▲ 917 ▼ Class War (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world 380 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Which nuclear powers do you foresee entering into direct conflict in a theoretical WW3 scenario based on current conditions? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) In context of being a hypothetical world war, I do believe the current major powers, some of which have nukes, need to be involved. By definition, the answer to your question would have to be someone on this list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don’t see how the current geopolitical climate results in any of those coming into direct conflict rather than just continuing to wage thinly veiled proxy wars. The only WW3 scenario I can imagine right now looks more like an intensification of the current situation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I do not see any world wars happening anytime soon either, given a somewhat rational (read non-suicidal) leadership of key nations. The original comment you responded to said that none would survive a nuclear total war, to which you replied that there have been wars fought in the nuclear age. This is true, even to the point of proxy wars between nuclear powers. However, they are not world wars, for which I think the original comment's argument holds true. In effect the idea is that a world war would almost by definition have some nuclear power on either side. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) If a world war can only exist between nuclear powers then does the first one (and most of the second) not count? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, but a conflict pretty much has to include major powers to escalate to a world war and the major powers coincide with the nuclear powers either directly or peripherally. I get the sense that you are arguing in bad faith here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It can involve the nuclear powers without them being in direct, overt conflict with each other. I'm not arguing in bad faith; I genuinely believe that your definition of "World War" is remarkably narrow and I feel I've been pretty consistent about trying to lay out my reasoning for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Proxy wars historically have never constituted world wars by any account. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Neither has it's participants' nuclear capable status. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that is vacuously true. If it stops being so, recorded history will end. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) If all the nuclear powers aligned against all the non-nuclear states and waged a war of extermination against them, that would, by your terms, not qualify as a "World War". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ok. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) In context of being a hypothetical world war, I do believe the current major powers, some of which have nukes, need to be involved. By definition, the answer to your question would have to be someone on this list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don’t see how the current geopolitical climate results in any of those coming into direct conflict rather than just continuing to wage thinly veiled proxy wars. The only WW3 scenario I can imagine right now looks more like an intensification of the current situation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I do not see any world wars happening anytime soon either, given a somewhat rational (read non-suicidal) leadership of key nations. The original comment you responded to said that none would survive a nuclear total war, to which you replied that there have been wars fought in the nuclear age. This is true, even to the point of proxy wars between nuclear powers. However, they are not world wars, for which I think the original comment's argument holds true. In effect the idea is that a world war would almost by definition have some nuclear power on either side. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) If a world war can only exist between nuclear powers then does the first one (and most of the second) not count? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, but a conflict pretty much has to include major powers to escalate to a world war and the major powers coincide with the nuclear powers either directly or peripherally. I get the sense that you are arguing in bad faith here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It can involve the nuclear powers without them being in direct, overt conflict with each other. I'm not arguing in bad faith; I genuinely believe that your definition of "World War" is remarkably narrow and I feel I've been pretty consistent about trying to lay out my reasoning for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Proxy wars historically have never constituted world wars by any account. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Neither has it's participants' nuclear capable status. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that is vacuously true. If it stops being so, recorded history will end. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) If all the nuclear powers aligned against all the non-nuclear states and waged a war of extermination against them, that would, by your terms, not qualify as a "World War". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ok. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don’t see how the current geopolitical climate results in any of those coming into direct conflict rather than just continuing to wage thinly veiled proxy wars. The only WW3 scenario I can imagine right now looks more like an intensification of the current situation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I do not see any world wars happening anytime soon either, given a somewhat rational (read non-suicidal) leadership of key nations. The original comment you responded to said that none would survive a nuclear total war, to which you replied that there have been wars fought in the nuclear age. This is true, even to the point of proxy wars between nuclear powers. However, they are not world wars, for which I think the original comment's argument holds true. In effect the idea is that a world war would almost by definition have some nuclear power on either side. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) If a world war can only exist between nuclear powers then does the first one (and most of the second) not count? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, but a conflict pretty much has to include major powers to escalate to a world war and the major powers coincide with the nuclear powers either directly or peripherally. I get the sense that you are arguing in bad faith here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It can involve the nuclear powers without them being in direct, overt conflict with each other. I'm not arguing in bad faith; I genuinely believe that your definition of "World War" is remarkably narrow and I feel I've been pretty consistent about trying to lay out my reasoning for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Proxy wars historically have never constituted world wars by any account. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Neither has it's participants' nuclear capable status. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that is vacuously true. If it stops being so, recorded history will end. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) If all the nuclear powers aligned against all the non-nuclear states and waged a war of extermination against them, that would, by your terms, not qualify as a "World War". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ok. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I do not see any world wars happening anytime soon either, given a somewhat rational (read non-suicidal) leadership of key nations. The original comment you responded to said that none would survive a nuclear total war, to which you replied that there have been wars fought in the nuclear age. This is true, even to the point of proxy wars between nuclear powers. However, they are not world wars, for which I think the original comment's argument holds true. In effect the idea is that a world war would almost by definition have some nuclear power on either side. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) If a world war can only exist between nuclear powers then does the first one (and most of the second) not count? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, but a conflict pretty much has to include major powers to escalate to a world war and the major powers coincide with the nuclear powers either directly or peripherally. I get the sense that you are arguing in bad faith here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It can involve the nuclear powers without them being in direct, overt conflict with each other. I'm not arguing in bad faith; I genuinely believe that your definition of "World War" is remarkably narrow and I feel I've been pretty consistent about trying to lay out my reasoning for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Proxy wars historically have never constituted world wars by any account. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Neither has it's participants' nuclear capable status. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that is vacuously true. If it stops being so, recorded history will end. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) If all the nuclear powers aligned against all the non-nuclear states and waged a war of extermination against them, that would, by your terms, not qualify as a "World War". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ok. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] underisk@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (1 child) If a world war can only exist between nuclear powers then does the first one (and most of the second) not count? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, but a conflict pretty much has to include major powers to escalate to a world war and the major powers coincide with the nuclear powers either directly or peripherally. I get the sense that you are arguing in bad faith here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It can involve the nuclear powers without them being in direct, overt conflict with each other. I'm not arguing in bad faith; I genuinely believe that your definition of "World War" is remarkably narrow and I feel I've been pretty consistent about trying to lay out my reasoning for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Proxy wars historically have never constituted world wars by any account. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Neither has it's participants' nuclear capable status. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that is vacuously true. If it stops being so, recorded history will end. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) If all the nuclear powers aligned against all the non-nuclear states and waged a war of extermination against them, that would, by your terms, not qualify as a "World War". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ok. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, but a conflict pretty much has to include major powers to escalate to a world war and the major powers coincide with the nuclear powers either directly or peripherally. I get the sense that you are arguing in bad faith here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It can involve the nuclear powers without them being in direct, overt conflict with each other. I'm not arguing in bad faith; I genuinely believe that your definition of "World War" is remarkably narrow and I feel I've been pretty consistent about trying to lay out my reasoning for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Proxy wars historically have never constituted world wars by any account. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Neither has it's participants' nuclear capable status. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that is vacuously true. If it stops being so, recorded history will end. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) If all the nuclear powers aligned against all the non-nuclear states and waged a war of extermination against them, that would, by your terms, not qualify as a "World War". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ok. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) It can involve the nuclear powers without them being in direct, overt conflict with each other. I'm not arguing in bad faith; I genuinely believe that your definition of "World War" is remarkably narrow and I feel I've been pretty consistent about trying to lay out my reasoning for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Proxy wars historically have never constituted world wars by any account. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Neither has it's participants' nuclear capable status. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that is vacuously true. If it stops being so, recorded history will end. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) If all the nuclear powers aligned against all the non-nuclear states and waged a war of extermination against them, that would, by your terms, not qualify as a "World War". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ok. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Proxy wars historically have never constituted world wars by any account. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Neither has it's participants' nuclear capable status. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that is vacuously true. If it stops being so, recorded history will end. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) If all the nuclear powers aligned against all the non-nuclear states and waged a war of extermination against them, that would, by your terms, not qualify as a "World War". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ok. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Neither has it's participants' nuclear capable status. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that is vacuously true. If it stops being so, recorded history will end. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) If all the nuclear powers aligned against all the non-nuclear states and waged a war of extermination against them, that would, by your terms, not qualify as a "World War". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ok. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that is vacuously true. If it stops being so, recorded history will end. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] underisk@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) If all the nuclear powers aligned against all the non-nuclear states and waged a war of extermination against them, that would, by your terms, not qualify as a "World War". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ok. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] underisk@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) If all the nuclear powers aligned against all the non-nuclear states and waged a war of extermination against them, that would, by your terms, not qualify as a "World War". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ok. permalink fedilink source parent
