World War. It will happen again. After we survived the cold war we thought we were safe from it. History had ended just in time for us to see the ending credits. If we could only just stop those pesky terrorists in Ireland and Israel and remember to send some extra money and medicine to africa, we would all life happily ever after. Not many people still believe this. The freedom fighters trained to bomb the enemy started to bomb everybody who they disagreed with. Although history apparently ended enough stuff keeps happened to fill the newspapers. Proving again that the only difference between a comedy and a tragedy is who dies at the end.
The funny thing is. We are quite safe from terrorists and their like. They have killed a few of us and will kill a few more just for the heck of it. Certainly not something you want to happen to you or anybody else for that matter. But it won't topple our nations, or even influence the balance of power globally. They'll continue for a given time and fizzle away with smoking ruins behind them but leaving the playing field intact. What we should be afraid of is something of a different magnitude; World war III.
Luckily, World Wars don't start out of the blue. They require a lot of factors to be right, or more precisely, to be wrong. As with any war there have to the participants. In this case they have to be Global or Regional powers with a lot of tension between them. Tension is at his peak when the existing power balance is threatened when global and regional powers lose influence and other regional power are gaining it. The power struggle creates a virtual powder keg.
There has to be a spark setting off that keg off. Smaller players who create or are used to create situations were two of more of the Powers have different stakes. Such as the assassination of the Archduke by Serbian sponsored agents set Austria-Hungary against Russia. or the Cubans requesting defensive help from the USSR which pitted them against the USA. Or the Invasion of poland by Germany and Russia which set France and England against Germany but not against Russia.
The Cold war here is notable because it had only two players and thus pitted the Nato and Warsaw-pact so directly against each other. It clarified and simplified the results of armed conflict so that there was little too gain and much too lose which actually helped prevent its escalation in general and in this case the cuban missile crisis.
The Cuban missile crisis also showcases the last things needed for escalation; Confusion to the outcome of the actions taken and vagueness about the involvement of other powers. through unclear treaties and commitments. So that a small conflict can snowball out of control and quickly attract more participants.
The Great War came actually quite unexpected. It's alliances system was not as constricting as now often portrayed and if anyone of the parties would have acted differently it could have stayed a between little war and a mayor one but would not likely have grown out to the size it had now. And while it was arguable hitlers intension to attack the rest of Europe anyway. But he had good hopes that Poland would be like Austria and Czechoslovakia and that the allies would not honor their commitments. and in a way he was right because the resulting "phony" war gave him the opportunity to attack on his own terms
So in order to to assess the chance of a New world war we must look those criteria. We see that right now they are not met. the global powers have all declined, Russia imploded, the countries of Europe are nowadays only mention worthy combined as the EU and almost wholly reactive in world politics and slowly but surely is the influence and economic power of the USA shrinking. However the countries growing in power and influence are still in no way able to upset the balance. The mayor players have on the whole clear and well defined treaties and commitments. And tension between the powers are on the whole quite positive.
However this state of affairs will almost certainly worsen over the next twenty years. The rise of china towards a regional power already puts a strain on almost all asian relations, who will only further deteriorate as long as china keeps increasing its power. Japan will be in danger of losing its place as the dominant regional power to both china and India. The USA will ever increasingly lose its grip on the region and it will be sorely stretched to honor its security guaranties. Most of the defense budgets are rising and/or high already. The region has a massive growth in countries with nuclear arsenal. The region is rive with potential conflict situations who seem chronic which can be expected to stay around for a long time. Like Taiwan, Kashmir and North Korea for example.
There are some positive aspects, right now the conflicts are reasonably limited to only a pair of countries Their are no loosely organized blocks of countries, so the effect of snowballing are not that high. There are better institutions for defusing potential tense situations. So while it is avoidable the chance and threat is still there. And we should be aware of that.
July 28 2005, 08:23:12 UTC 6 years ago
July 28 2005, 10:30:38 UTC 6 years ago
July 28 2005, 14:43:14 UTC 6 years ago
Yeah...
I don't think he was saber-rattling either. o_OJuly 28 2005, 17:05:05 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Yeah...
IMO, China isn't likely to act on this.But they need to keep their options open.
The main problem for China is that they are so massively outspent and outmatched by the US, they have no choice but to go nuclear if the US declares war on them (in defense of Taiwan).
Again, it's a no-win for the US.
July 28 2005, 16:59:22 UTC 6 years ago
That depends...
on the Taiwanese and Americans.China is technically in a state of Civil War, and Taiwan is a renegade province. China can be expected (and is obliged) to use all means necessary to maintain sovereignty.
Should Taiwan declare independence, China will have no choice but to retake Taiwan by all available force. After all, the US wouldn't allow Alaska or Hawaii to secede any more than we allowed the South to do so.
For the US, that would place us in a very sticky (i.e. no-win) situation. On the one hand, we don't want to be encouraging secession and splintering of nation-states. OTOH, we don't want to see the Commies "win". Thus, we continue to push for China and Taiwan to find a peaceful diplomatic solution.
I fully expect Taiwan to be reunified under China. I don't know when, but it will occur.
July 28 2005, 18:41:57 UTC 6 years ago
Re: That depends...
I fully expect Taiwan to be reunified under China. I don't know when, but it will occur.Just like Hong Kong is now some sort of 'free capitalist experimental zone', they could give Taiwan a special status that is acceptable for everybody.
China can't maintain the centrally led economy on communism alone. You need an internal market to give incentives to your workers as their standard of living increases. And that only works under capitalism. Economic growth, capitalism and civil liberties go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.
And that is the 'escape clause' for Taiwan: when China has become sufficiently capitalist, they can re-join China without too many people losing any sleep over it.
Of course, the Japanese will be unhappy with a Chinese military base so close to their borders -- but perhaps the saber-rattling will be toned down a bit when China has gone capitalistic. There is no money to be made in a war with one's neighbours, and I guess the two will be too economically intwined to make it worth their while.
July 28 2005, 19:24:20 UTC 6 years ago
Re: That depends...
Hong Kong has been pitched as the model for Taiwan, and is the most likely outcome.China hasn't been centrally-led for ages. China is very much a free market, with some wierd rules. I like to describe China as like the "Wild West". If you check the actual numbers, China's internal market is enormous, easily the relative equivalent of the US.
So far, capitalism has been good for China. People's standards of living are rising, and poverty is down. People have a lot more choices and mobility.
Civil liberties lag from a Western POV. The national government doesn't really intrude on people's daily lives, mainly because there are just too many people! Aside from not having the sorts of broad national elections that we have, China is pretty normal. It will be interesting to see what happens here, but I expect China to have more civil liberties, tho never to a Western extent.
Saber-rattling will never stop. There is too much bad blood spilt by Japan and too much Japanese militarism for this ever to end short of Japan coming to terms with what they did.
July 28 2005, 12:41:19 UTC 6 years ago
July 28 2005, 16:39:24 UTC 6 years ago
July 28 2005, 16:52:25 UTC 6 years ago
Asia is the future.
In 20 years, China will be the undisputed dominant power in Asia. Japan will be contesting with India just to stay visible and relevant, primarily as a US proxy. The US will be a second-tier player, as most Asians won't really need us by that time.Militarily, both Indian and Chinese Defense budgets can be expected to rise commensurate with their economic and regional power. Both will be expected to be able to contest as blue-water navies for regional protection. I don't see anybody getting close to outspending the US individually, and probably not even if one were to count the entire region together.