The circumstances that arose out of the era of Western colonialism are not the circumstances we faced today. For one thing, the major powers no longer adhere to the notion that a single nation or alliance can successfully invade and dominate the rest of the world.
You underestimate the capacity of humans to make damned foolish and destructive decision under extreme pressure or desperation.
Look at WWII's Germany. It took out a war that its leaders believe was the only way to get it out of crushing debt.
Nations will continue to go broke and desperate. And at some point someone with access to nukes will push the button. Hell, it we missed nuclear armageddon by a hair in 1983.
I agree that wagering against human stupidity is a loser's bet. Nevertheless, I once again point out that conditions in the world aren't the same as they were before. Post-Versailles Germany blamed Western Europe for its economic woes because the Treaty of Versailles explicitly imposed crushing penalties on Germany with the aim of crippling their ability to ever resurrect the military threat they had built at the turn of the century. Such conditions do not exist the same way today. North Korea faces sanctions but even its closest allies aren't interested in allowing it to provoke a global conflict. The US has made strides toward normalizing relations with Cuba who doesn't have any world power alliances to threaten us any longer, and the Western treaty with Iran is likely to diffuse tensions whether or not the US can get over itself to join in the rapprochement.
Sure, when you make people desperate they're more open to military solutions, but we're less likely to do that than we were when World Wars were all the rage. Smaller regional conflicts continue to sprout but a global conflict is far less likely today than it was a hundred years ago, or even thirty.
I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm not even saying it's especially unlikely. I'm saying it's not necessarily inevitable. If we can maintain the progress we've made so far there's then there's much more reason not to start a world war.
“One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.” ― Otto von Bismarck (1888)
And he was right.
As we continue to elect damned fools with the powers that comes with leading a country we can expect that at some point one will push the trigger.
The circumstances that arose out of the era of Western colonialism are not the circumstances we faced today. For one thing, the major powers no longer adhere to the notion that a single nation or alliance can successfully invade and dominate the rest of the world.
You underestimate the capacity of humans to make damned foolish and destructive decision under extreme pressure or desperation.
Look at WWII's Germany. It took out a war that its leaders believe was the only way to get it out of crushing debt.
Nations will continue to go broke and desperate. And at some point someone with access to nukes will push the button. Hell, it we missed nuclear armageddon by a hair in 1983.
I agree that wagering against human stupidity is a loser's bet. Nevertheless, I once again point out that conditions in the world aren't the same as they were before. Post-Versailles Germany blamed Western Europe for its economic woes because the Treaty of Versailles explicitly imposed crushing penalties on Germany with the aim of crippling their ability to ever resurrect the military threat they had built at the turn of the century. Such conditions do not exist the same way today. North Korea faces sanctions but even its closest allies aren't interested in allowing it to provoke a global conflict. The US has made strides toward normalizing relations with Cuba who doesn't have any world power alliances to threaten us any longer, and the Western treaty with Iran is likely to diffuse tensions whether or not the US can get over itself to join in the rapprochement.
Sure, when you make people desperate they're more open to military solutions, but we're less likely to do that than we were when World Wars were all the rage. Smaller regional conflicts continue to sprout but a global conflict is far less likely today than it was a hundred years ago, or even thirty.
I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm not even saying it's especially unlikely. I'm saying it's not necessarily inevitable. If we can maintain the progress we've made so far there's then there's much more reason not to start a world war.
I don't think the world changed that much since 1983.
Heeey, Bismarck! I love this guy, made Germany out of a loose confederation of states.