Actally it was German protectionism started by Bismarck that lead to WW1. WW2 happened because Germany after the war went even more protectionist and started printing money which led to the economic problems. Then the great depression cause by the US being protectionist. So free market, free trade British capitalism isn't to blame at all. Rather people searching for perfect world mix of capitalism and socialism, called a mixed economy. Also capitalism is based on competition between people, not nations. That's where the free trade comes in to stop wars, if anybody had free trade with no taxes, tarrifs or regulations with open border to immigration then it would decrease the chances of war.
For all its flaws, capitalism works better than socialism. The more socialist the less workable it gets. Viz: The USSR.
I cant say you are completely wrong but what was Bismark supposed to do? If he hadnt built up the military and helped negotiate alliances then the French would have just invaded him for revenge of losing the earlier war. So is it really Bismark's "protectionism" which i dont think is a real concept or is it really just the expansionist attitudes of all the nations and the economic benefits of expanding?
No its not. Russia had already declared they would back serbia and mobilized. The Russians had their own territorial wants and got their asses kicked by the Germans. I dont think it makes me a fan boy for telling the truth. Im an american fanboy if anything. Maybe im just tired of you communist scumbags polluting the world with your non-sense. You think you have the best system, the best military, you think your the reason the germans lost ww2 when all you were was their punching bag. Your foolish ways end in your own demise and your still walking around talking like you matter. You have a soviet star in your pic, your name is KGB, and your flying a russian flag in the corner while de-grading germans. Yeah you are biased. Get over yourself. nobody cares what a commie has to say.
World War 1 was the results of imperialism and expansionism colliding. UK,France,Italy,Austria,Russia,Germany,the Ottomans, and others all had territorial ambitions and were all waiting for a reason to go to war. Last I checked the Russians had already lost the war to the Germans. They just hadnt surrendered yet until the revolt forced them too. Btw dont let your communist friend above learn that the russians surrendered to the Germans. He might have a stroke knowing they got beat by the "Deutsch Schwein"
History is great stuff, but "Possibilities of WWIII" is the subject. And it's been going on since before the end of open hostilities in WWII. Anyone can look around and see that a huge transformation (shift of power) has happened in the last 50~60 years. FDR wasn't joking when he said that "If it happens in politics, it happened on purpose". The purpose of war is to change the world, in part or in whole. The military method is but one method. The political method is vastly preferred, because all infrastructure remains intact. The nearly $18 trillion economy of the US is a prize that the current aggressors want to keep intact. This is exactly why those of us who have been paying attention are well aware that the S**T has been in the fan for a very long time already.
Does any School teach you this rubbish or are you taking a leaf out of the book of Obama ,and making it up as you go. FREE TRADE LUNATIC ,over here ,could someone explain to this person that ,Free Trade is a myth, we live in the 21st not 18th and 19th Century ,Time does matter. MONOPOLY ,is the logical progression of Capitalism ,as its Based on Competition for the control of Markets ,not a nicey wicey ,agreed upon rules of Trade, Cut-throat competition ,and nothing else . For example US Imperialism in order to regain its pre-eminent position as World hegemonic power ,head Honcho in simple talk, must SMASH ALL OPPOSING NATIONS! Wipe out its COMPETITOES for world Markets ,and control through military and diplomatic means the bulk of the resources ,oh and being the International Trading Currency of Course. And Nations don't exist evidently ,ok move away from the post-modernist Claptrap. Who teaches this rubbish ,yeah name names.
Considering Britain had free trade for much of the 1800's free trade isn't a myth. What is free trade the movement of goods and people between nations without laws, regulations and tarrifs stopping them from doing so. You think that is impossible? Right monopoly is the logical progression of capitalism, however their is a large number of companies competing for that monopoly so what are the odds of one gaining a full monopoly over the entire world and staying their without government help? Actally the US's main power is cultural power, it is it's main weapons to try and get US companies more profits. I don't want this I want free trade, free market with no intervention of governments. Names Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter E Williams and Niall Ferguson.
For starters the free trade that Britian was involved in was free only from their Perspective ,their trading Partners ,called Colonies of the Empire were not so free in trade or anything else. And yes ,British Imperialism was central in the Human Slave trade being established and maintained before 1800's and into it. But as you say ,"Free Trade" ,wasn't a myth 300 Years ago ,but the Dodo bird wasn't either ! Cars ,Electricity ,Communications ,Technology and History of 300 years means nothing ,your Idealised "free Trade " is just that in your head ,Idealised ! Now lets talk about the big Duopoly that is really a Monopoly ,The US Government a Monopoly of Capitalist Class Rule I reckon! Down with Political Class Monopoly ,in Duopoly Form!
What is this, historical fiction evening or smth? Russian Empire started mobilisation only at 31 July. Six days after German pigs started it. No, they didn't Russian Empire have never surrendered. I guess you would have known that, if you pulled that German сock out of your mouth time to time. Come back, when your IQ surpass 80. The only truth is that Deutsch Schwein started both World Wars, which is historically correct fact. Get over it. No wonder. Average 'Murican intellectual potential is pretty low. If you add a "fanboy" to it's going to be even worse. It must be that German сock interacting with your vision. I am not communist, nor a scumbag. As I said, come back when your IQ will reach 80. It is not a "soviet" star. Red star is a symbol of both Red and currently Russian armies. Woops, ignorance again. Jeees, you must have been looking at my avatar with a magnifier to find it. Your obession is troubleing Yep. It is a special trick to catch those pathetic retards over here, who are aggred with it. And look,it seems I have a catch. Again. Yeah, I do. Proud of it. Hey, whatch what are you saying! It is Deutsch Schwein. At least I am educated enough to avoid claiming that "Germans are innocent" in starting BOTH WW. Obviously you care. You were responding with such a passion and pitful attempts to hurt my feelings. I guess you love your Deutsch Schwein boyfriend really hard! With no regards.
Very likely given a combination of predicaments: chronic global economic crisis, peak oil, and global warming.
I don't see a future WW3 with large alliances between the superpowers fighting each other. The coming ecomonic collaspe in America will spread to much of the globe. Amreica will eventually split into ethnic states such as Russia and Yugoslavia did 20 years ago. Areas with large Islamic enclaves can never stay at peace for long before they begin taking violent military action. Hopefully, the fracturing of America will be more peaceful than during the Civil War, but will probably be much worse. Multi-ethnic nations like Brazil and South Africa will tear themselves apart in civil war. Nations like Egypt, Iraq, Syria with vaired Christian and Islamic factions have no hope of staying glued together as a single nation when the West collapses.
I doubt there will be a World War anytime within the next 25 years. This is because the most critical thing for this is missing, 2 rival alliances. In both WWI you had 2 distinct military alliances, and both were essentially fighting over the same territory. This was ultimately nothing but a "My wanger is bigger then your wanger" contest, and several who thought they were bigger crashed in flames. And in the end, several empires collapsed and some landscape fell under new management, but nothing really changed. Then in WWII you had Fascism, where a political philosophy of ethnic dominance and expansion drove that war. The other side was more or less made up of countries that did not support this mindset, and wanted to maintain the status quo. This time the aggressive nations were pretty much completely destroyed, and their forms of government dismantled or radically changed. The closest we have been able to come since was the Cold War, where we had NATO and the Warsaw Pact facing off against each other. But that all died with the Soviet Union in August 1991. There will always be nations aggressive against each other. But to have a "World War" you need to have 2 opposing sets of alliances, with at least 3 major nations in each alliance. And today, nations are to pragmatic to even try to go that route. Especially knowing that nuclear weapons could quickly make such a war mute and everybody on the planet would loose.
A lot of people here don't know what a world war is. It's total war pursued existentially over multiple continents and oceans. If all the factions in southwest Asia and northern Africa began sniping each others' pregnant women (a favorite means of warfare in that part of the world) that is not world war. Its large-scale banditry at most. Even though nobody has tested a big nuke in a while and the reliability of nukes is always in question, MAD has a momentum all its own. Fear of nukes has suppressed real world wars since 1945. Fear the day when people realize the reliability of nukes are in serious question.
There have been many "World Wars", but the only ones that get that name are the 2 in the modern era. The 7 Years War was indeed a "World War", encompassing not only Europe, but North America (French-Indian War) as well as Asia and Africa. The same could be said for the Thirty Years War, with conflict in Europe, Asia and Africa. Same with the Napoleonic Wars, covering Europe, Africa, Asia, and North America (The War of 1812). And the campaign of Alexander the Great can be considered one, with conquests real or attempted in Europe, Asia and Africa. Many of the conflicts of Rome can also be considered this way, like the Punic Wars and Antony's Civil War, both of which had conflict in Europe, Asia and Africa..
Fought on three continents, and two oceans and a sea, by the major powers of the day - I'd say it qualified.
Oppenheimer and the gang weren't sure the Plutonium implosion bomb would work, so the first one was used for the Trinity test. On the other hand, they were so sure of the Uranium bomb, Little Boy, that the first one was assembled at Los Alamos and sent directly to Tinian where it was subsequently dropped on Hiroshima. Today we know far, FAR more about bomb design than we did then and computer modeling has obviated the need for a great deal of other testing. I agree that a Plutonium bomb needs to be tested to be credible, but not Uranium bomb.
Operation Samson is doing its job as long as Arab leaders THINK the Israelis have workable bombs. Regional MAD, if you will. If Arab leaders think the Israelis have workable nukes, why on earth ever go to war against them. Israel has zero strategic depth. If the Arabs won on the frontiers its instant Auschwitz in the Israel heartland and its time for Samson to take out as many Philistines as possible. So an Arab war against Israel either has to lose conventionally or they get nuked. Lose-lose for the Arabs. Seems like damn good reason to leave Israel alone.
If by chance, this Muslim Jihad increases in scale and intensity it could very well fit the definitions of a World War. At this point, the procurement by fanatics of nuclear weapons and their use would instigate devastating reactions worldwide that could easily escalate beyond control. If there is an infancy of WWIII, we may very well be in it already.
Even in the aggregate, Moslem nations do not have the industrial base to undertake a World War. Even if they take over Europe, it will be too devastated to maintain the prolonged high-intensity of a real World War. They're just not that good at waging real war.
In my head it's always been China in the end. The US wouldn't make a move against China but inevitably China is going to make a move against us while Russia sits back and waits to see who wins.
Actually, I see it much more likely that China would go after Russia then the US. War with the US would do China no good, there is no way to exploit it for territorial gain. War with Russia however could net them vast areas of real estate, with a vast number of natural resources.
"...I see it much more likely that China would go after Russia then the US." Taxcutter says: It is very difficult for China and the US to get at each other. There is a moat thousands of miles wide between them All that separates Russia and China is the Ussuri River. It can be forded in many places. War between resource-rich Russia and resource-starved China is far more likely if only out of convenience.
Very true, and it makes perfect sense to go after Russia first considering all they could gain. But that also brings up the fact that "unofficially" the US military acts as a sort of world wide police force. If i were China, it seems it would be harder to attack Russia then deal with America butting in at the same time versus attempting to deal with America first. Considering all the bad juju between America and Russia right now it's a bit of a toss up as to wether they would actually come to our aid. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/05/obama-to-engage-putin-on-syria-strike-at-g-20-summit/ http://www.democracynow.org/blog/20...s_of_conflict_stem_from_nato_bombing_of_libya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93United_States_relations (bout halfway down the page with this one)
