WW3 - A War to End Regional Disputes?

a reply to: VulcanWerks
We'll probably start right here.

a reply to: hjesterium
There you have it. Tiawan has the biggest plants in the semiconductor industry, a few of which are billion dollar companies. But here is the other things: It is not that they produce semiconductors, but are one of the few leading areas that have the resources to do pure R&D when it comes to those devices. Then once they make a successful device, the design is then leased out to other companies to make.

Semiconductor plants and equipment are expensive. It takes years to build a plant, and that is just the building and the fixtures, along with the wiring and plumbing that has to be in place, tested and retested just to ensure it is going to operate as needed. This is before the equipment is brought in, and that is a whole separate cost, along with the set up, testing and ultimately getting the equipment to operate and start being used to produce. Then to have staff that can learn to run that equipment, training and running it. A fully functional fab, runs up into the billions of dollars just to produce product.

So yeah, that area where Taiwan has its semiconductor plants, with all of the product and R&D facilities is the real goal and target for China, it would not want to damage it at all.

originally posted by: hjesterium
a reply to: VulcanWerks

Russia - Kazakhstan (possible future)

Ukraine - Poland (possible future)

China v. Australia (possible future)

China v. Russia (probable future)

Ireland/Scotland v. England (probable future)

China - Malaysia (hypothetical)

originally posted by: VulcanWerks
Islands in South China Sea?

A possible future: The South China Sea was also a major conflict zone as this is where the incident that got China to join Russia fully happened where a Chinese Navy ship was sunk in disputed waters. old.reddit.com...

originally posted by: VulcanWerks
Maybe WW3 isn’t like WW2. It’s more of a “world at war” than a “world war”. Multiple, significant regional conflicts.

I like the way you put it!

Seems that way, geopolitical interests, land claims, border disputes are the main driving force.

old.reddit.com... A possible future mentions India/Pakistan & Iran/Saudi Arabia.

WW2 was an ideological war, a war of liberation, stimulated by conflicting ideas of freedom, before it degenerated into wars of conquest, territorial war.

In a May 5, 1941 speech, Stalin reportedly observed that: the Germans had been victorious because they fought to liberate their country from the shackles of the Versailles Peace Treaty imposed on Germany by Britain and France in 1919. That success would falter if they transitioned to wars of conquest, which is what happened to Napoleon when he stopped fighting wars of liberation.

However, for WW3, I was also expecting a renewed class war, revolutionary outbreak from communists in Europe. (I don't believe it will come from Russia at first.)

Great call outs here for other potential conflicts!

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: VulcanWerks
With the onset of the issues in Israel, it makes me wonder what the next dominos to fall are.

What I mean is…

We have Russia v. Ukraine.

We have the Israeli conflict.

Those zones are hot.

Now, the leaves what else that’s hotly contested?

China v. Taiwan

Islands in South China Sea?

Various conflicts in Africa?

Maybe WW3 isn’t like WW2. It’s more of a “world at war” than a “world war”. Multiple, significant regional conflicts.

So what other long-standing disagreements are out there which may need resolution?

I have a feeling there has to be more - what did I miss?

Welcome to human history and our nature...war...war..war.

That’s correct.

While I’d prefer don’t have war or military conflicts as we do, I’ve also realized we’re a long way from the war phenomenon going away.

So, may as well review what’s in play and the ramifications of those situations in the absence of global peace (which, absent something like a legit alien invasion, we may never attain).

originally posted by: Crackalackin
a reply to: VulcanWerks
We'll probably start right here.

You may well be right.

Worth pondering how events can play out as we move from here to there.

More likely a War to Consolidate Wealth.

originally posted by: CloudNothing
More likely a War to Consolidate Wealth.

Could be, but I’d say the majority of the wealth has already been consolidated.

War probably distributes wealth more than peace in many ways.

The Report from Iron Mountain actually deals with this very question; how do you keep an economy going and maintain societal cohesion in the essence of war?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Whether the report from iron mountain was real or a hoax, it’s a very interesting thought exercise.

Trump’s term saw the US engage minimally in global conflict. Little to no war. So, the country started to separate along political lines. Peace brought the opportunity for societal dis unification - which we are experiencing today.

Ukraine was a war of opportunity for NATO. There was some unification around Ukraine - but that has now dissipated. If anything, it’s now a point of contention.

Israel, now, offers yet another “opportunity” to use military conflict for a societal purpose. Much like Ukraine, so far that purpose has proven to be divisive.

Should the Israeli conflict breed terrorist activities more broadly - say in the US or NATO partner - I truly wonder where this all goes. I suspect it will be something like the border wall - you don’t need it until you do.

Whatever goes on, it will be ultimately unifying because some party will be the winner. Those that are the winners are almost certainly unified.

Sadly, to get unification there has to be a catalyst - which almost certainly will be a big problem/deal - much like 9/11 did some time ago.

Side note: this makes me wonder if we intentionally don’t “finish the job” the first time. Not doing so gives us a reason to go back. This would be round two with the terrorists so perhaps this iteration is the decisive one.