THE BECKONING OF NUCLEAR WAR

[N1019]

I wouldn't go so far as to describe what they are doing as rational. Rather, very dangerous. I think we could have better "overlords". Too much arrogance...

I think waging economic war on national opponents is pretty rational compared to going straight to hot war, and better than proxy wars, too, because they still cause the deaths of millions (although the US and Russia are also doing that). It depends on your perspective. Economic warfare is very humane compared to carpet bombing and tactical nukes.

I wouldn't bet on it. We had the Cold War, which was dangerous from so many perspectives (even just taking errors into calculation... which could happen today too). The atmosphere we have today is the same, if not worse. But worryingly, there is an added recklessness in attitudes. We all may be caught off-guard. Many people are sounding the alarm, but the ones who can change things, and bring us back from the brink, are not interested. Instead they are interested in continuing escalation. It is already evident who history will judge if things go wrong. But that's of no comfort to anyone.

I'm not placing bets, but if we could have the cold war for over 40 years, I think we could have it again. The first cold war featured economic and proxy wars like the current "conflict". I mean, look at Korea - it is a holdover from that first cold war. It's unfinished business.

[Loki]

I think waging economic war on national opponents is pretty rational compared to going straight to hot war,

... but the point is, economic warfare is still warfare, and it aims to significantly undermine the "enemy". The problem is that if the enemy cannot effectively retaliate in the same way, they will have to retaliate asymmetrically, which could mean militarily. So the end result is the same.

[N1019]

... but the point is, economic warfare is still warfare, and it aims to significantly undermine the "enemy". The problem is that if the enemy cannot effectively retaliate in the same way, they will have to retaliate asymmetrically, which could mean militarily. So the end result is the same.

Yes, because humans compete for resources by nature. This is that same prehistoric, animalistic competition on a modern grand scale, and the economic measures are a pretty nice way of doing it. There's no escaping this competition, conflict, whatever you want to call it.

If the enemy takes the first military step in response to economic warfare measures, well, that's their choice. The better option would be to submit, but I can't see that happening, at least not from Russia or China. But anyway, does that mean a West vs Russia/China hot war in the near future? I don't think so. Their asymmetrical response is more likely to take the form of another proxy war, which is where smaller, weaker states come in.

With the weaker states like Iran and NK, the picture is different insofar as they act autonomously. If the sanctions don't work, as in the case of Iran, hot war is far more likely, and while Russia might offer aid it will not come to the rescue as such. NK is however effectively a proxy of China. Would China attack the US directly in response to an American attack on NK? I still doubt that. More likely, NK would be sacrificed on the altar of proxy wars, the conflict used to garner intelligence and test out each other's shit.