WWIII

[Nessus]

Why do I need to post in your monologue?

[GGT]

Why do I need to post in your monologue?

You don't, of course. As long as you think WWIII will look just like WII or WWI. Or that 21st Century War will look familiar, using historical context or those metrics.

[Nessus]

I don't mean to beat her, it just happens

[wiggin]

*shrug* I think that the constantly shifting exchange of power between those individuals who're on the right side of the aggressive-passive bell curve vs the ones on the other will tip the balance eventually, and the reason most pressing IMO is the transition from a fossil fuel energy economy to...Whatever it is we end up replacing it with. It doesn't necessarily have to devolve into a global conflict, but sooner or later something will. It's not as if the people 100 years ago were significantly less 'moral', or significantly less altruistic, it's just the combination of the nuclear option and inter-twined global economy that makes a global conflict a trickier situation to navigate. And, it's not as if all the motivations behind WW2 obeyed min-max, or what could arguably be dubbed rationality; you've shied away from the topic before, but there are some people in the US who would not hesitate to ignite a global conflict for essentially super-stitious reasons.

This is all very hand-wavy, but I suppose the argument is that the stable position we're sitting in now isn't any more in the actual minimum potential well than the Cold War was. I can't back that with empirical study, and it can easily be dismissed as the natural pessimism of a sworn misanthrope.

I think I agree with you in principle that the 'unipolar moment' after the Cold War was hardly a stable equilibrium, and that probably the most stable system is a bipolar world dominated by two major superpowers. Given that we don't have they yet, but some multipolar mix with a strong but not hegemonic superpower presiding over things, it's a fairly unstable situation.

I just don't see resources being a major source of conflict for the rich and powerful nations to fight with each other about; they're more likely just to price the poorer nations out of the market and cause wars there. It doesn't make the world peaceful, but I doubt it makes for a world war, just a lot of bush wars and human misery. Who knows? We could both be right. That's a cheery thought.

[GGT]

How can anyone not think we don't have a bipolar world already (manic highs, depressive lows, China vs USA)? Multipolar would mean PIIGS. Debatable who's the "superpower" presiding over things, when China buys tons of US debt. That alone is an "unstable event". We can't even get our Treasury or Comptroller of Currency or Congress to call China out for currency manipulation......because we are doing the same damn thing!

IMO there are too many people dismissing the vast numbers of hungry and frustrated people. This is the stuff that leads to civil uprising. Too many people are comparing rich nations to other rich nations, and neglecting to look at real peoples' misery. Waving away pricing out poorer nations, content that their protests won't matter much. IMO that's old world thinking, and it may come with big fucking surprises for legislators and policy-makers.

Just like the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen (and the domino effect) took "experts" by surprise.

[Loki]

I think I agree with you in principle that the 'unipolar moment' after the Cold War was hardly a stable equilibrium, and that probably the most stable system is a bipolar world dominated by two major superpowers. Given that we don't have they yet, but some multipolar mix with a strong but not hegemonic superpower presiding over things, it's a fairly unstable situation.

Multipolarity lasted centuries. Bipolarity lasted 40 years.

[wiggin]

I think technology has something to do with that, Loki, and it 'lasted' with dozens of pretty nasty wars between the major powers.

[agamemnus]

WWIII is a war of words.

We live in an age of unprecedented stagnation. Our economy is teetering on the brink of success!

[Loki]

I think technology has something to do with that, Loki, and it 'lasted' with dozens of pretty nasty wars between the major powers.

You're changing the definition of stability here. If your main criterion is lack of wars, then unipolarity is by far the most stable.

[wiggin]

I'd define it as lack of conflicts between major powers for a significant period of time. Unipolarity obviously won't have such wars since there only is one major power, but it's not going to last for very long, now is it?

[Loki]

I'd define it as lack of conflicts between major powers for a significant period of time. Unipolarity obviously won't have such wars since there only is one major power, but it's not going to last for very long, now is it?

Unipolarity doesn't preclude the existence of major powers; it's just that one is significantly more powerful than the rest. Even if we accept your criteria, there's no inherent reason why unipolarity must last a shorter period of time than bipolarity. Bipolarity can end with either one of the poles surpassing the other or a third state becoming a pole. Unipolarity can only end through the latter mechanism. The rise of countries is not a fast or certain process. It will be decades before we really see the end of unipolarity.

I should also note that in bipolarity, everything is a zero-sum game. That makes cooperation incredibly difficult to achieve. So even if there isn't war (though there have been plenty of wars in pre-20th century bipolarity periods), there is no stability either. The zero-sum nature of interaction increases hostility, which makes countries more likely to use force.

Here's a good work on the subject: http://www.jstor.org/pss/174077 The current consensus in IR is that polarity doesn't really matter, by the way.

[Flixy]

Define the term WAR, first off. How is the "war on terrorism" not finding its way all over the world?

I am not a fan of the Patriot Act.

WWII may have cost 60 million deaths, but only if the numbers are global, secondary and tertiary, including deaths before "WAR" was offically declared.

"Fun" Fact or Folly: deaths at Pearl Harbor bombing were less than deaths from World Trade Center on 9/11.

War at least implies violent actions, and the effects you mentioned of the world war on terror that affect the entire world are being patted down at airports. War implies fighting, which is pretty much all in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and possibly Yemen. And of course the numbers of casualties in a world war are global (it's a WORLD war), but I am not sure what secondary and tertiary means, and hardly anyone (relatively) died before war was declared so that makes no difference. So I fail to see your point here. And about your fun fact: so what? It was a deliberate military strike by one country against another, starting a war.

And I also dislike the patrioct act, and the tendency of governments to sacrifice liberties by mentioning the word 'terrorism', but if you are calling that the horrible effects of a war, maybe you should check with people who are actually in a war zone. And the situation in, say, occupied Europe under the Nazis was a lot worse than the USA under the patriot act, too. Guantanamo bay is bad, but back then there were worse places in every country, with torture and murder without trials.

Ten million Soviet deaths alone? Gosh, that's way more than six million Jew deaths. Nyet?

I suppose the point is, that by 21st century standards, simply tallying deaths is a bad metric. During our Revolutionary and Civil Wars, millions died from eye-to-eye combat as well as secondary infections or sepsis from their wounds. Or Trench Foot. Conditions specific to that era.

That doesn't necessarily mean the Wars (or battles we call Wars) are any "better" in the 21st century, just because there may be less deaths. Surgical Strikes, or what not. In fact, today's Wars and battles are probably more important than ever, but not because of Deaths.

Sure, tallying death isn't a good metric. But world war implies a war that involves most of the world, and has world wide effects and a global scale, so that includes death toll too. For what it's worth: all world wars killed more than 1% of the global population. By the way, just because something has an effect on the entire world does not make it a war, I'd say the economical crisis affects the entire world but is not a war.

Also, why on earth are today's wars more important than old ones? Other wars shaped the world as we know it today. So what makes you say these are more important? Also millions did not die during the Revolutionary and Civil wars.

And yes, more Russian soldiers died than Jews, so? About as many German soldiers (not even including civilian casualties) died as Jews, too. There is a big difference between war and genocide though.

How can anyone not think we don't have a bipolar world already (manic highs, depressive lows, China vs USA)? Multipolar would mean PIIGS. Debatable who's the "superpower" presiding over things, when China buys tons of US debt. That alone is an "unstable event". We can't even get our Treasury or Comptroller of Currency or Congress to call China out for currency manipulation......because we are doing the same damn thing!

IMO there are too many people dismissing the vast numbers of hungry and frustrated people. This is the stuff that leads to civil uprising. Too many people are comparing rich nations to other rich nations, and neglecting to look at real peoples' misery. Waving away pricing out poorer nations, content that their protests won't matter much. IMO that's old world thinking, and it may come with big fucking surprises for legislators and policy-makers.

Just like the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen (and the domino effect) took "experts" by surprise.

Sure, there is unrest, but it's unlikely to lead to global wars (I fail to see such a scenario anyway). Civil wars did not lead to other world wars, either. They tend to be restricted to their own country, maybe a few neighbours. And either way those are not connected to the War on terror, and wasn't that the point you were trying to make to begin with?


Now, I want you to answer one question for me: Do you really think that the war on terror is on the same scale as a world war?

Just to compare: WWI ravaged several countries, killed ~24 million people, and completely reshaped the power balance in the world. WWII pretty much destroyed entire Europe, big parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia. ~60 million people were killed, completely reshaped the power balance in the world, and civil liberties were completely suspended in huge portions of the world. Compared to: actual war and destruction in maybe four countries, a few hundreds of thousand casualties, and slight restrictions of civil liberties. Oh, and you may be patted down when you board a plane. And you think that is on the same scale??

[wiggin]

Unipolarity doesn't preclude the existence of major powers; it's just that one is significantly more powerful than the rest. Even if we accept your criteria, there's no inherent reason why unipolarity must last a shorter period of time than bipolarity. Bipolarity can end with either one of the poles surpassing the other or a third state becoming a pole. Unipolarity can only end through the latter mechanism. The rise of countries is not a fast or certain process. It will be decades before we really see the end of unipolarity.

I should also note that in bipolarity, everything is a zero-sum game. That makes cooperation incredibly difficult to achieve. So even if there isn't war (though there have been plenty of wars in pre-20th century bipolarity periods), there is no stability either. The zero-sum nature of interaction increases hostility, which makes countries more likely to use force.

Here's a good work on the subject: http://www.jstor.org/pss/174077 The current consensus in IR is that polarity doesn't really matter, by the way.

Okay, I'll accept your expertise on the matter. Thanks for the source.

[LittleFuzzy]

The Third World War will be fought by the major powers, over resources and lebensraum. It will take some time before the globe destabilizes to that position, and it seems pretty impossible, at least from my ignorance, to guesstimate whether I'll be alive to see it. The war on terror is a legally strange police action, not "war" in any meaningful sense of the term (compare 'war on drugs').

And when all is said and done, the 'war on drugs' is probably more likely to be source for sliding into real conflicts which could develop into a WWIII than anti-terrorism.

[LittleFuzzy]

Ten million Soviet deaths alone? Gosh, that's way more than six million Jew deaths. Nyet?

I suppose the point is, that by 21st century standards, simply tallying deaths is a bad metric. During our Revolutionary and Civil Wars, millions died from eye-to-eye combat as well as secondary infections or sepsis from their wounds. Or Trench Foot. Conditions specific to that era. .

Uh, no. Oh certainly disease counted for way more than battlefield deaths, but you're off on the numbers. All war-related deaths *or even ones only semi-war related* for all US conflicts prior to WWI combined probably won't reach 2 million. And actually, you can take out the Civil War and put in both World Wars and the number would be even lower. The US civil war killed more US citizens than any other conflict in our history.

[Loki]

Okay, I'll accept your expertise on the matter. Thanks for the source.

Don't make me argue against GGT.

[GGT]

War at least implies violent actions, and the effects you mentioned of the world war on terror that affect the entire world are being patted down at airports. War implies fighting, which is pretty much all in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and possibly Yemen. And of course the numbers of casualties in a world war are global (it's a WORLD war), but I am not sure what secondary and tertiary means, and hardly anyone (relatively) died before war was declared so that makes no difference. So I fail to see your point here. And about your fun fact: so what? It was a deliberate military strike by one country against another, starting a war.

I also asked (earlier in another thread) if using the term WAR was appropriate in the 21st century.

And I also dislike the patrioct act, and the tendency of governments to sacrifice liberties by mentioning the word 'terrorism', but if you are calling that the horrible effects of a war, maybe you should check with people who are actually in a war zone. And the situation in, say, occupied Europe under the Nazis was a lot worse than the USA under the patriot act, too. Guantanamo bay is bad, but back then there were worse places in every country, with torture and murder without trials.

Still, no excuse for Gitmo, or using torture today. Actually, even less justification because we have history to be our guide.

Sure, tallying death isn't a good metric. But world war implies a war that involves most of the world, and has world wide effects and a global scale, so that includes death toll too. For what it's worth: all world wars killed more than 1% of the global population. By the way, just because something has an effect on the entire world does not make it a war, I'd say the economical crisis affects the entire world but is not a war.

That's what I've been saying! That deaths alone, or the use of the word "WAR" isn't very meaningful (when we think of world wars) but I left the definition open to anyone and everyone. <Would some epidemiologists consider HIV as WWIII?>

Also, why on earth are today's wars more important than old ones? Other wars shaped the world as we know it today. So what makes you say these are more important? Also millions did not die during the Revolutionary and Civil wars.
And yes, more Russian soldiers died than Jews, so? About as many German soldiers (not even including civilian casualties) died as Jews, too. There is a big difference between war and genocide though.

Nukes.

Sure, there is unrest, but it's unlikely to lead to global wars (I fail to see such a scenario anyway). Civil wars did not lead to other world wars, either. They tend to be restricted to their own country, maybe a few neighbours. And either way those are not connected to the War on terror, and wasn't that the point you were trying to make to begin with?

Now, I want you to answer one question for me: Do you really think that the war on terror is on the same scale as a world war?

Just to compare: WWI ravaged several countries, killed ~24 million people, and completely reshaped the power balance in the world. WWII pretty much destroyed entire Europe, big parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia. ~60 million people were killed, completely reshaped the power balance in the world, and civil liberties were completely suspended in huge portions of the world. Compared to: actual war and destruction in maybe four countries, a few hundreds of thousand casualties, and slight restrictions of civil liberties. Oh, and you may be patted down when you board a plane. And you think that is on the same scale??

Don't confuse my OP with my personal opinions.

I'd hoped people would post their views of what WWIII might look like in their mind's eye, or how'd they know if we're in the midst.....or would no one really know for one hundred years and hindsight.

Sometimes I think we're in WWIII, almost like a global Cold War. Not many deaths, but plenty of nations acting together, or at the same time.

One of the newer realities is seeing how civil unrest can domino from Tunisia, to Yemen, Egypt, Syria......phenomenons "experts" downplayed for years. That civil wars in aggregate could never lead to a world war. Because, y'know, what are the odds that several middle east or Arab nations would have civil wars at the same time? Especially if they're getting funds from the west to 'contain' themselves?

In case you didn't get my answer to your specific question --- I think our current "War on Terror" is bigger in scale that WWII, but only because we are more globally connected than in the 1940's. In some ways I think our new "wars" are greater in magnitude and scale, even if there are less troops, physical fighting, combat, or deaths.

[Loki]

One of the newer realities is seeing how civil unrest can domino from Tunisia, to Yemen, Egypt, Syria......phenomenons "experts" downplayed for years. That civil wars in aggregate could never lead to a world war. Because, y'know, what are the odds that several middle east or Arab nations would have civil wars at the same time? Especially if they're getting funds from the west to 'contain' themselves?

I swear that you get some kind of emotional satisfaction from attacking "experts". Do you feel inferior in some way that you must attack them at every chance? FYI, the Arab countries that had revolts had many of the conditions that civil war scholars think lead to civil war. So they really weren't surprised that there were uprisings there. To the extent that they were surprised, it was that the uprisings succeeded.

The rest of your post is little more than attempts to shift the goalposts, change the topic of discussion, and make comments that simply make no sense. Seriously, we have a world war because there are plenty of nations acting together? The lack of logic in that statement is astounding.

[Hazir]

Well I think we can safely assume that this socalled 'war' doesn't affect the lives of people in quite the same way World War II did affect the lives of people back then.

By the way; I was frisked at the Zurich airport the other day. The guy doing that was so cute that I almost considered tipping him. I swear I said 'thank you' when he was done.

[GGT]

Uh, no. Oh certainly disease counted for way more than battlefield deaths, but you're off on the numbers. All war-related deaths *or even ones only semi-war related* for all US conflicts prior to WWI combined probably won't reach 2 million. And actually, you can take out the Civil War and put in both World Wars and the number would be even lower. The US civil war killed more US citizens than any other conflict in our history.

In the days before Penicillin. Knowing how to treat bleeding bullet wounds, or cutting off limbs wasn't enough, if sepsis set in. What do you mean about both World Wars being less than 2 million?

Don't make me argue against GGT.

[Loki]

Well I think we can safely assume that this socalled 'war' doesn't affect the lives of people in quite the same way World War II did affect the lives of people back then.

By the way; I was frisked at the Zurich airport the other day. The guy doing that was so cute that I almost considered tipping him. I swear I said 'thank you' when he was done.

You should have resisted.

[GGT]

I swear that you get some kind of emotional satisfaction from attacking "experts". Do you feel inferior in some way that you must attack them at every chance? FYI, the Arab countries that had revolts had many of the conditions that civil war scholars think lead to civil war. So they really weren't surprised that there were uprisings there. To the extent that they were surprised, it was that the uprisings succeeded.

Oh, so they were surprised by uprisings succeeding! Scholars were really surprised after all. Even though Arab nations had revolts and conditions that scholars would say leads to civil war and uprisings?

The rest of your post is little more than attempts to shift the goalposts, change the topic of discussion, and make comments that simply make no sense. Seriously, we have a world war because there are plenty of nations acting together? The lack of logic in that statement is astounding.

Then I await your next post with bated breath, about what Professor Loki would call a World War.

[Loki]

Did some expert beat you as a child or something?

[wiggin]

By the way; I was frisked at the Zurich airport the other day. The guy doing that was so cute that I almost considered tipping him. I swear I said 'thank you' when he was done.

I flew back into the States a day or two after the underwear bomber tried his stunt. Security in Tel Aviv was normal, but at Schipol a very nice gentleman got rather frisky with my junk at 6 am or so while a woman with a face like a mule felt up my wife. Not that I swing that way, but I think I got the better end of the deal than the wifey. It was pretty amusing that these poor Dutch security guys had to feel up a few thousand US-bound travelers every day just because DHS or whoever decided to freak out for a week or two.

[LittleFuzzy]

In the days before Penicillin. Knowing how to treat bleeding bullet wounds, or cutting off limbs wasn't enough, if sepsis set in.

Yes, I know. You'd said it, I just affirmed it, so why are you saying it again? Do you think my affirmation of your statement itself needed an affirmation?

What do you mean about both World Wars being less than 2 million?

For the US. But I didn't say both World Wars combined were less than 2 million, though they were. I said they were less combined than the Civil War. All war-related deaths for the US across its entire history *counting the Revolutionary War, but not prior wars though they would not noticeably change the results. I am including activity like conflict with Native Americans and their losses, including from forcible relocation events* would not reach 2 million. I don't think they would even top 1.5 million.

[GGT]

Based on what you say, Fuzzy....numbers of deaths aren't the metric that should be used when calling a war a World War.

That's what I said, albeit in a different way. Would you agree?

[Loki]

Remind me why the recent global recession wasn't WWIII according to your own logic. It certainly affected more people than the war on terrorism. It had a far higher financial cost. It's probably going to have a larger long-term effect...

[GGT]

Did some expert beat you as a child or something?

Just noticed this post while reading back. Sounds like something you'd never DARE say to your students, while trying to come off as an "expert" to them in class.

If you've got a problem being a TA, or hate your students, don't take it out on me. I haven't paid tuition to be abused for your pleasure.

[GGT]

Remind me why the recent global recession wasn't WWIII according to your own logic. It certainly affected more people than the war on terrorism. It had a far higher financial cost. It's probably going to have a larger long-term effect...

Economic recessions aren't usually called Wars (as you well know). The Great Depression wasn't called a War, even though many felt it was, and its effects lasted for generations.

I don't know what 2011 will look like to future people looking back..... but we'll undoubtedly have flaws we couldn't see, that future people might.

[GGT]

We might also have to re-examine threats of violence or terrorism...in the future, looking back in time. Bin Laden and others claim a major part of their "Jihad" is to make the evil west (the USA) go broke by over extending itself. Trying to act like an Empire, getting too involved in "expensive" ventures, or ignoring domestic issues in favor of global ones.

I can see it panning out that way, or things taking a sudden turn for our next generation. War can mean many things, and in the 21st century it may have less to do with political boundaries, and more to do with economic boundaries.