 ,

So what opinion does the right have that is worth taking seriously?

StupidBrotherInLaw ,

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.

Kolanaki , (edited )
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

Probably, yeah. I don't forsee a WW3 not happening eventually; I just hope it's not in our lifetime.

BeigeAgenda ,
@BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca avatar

Just postpone it to 2077

lurch , (edited )

considering we have a record of over 6000 years of overlapping armed conflicts and wars, yes absolutely.

there has not been a single worldwide peaceful day for thousands of years.

it's not 100% sure the ones currently going on will be called world wars. maybe it will be a new one. there's always another war, unfortunately.

foggy ,

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.

SrTobi ,

What makes you think China will attack Taiwan before Christmas?

foggy ,

Because thats what he said.

ArmokGoB ,

I am 100% sure this is sabre rattling.

awesome_lowlander ,

Ah, they issued a final warning!

irreticent ,
@irreticent@lemmy.world avatar

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?"

foggy ,

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.

TheDorkfromYork ,

Is there a remind me bot for lemmy?

irreticent , (edited )
@irreticent@lemmy.world avatar

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    remindme Bot ,
    @remindme@mstdn.social avatar

    @irreticent Ok, I will remind you on Saturday Jan 11, 2025 at 2:54 AM PST.

    irreticent ,
    @irreticent@lemmy.world avatar

    @remindme in 7 months

    remindme Bot ,
    @remindme@mstdn.social avatar

    @irreticent Ok, I will remind you on Saturday Jan 11, 2025 at 2:55 AM PST.

    TheDorkfromYork ,

    @remindme in 196 days

    TheDorkfromYork ,

    @remindme on December 24, 2024.

    walter_wiggles ,

    I thought this was an interesting perspective:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/08/putin-war-ukraine-forgotten-lessons-of-history-europe

    mister_monster ,

    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.

    Lemminary ,

    The term “world war” is a propaganda term

    Why is it propaganda and not just a misnomer?

    mister_monster ,

    Because it was deliberately designed to instill a certain sense about history.

    Burstar ,
    @Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    Yes and totally had nothing to do with the fact the belligerents were on all continents except Antartica. Total propaganda with no basis in accuracy whatsoever.

    mister_monster ,

    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.

    hitmyspot ,

    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.

    mister_monster ,

    1. I didn't call it an america Russia war,

    2. I mentioned Japan.

    You're talking about world war 2 right?

    Burstar ,
    @Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    Yeah it's a ridiculous stance to take, particularly for WWII. Of the 6/7 continents (Antarctica not included) only Africa and Australia were colonial participants. US, UK, France, Japan, Germany, China, Russia all were not colonies. Direct conflict occurred on Africa by Germany and Japan bombed Australia. Thus to say 'WWII' is a propaganda title to make it sound bigger than it was is at best a pedantic argument as all continents (except Antarctica) were affected by a non-colonial belligerent.

    Max_P ,
    @Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me avatar

    You know it's bad when far right extremism is on the rise again in Germany...

    sxan ,
    @sxan@midwest.social avatar

    And who will they pick to fight? The World!

    PorradaVFR ,

    A Norm reference made this much less depressing, thank you.

    Lemmchen , (edited )

    Third time's the charm! /s

    Forester ,
    @Forester@yiffit.net avatar

    It started in 2014 so yeah. We are just not yet to a point where America gets directly involved. We are doing the lend lease thing again.

    toofpic ,

    Came here to say the same thing. Both US and EU: "this is not real, this is not a real war".
    In their delusion, are helping Ukraine, but it's a half-ass help. How should a war look to be called a war? Tanks, Aircraft, ships, 1000km trench warfare, ballistic missiles - is that a war?

    Daxtron2 ,

    Proxy war != world war

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •