It's becoming an increasingly crazy world. I'm trying to identify a country that is not in the competition to self-destruct first. I can't. That's dangerous because in descent to tyranny and poverty, leaders can do crazy things. Looking specifically at China, Xi's re-embrace of central planning, and the imbalance between adult men and women, will be a major source of weakening. That said, North Korea has shown that even the poorest countries can be very troublesome.
As usual, a well-written piece that makes a strong case for the author's thesis, which everyone, of any political persuasion, will fervently hope is true. (And the diligent reader will be rewarded by following the links in his article: at your next dinner party, you'll be the leading expert on missile defense, the F-35, and why the technical advances by the Military-Industrial Complex are always deprecated, at first, by most journalists. For further in-depth analysis of variant of the author's first point, see Tim Marshall's book, PRISONERS OF GEOGRAPHY. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_Geography ])
However ... the unstated assumption here is that the men leading the potential belligerent powers will always act rationally and/or will assume that their opponents will act rationally. And even the word 'rational' can encompass disastrous decisions that seemed, at the time, to be rational.
Note that the two World Wars of the previous century did not occur because the German leader decided, "I know what! I'll start a huge world war and end up fighting Russia, Britain, France and the United States all at the same time! How hard can it be?"
It may not be entirely accurate to say, as one historian did, that we 'sleptwalked' into WWI
I suspect that if a big war comes, it will come as the result of a chain of actions/responses which escalate. So we have to hope that the leaders of all the potential-war-starting powers are rational. The Iranians, ironically, are leading by example here, although their deliberate attempt to avoid escalation during recent events is no doubt because they're waiting until their nuclear weapons program is complete. So our comfort must be tempered.
In any case, given the economic interdependence of nations, not to mention the extreme destruction that modern technology is able to inflict, it is clear that war between great powers is very unlikely. It wouldnt be rational. There is a famous book making the case for war's irrationality (and therefore its unlikelihood) in modern times, titled THE GREAT ILLUSION, written Norman Angel, which should provide us with some comfort. It may be difficult to find, however, being written in 1908.
A wonderful tour of the unhappy landscape Thanks very much. I think the points raised by Doug1943 will need your consideration
Before I devote serious additional time to thinking this through, however, I would like to know what concrete differences worrying and not worrying have.
I'm surprised you write off Germany as a great power, by the way.
It's becoming an increasingly crazy world. I'm trying to identify a country that is not in the competition to self-destruct first. I can't. That's dangerous because in descent to tyranny and poverty, leaders can do crazy things. Looking specifically at China, Xi's re-embrace of central planning, and the imbalance between adult men and women, will be a major source of weakening. That said, North Korea has shown that even the poorest countries can be very troublesome.
As usual, a well-written piece that makes a strong case for the author's thesis, which everyone, of any political persuasion, will fervently hope is true. (And the diligent reader will be rewarded by following the links in his article: at your next dinner party, you'll be the leading expert on missile defense, the F-35, and why the technical advances by the Military-Industrial Complex are always deprecated, at first, by most journalists. For further in-depth analysis of variant of the author's first point, see Tim Marshall's book, PRISONERS OF GEOGRAPHY. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_Geography ])
However ... the unstated assumption here is that the men leading the potential belligerent powers will always act rationally and/or will assume that their opponents will act rationally. And even the word 'rational' can encompass disastrous decisions that seemed, at the time, to be rational.
Note that the two World Wars of the previous century did not occur because the German leader decided, "I know what! I'll start a huge world war and end up fighting Russia, Britain, France and the United States all at the same time! How hard can it be?"
It may not be entirely accurate to say, as one historian did, that we 'sleptwalked' into WWI
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleepwalkers:_How_Europe_Went_to_War_in_1914 ] but neither was what happened the sort of cold-blooded deliberate set of actions undertaken deliberately to provoke war undertaken by the German leader at the time which led to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
I suspect that if a big war comes, it will come as the result of a chain of actions/responses which escalate. So we have to hope that the leaders of all the potential-war-starting powers are rational. The Iranians, ironically, are leading by example here, although their deliberate attempt to avoid escalation during recent events is no doubt because they're waiting until their nuclear weapons program is complete. So our comfort must be tempered.
In any case, given the economic interdependence of nations, not to mention the extreme destruction that modern technology is able to inflict, it is clear that war between great powers is very unlikely. It wouldnt be rational. There is a famous book making the case for war's irrationality (and therefore its unlikelihood) in modern times, titled THE GREAT ILLUSION, written Norman Angel, which should provide us with some comfort. It may be difficult to find, however, being written in 1908.
A wonderful tour of the unhappy landscape Thanks very much. I think the points raised by Doug1943 will need your consideration
Before I devote serious additional time to thinking this through, however, I would like to know what concrete differences worrying and not worrying have.
I'm surprised you write off Germany as a great power, by the way.
The greatest empires are always destroyed from within.
100 thousand per year dead from fentanyl.
Just one of China's war fronts on America.
Getting under a desk, ain't gna work.