▲ 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
[–] 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
