Ask HN: Are we moving towards WWIII? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Are we moving towards WWIII?

5 points_mh5612 comments

This isn't a doom post or prediction. Just curious as to what possibilities are in this scenario.

There is a deadlock in geopolitics. China is making dams on River Ganges and Bhramputra. These dams will be completed by 2028. This means less water downstream for India. For a nation of 1.5 billion with mostly agriculture based population, this would be a death knell. China also needs this water to support its industrial activities.

So, why would India not go to war with China?

An India-China War would definitely result in WW3.

Edit: If US concedes India, they stop being the world leader and instead China will take its place. This means US + Europe will side with India which means Russia will side with China. Hence, the world war.

View on HN

As a disclaimer, this is all wild speculation.

India would be pushed to choose sides if a larger conflict emerged. I don't see the larger conflict starting over the Himalayan border. Rather the larger conflict could cause this long running dispute to erupt.

Water rights are just one part of the issue. I expect that a larger conflict would emerge if the CCP became more active with Russia militarily. Also expecting the Taiwan issue to flare up first. Perhaps this might be buoyed by domestic issues in China, where the party seeks to boost nationalist sentiment by focusing on external enemies.

Global trade and currency wars are a more pressing issue. An Iranian conflict might be one answer to the Saudis accommodating the CCP. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the straits of Hormuz. This in turn would cause the Iranian/Saudi rivalry to further erupt. Provoking a conflict there would fit the pattern of creating an contiguous block of anti-western powers.

With a clear set of enemies defined, the military industrialists and banking cartels have their work cut out for them. Treasuries owned by the CCP can be reneged upon. Unlimited spending is once again rationalized. The victors would be able to impose their currency system upon the world. Unsustainable debt would be reorganized.

>“When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will”

https://fee.org/resources/if-goods-dont-cross-borders/

WW3 will likely start over China invading Taiwan or NK invading South Korea, triggering defense pacts in approx 2027.

I'm not sure why it would necessarily be WW3? Why not just a war between India/China? Not every war is a world war...

But yes, expect there to be wars in the future. There's a war going on somewhere pretty much at any given time.

Why would an India China war result in wwIII when they have already traded blows for many decades without it causing wwIII?

What treaty obligations bring other parties to bear arms?

Because if your allies get attacked, you come for help. That's what being allies means. If US doesn't participate in history's biggest war, they'll cease to be a world power. And US will never side with China.

If that were true than every war would develop into a world war.

That's not quite how things work. You may call for your allies to help, but they may decide that they don't want to help you out, or only agree to help you out in indirect ways.

India isn't an ally of the US as far as I know, it's a leader of the non aligned nations in the UN and accused of sanctions busting for cheap oil from Russia. It's not a member of any of the NATO class treaty bodies, and it actively purchases arms from the FSU, and repudiated the non proliferation treaty.

True, India is an ally of Russia and not USA/West. But in case of war, USA can do three things:

1. Support China: China has similar military to USA and 4x the population. If USA does support them, china will strongarm literally every country in the world and become the hegemon.

2. Stay Neutral: This would mean every bigger country can attack and capture nearby smaller ones. The reason expansion wars don't happen now is because of the fear of US.

3. Support India: If US is to counter China, this means supporting India.

4. Say the UN won't let us get involved and exploit it for political gain.

What the US almost always does. But I am sure we will send some troops to sit on the sidelines and make sure it is a fair war.

>This would mean every bigger country can attack and capture nearby smaller ones.

Which one is "the smaller one" from this pair?

> So, why would India not go to war with China?

Because they would be worse off than when they would not go to war.

Or do you expect them to win concessions from China in such a war?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com