Hacker News Reader

Comment by huangc10 | Hacker News Reader

What's interesting to me here is that, it seems like a lot of the causes/triggers to WWI/WWII were due to conflicts between nations and/or assassinations. We don't necessarily have anything as big as 2 equal nations fighting, capitals getting invaded etc.

So does that mean WWIII will probably never happen given that we don't have any of of these crazy causes/triggers?

View on HN

We certainly have these triggers and it's possible! The Middle East is in chaos, and it's causing conflict between US and Russia, as well as the China-US conflict.

Europe has been fighting vicious wars for centuries, climaxing in WW2. What's kept Europe peaceful since WW2 is the realisation that if they go to war again they might destroy everything! WW 2 was enormously destructive. However the US was not destroyed as Europe was by war, so they have maybe not learned these lessons yet.

Yeah, the only thing that US learned from WW1 and WW2 is that wars can be a great way to make money. Since then most of the wars that US started was due to economic reasons: either to control some valuable natural resources, like oil, or to punish the countries that refused to make business with them.

You are correct, the US does all of this, just like every great military power in history - and all wars are for economic reasons. States are not moral actors, they seek to expand their power and influence and it's up to us to keep them in check.

Forget ideology, forget politics, forget racism. It's just economics.

Also, when you say States, do you mean modern nation states? If so what about conflicts prior to the formation of the modern state... were these not wars? When a modern state is confronted by another actor - then?

But who will the US go to war with? It would have to be either China or Russia, both of whom learned the lessons of WWII at least as well as Europe did.

Some people would like to go to war with Islam, knock over a bunch of unstable Middle Eastern theocratic regimes, and essentially re-establish colonialism qua 'peace keeping operations' in a number of very resource-rich temperate countries, while denying strategic positional advantage to the other two actors you mention.

Other people would like to have the US go to war with itself and exploit its geographic advantages to set up a nuclear-shielded autarky and then immanentize the eschaton, partly from narrow tactical considerations and partly in fulfillment of religious prophecy/worldview.

I'm being a bit vague to avoid seeming too partisan or hurting anyone's feelings.

I wonder whats more profitable? Destabilization of major global (read: strategic/tactical capabilities wrt nuclear weapons) belligerents from "internal struggle", or engaging in endeavors that pit such belligerents against one another?

If a rational actor had to pick their poison (if one is maximizing for profit, one needs to live long enough or in a environment that well better support/help realize such), I'd suspect they'd pick the former, then use/co-opt the appropriate the effective popular indoctrination/social dogmas in such respective countries to foster such ends as a force multiplier.

Maybe more drawn out than proxy war to MAD campaign, but less is at risk tactically along the way (setting aside spontaneous break out of ICBM volleys in response to extended amazon 404's for a period of time, or something on such similar level) to achieve relatively similar strategic aims "governments" usually have their eyes on if they are in position of relative power asymmetry they can leverage agaisnt others towards economic gains.

I'm only an amateur historian but I'd say you're very wrong. I'll be surprised and happy if we avoid a major international war in the next 5 years. I will be astonished if we avoid one over the next 20.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com