• Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!

[Opinion] WW III? What are the major factors behind a World War (from the USA perspective)? From a non USA perspective?

Everyone's got one.
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
9,703
Reaction score
5,266
Awards
33
True, we alll saw how near to martial law we came with the dumbasses that involved themselves in the Jan 6 2023 fiasco.
Post automatically merged:

Whenever the insurrection thing was.
 
Last edited:

Xingtian

Zealot
Joined
Apr 10, 2023
Messages
195
Reaction score
371
Awards
5
Short of a nuclear exchange in which nobody wins, proxy wars, dirty wars, insurgencies and counter-insurgencies are the way world war shapes up nowadays.

Contrary to American paranoia I doubt anyone is itching to militarily conquer the USA. If the USA were to disarm tomorrow, far from triggering a Red Dawn situation, I suspect the other major powers would start panicking with regards to the vacuum it would leave in other parts of the world as the various American client states and puppet governments get the rug pulled from under them.

With a big land empire like the continental US, military conquest is extremely impractical anyway, for similar reasons it's impractical for Russia or China. With these big empires enemies are better off fanning little fires here and there to keep them off balance and that's more or less been the US approach since the Cold War. When a big opportunity comes, you can make friends among the new ruling class and loot the country from afar as the US did to Russia in the 90's after the USSR collapsed. As it is, the USA domestically is increasingly dysfunctional- one way or another I think there will be a contraction of the US empire even if no one else lifts a finger. At that point Americans might get a taste of what Russians went through in the 90's.

Anyway, all these ruling class geopolitical games hurt everyone except the wealthy and powerful. Instead of a world war I would rather see a world revolt.
 

Xenophon

Apostle
Joined
Aug 17, 2023
Messages
1,692
Reaction score
2,073
Awards
11
Short of a nuclear exchange in which nobody wins, proxy wars, dirty wars, insurgencies and counter-insurgencies are the way world war shapes up nowadays.

Contrary to American paranoia I doubt anyone is itching to militarily conquer the USA. If the USA were to disarm tomorrow, far from triggering a Red Dawn situation, I suspect the other major powers would start panicking with regards to the vacuum it would leave in other parts of the world as the various American client states and puppet governments get the rug pulled from under them.

With a big land empire like the continental US, military conquest is extremely impractical anyway, for similar reasons it's impractical for Russia or China. With these big empires enemies are better off fanning little fires here and there to keep them off balance and that's more or less been the US approach since the Cold War. When a big opportunity comes, you can make friends among the new ruling class and loot the country from afar as the US did to Russia in the 90's after the USSR collapsed. As it is, the USA domestically is increasingly dysfunctional- one way or another I think there will be a contraction of the US empire even if no one else lifts a finger. At that point Americans might get a taste of what Russians went through in the 90's.

Anyway, all these ruling class geopolitical games hurt everyone except the wealthy and powerful. Instead of a world war I would rather see a world revolt.
I like your last sentence. Unfortunately I see little in the West except maddening inertia. My highly-educated kin, for example, can scarcely be troubled to question the literal inerrancy of the Gospel According to CNN. Even when they do, the response is to curl into a ball and hope that circumstances will pass over them if they are very very quiet. Truly they are living the Nazarene creed: "resist not evil."
 
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
9,703
Reaction score
5,266
Awards
33
History is the teacher. According to my own military education, there are generally three types, or levels, or military conflict, graded by intensity. However, it should be noted that within these scales are gradations.

1. Low Intensity Conflict - this type covers things like insurgencies, terrorism and guerilla campaigns that usually are not violent enough or frequent enough to threaten the overall political fabric, but could, over time, sap the resources of a nation and move to the next level. Often, they can be the result of or cause of societal fragmentation which sets the stage for increasing instability if not properly managed or defeated by the ruling powers of the state or region in which they are underway. Sometimes LIC's can multiply into the regional theater and threaten political, financial and social stability across a broad spectrum and bait greater national entities into getting involved. Negotiations and deals are made and broken on a nauseating basis, but these wars generally run in the background. These LIC's were common during the Cold War era and actually served as a sort of chess board for the Great Powers who wished to avoid larger conflicts or direct confrontation.
The danger of these is that if there are enough of them, LICs could set the stage for the next two types of conflict.
Funny, Im watching Red Dawn today and watched Wargames last night. Red Dawn is a perfect portrayal of this level. One could say the US border crisis and routine US troop involvement into other countries, Ukraine vs Russia, Palestine vs Israel, Iran vs their nearest neighbors etc.
2. Mid Intensity Conflict - could class as a major war in relation to the former, but is generally contained within a region between two antagonists. Outside powers may be involved indirectly, and smaller LICs may stem from this type of conflict. They can also rank with sudden flash punitive campaigns of relatively short duration due to the types of forces employed - meaning major weapons systems or orders of battle like aircraft carriers or land armies spread over broad fronts. Still, major powers can get bogged down, and get stuck in attritional fights. Such types of warfare can also draw great powers of into broader more dangerous direct confrontation with each other, but often they will try to avoid the risk of going to the next level and contain the conflict, as in the former case.
Actually I guess the latter part of my statement above is at this level.
3. High Intensity Conflict - Mid can turn to high, as in a coalition campaign, but this may not necessarily peak into a global conflict. The highest intensity, barring thermonuclear war, is called "Total War", where the entire resources of a nation are put into play to defeat their enemies. These types of wars may begin with maneuvers meant to crush the enemy swiftly, but they often tend towards attrition, where entire nations can be devastated and their resources sapped, their lands occupied and divided among the victors.
The problem is the Information Age, where global actors can be anywhere, teamed up with anyone to infiltrate information networks and systems of opposing countries, leading to possible infiltration of nuclear systems. We are also battling this front to a degree.
So, to answer "what constructs a world war", you have to consider the dynamics of complex alliances, old grudges and standoff that manifest in the first two levels of conflicts that finally boil over into a general conflagration. Studying what led up to the two World Wars is easy, but the precursors reveal much.
Old grudges are primarily through politicans and military leaders. Civilians rarely care.
Since the introduction of nuclear weapons in 1945 and their mass proliferation by the so-called "superpowers" and some lesser powers, the chances of the supreme peak (that is, a potential extinction event as opposed to just a Total War) conflict has generally been deterred. The basic reason for this is "Mutually Assured Destruction", which implies that if A attacks B in a first strike, B's retaliatory strike will be launched immediately after it detects A's launch, and both sides will be ruined within hours. Any counterstrikes afterward will only add to "overkill" - there are no winners, only a dreary mass of burned and blind survivors with no effective government to speak of as they dwindle into extinction. This is what we fear.

I hope that clarifies at least that part of the OP. To put this in the context of current events is not easy. I would say we are in the buildup towards a potential global conflict that would probably find us fighting in planetary orbit, or even on the Moon, plus using militarized AI, robotics (drones), energy weapons and other innovations. And I say this because it would fit the pattern of technological evolution set by prior wars. But, as we see, the "old bloody infantry" in the attrition fight still plays a critical role. That our current convulsions would result in nuclear war, even a limited exchange, is possible, as some have come to openly question whether or not such a fight could not be won. But miscalculations in warfare, as in politics, are inevitable. It doesn't mean that nuclear weapons would be used. In WW1, poison gas came to be used extensively with no decisive outcome, but it was hardly used in WW2, except against civilians.

One other note - because of the complex web of a shrinking world, it is entirely possible that "World War 3" could be fought in a very limited but drawn out way. The apocalyptic association of Total Nuclear War might be avoided, barring a madman in power or some mistake (as almost happened in 1983). Some authors I have read referred to the Cold War as this limited type of global conflict, using the Third World as a pun. But, basically, if you look to earlier times, like the 18th century, militaries might engage each other in duels and dances while governments still talked and even conducted trade. In this trend, there is just too much to lose, so the fight becomes almost ritualistic, though only future historians could make a broad assessment.
It was highly informative and thought provoking, thank you. Most of the world wishes for peace, the batshit insane are the ones at war using pawns in their chess game.
 

Xenophon

Apostle
Joined
Aug 17, 2023
Messages
1,692
Reaction score
2,073
Awards
11
I guess so but it will set us back greatly in colonizing other planets.
So will continuing the way we are, irreversably destroying the biosphere and breeding up an un-race of risk-averse incorrigably "entitled" consumers. ("8 billion gaping maws and more opening off into an odiferous aerse and nary a man or a woman in between.")

But hey, you sport a cool forum-name there.
 

Wintruz

Zealot
Joined
Nov 4, 2023
Messages
152
Reaction score
483
Awards
8
There's always money for war.
Yes, because the current prospect of war is clearly some Tory cloak and dagger attempt to earn money rather than, say, because a degenerate psychopath, rotted with Marxism and bolstered by oligarchs, is murdering our allies while pointing nuclear weapons at us. Honest to goodness, you don't have to be Schopenhauer but a little checking of kumbaya premises...

Whats the rest of the world like from outside this perspective?
Incrementally, North Western Europe (Britain, Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia) is being prepared for war with Russia.

There have been recent "break it to them softly" attempts by the armed forces of these countries (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
), where it has been suggested that citizens may need to be called up or, at least, prepared for war. These governments attempt to maintain the status quo (mostly because they're uber-rich and they, especially Britain and Germany, cling to the fading vision of Neo-Liberal economics/business interests) but there is an increasing realisation that the late 20th century is finally over and we must re-militarise. Britain is a nuclear power and the Netherlands and Scandinavia have strong land armies but Germany has been lamentably cautious about rebuilding a military culture. Thank Donar, that has ended.

As much as Neo-Liberals are racking their brains with questions about why everyone won't just hold hands and sing "We Are The World", to anyone who knows anything about Russian history, a large scale conflict between the West and Russia has been inevitable since 1917 when Russians murdered their own ruling, Western element and gave free reign to deep seated hatred and envy of the West, especially of those "decadent" countries now preparing for war. Although people get very upset about it, it's worth remembering that today Russia could have been a German-speaking nature reserve but, in their infinite wisdom, the leaders of Britain, France and America (all of whom were Freemasons interestingly enough) prevented Hitler from reclaiming historically German lands so that Stalin could take half-the-continent instead. The hope that the collapse of the Soviet Union would put an end to tension, didn't contend with the collective Chip on the Shoulder with which Russia views the West, whose advances could no longer be hidden from Russians after the fall of the Berlin wall.

The West doesn't understand that, for many Russians, Putin is seen as a figure to restore national dignity after the "humiliation" of the collapse of Communism. Despite presenting itself as an "Orthodox vanguard", Russia has a remarkable inability to contend with its historical atrocities against the Orthodox Church. I suppose playing "what about your crimes" and shrieking at rainbow flags is easier than asking whether grandpapa raped nuns during the 1940s. This fragmentation extends to religious doctrine itself where a figure like Dugin can hold half-baked and extremely contradictory metaphysical views while being upheld as a "great mind" (sadly, more than a few easily impressed, useful idiots in the West participate in this too). There's a further fragmentation in the blind eye which is turned to Putin's state acting as a proxy for kleptocracy. However, in fairness to Russians, it's perhaps difficult to keep an eye on kleptocrats when
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I live between England and Bavaria and I'm of an age where I could be called up in either country. This doesn't phase me and neither does the prospect of war generally. In the first instance, conscription will rid this part of the world of all third world "refugees" who don't genuinely love these countries. In the second instance, it will toughen up the people of these lands who have allowed themselves to be distracted by a pseudo-culture that really has no roots here. In the third, it will deepen ties between the historically kindred people of North Western Europe. Fourth, it will deal with an enemy that's not going to stop until it is stopped.

If the status quo is maintained it's the slow, gradual death of us anyway so there is nothing to lose and wonders to gain. Cry havoc!
 

Emperor Time

Neophyte
Joined
Dec 14, 2023
Messages
39
Reaction score
51
Awards
2
So will continuing the way we are, irreversably destroying the biosphere and breeding up an un-race of risk-averse incorrigably "entitled" consumers. ("8 billion gaping maws and more opening off into an odiferous aerse and nary a man or a woman in between.")

But hey, you sport a cool forum-name there.
I agree it will be bad for those environments at first but we might become someday become enlightened and do more good than harm from then on and thanks for thinking my username is cool and yours is cool too.
 

Xingtian

Zealot
Joined
Apr 10, 2023
Messages
195
Reaction score
371
Awards
5
Something I've noticed about the Ukraine war is that the waffendweebs are lining up behind both sides. Some tend to be pro-Putin, they think Dugin is some kind of genius, and Russia is saving European culture, others swallow the NATO line and plump for their friends in the Azov regiment and similar groups.

Humanity can do better than lining up behind various imperial gangs. Karl Liebknecht's slogan, "The main enemy is at home" still applies no matter where you are.
 

Wintruz

Zealot
Joined
Nov 4, 2023
Messages
152
Reaction score
483
Awards
8
Karl Liebknecht's slogan, "The main enemy is at home" still applies no matter where you are.
I'll pass on the "insights" of Karl Marx's godson and Soviet Fifth Columnist. The fact that you don't is a good indication that nothing else you have to say is of any value whatsoever.
 

Wintruz

Zealot
Joined
Nov 4, 2023
Messages
152
Reaction score
483
Awards
8
Why wait for conscription tough guy? Sign up today:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
A call was made the week after the invasion. Sadly they wanted prior military experience.

Legally pulling the trigger on Communists and their sympathisers is something for which I'm eager. Whether aboard or at home.
 

Robert Ramsay

Acolyte
Joined
Oct 1, 2023
Messages
447
Reaction score
967
Awards
4
Yes, because the current prospect of war is clearly some Tory cloak and dagger attempt to earn money rather than, say, because a degenerate psychopath, rotted with Marxism and bolstered by oligarchs, is murdering our allies while pointing nuclear weapons at us. Honest to goodness, you don't have to be Schopenhauer but a little checking of kumbaya premises...
War is always about power, of which money is one form. You are correct about Putin (although I don't think he gives a monkey's about Marxism), and the usual suspects will all be lining up to put their snouts in the trough of war money. My point is that when there is a war, that trough will always be there.
 

Xingtian

Zealot
Joined
Apr 10, 2023
Messages
195
Reaction score
371
Awards
5
A call was made the week after the invasion. Sadly they wanted prior military experience.

Legally pulling the trigger on Communists and their sympathisers is something for which I'm eager. Whether aboard or at home.

You're in luck! Check the updated requirements. I look forward to hearing of the glory you win on the fields around Avdiivka. Valhalla awaits, me boy.
Post automatically merged:

You are correct about Putin (although I don't think he gives a monkey's about Marxism),

He has made no secret of his loathing for it. The guy began the invasion with a long historical rant that included denouncing the Bolsheviks' "odious utopian fantasies" (his words) and blaming the USSR for the creation of modern Ukraine. He goes so far as to say his invasion is the completion of Ukraine's "decommunisation" because, in his view, without the Soviet Union, an independent Ukraine would never have existed:

As a result of Bolshevik policy, Soviet Ukraine arose, which even today can with good reason be called 'Vladimir Ilyich Lenin's Ukraine'. He is its author and architect. This is fully confirmed by archive documents ... And now grateful descendants have demolished monuments to Lenin in Ukraine. This is what they call decommunisation. Do you want decommunisation? Well, that suits us just fine. But it is unnecessary, as they say, to stop halfway. We are ready to show you what real decommunisation means for Ukraine.

This speech is easy to find and read but various ignorami (including quite a few Stalinists) insist on framing Putin as a Soviet revivalist. If anything, his dream is of a republican version of the old Russian empire.
 
Last edited:

Wintruz

Zealot
Joined
Nov 4, 2023
Messages
152
Reaction score
483
Awards
8
Bolshevist sympathiser in imprisoning counter-revolutionaries shocker!

Eo0mwu.jpg


While I'd enjoy working on my physique for a few months, sorry, not in an election year. Not when there's so much opportunity to demoralise Marxist elements even further.
 

Xingtian

Zealot
Joined
Apr 10, 2023
Messages
195
Reaction score
371
Awards
5
Wow, we went from, I can’t wait to mow down some commies to Actually I need to lose weight and there’s some old law on the books that no one cares about and besides voting is more important. That was fast. The Fuhrer weeps. //:-=(
 

Wintruz

Zealot
Joined
Nov 4, 2023
Messages
152
Reaction score
483
Awards
8
Wow, we went from, I can’t wait to mow down some commies to Actually I need to lose weight and there’s some old law on the books that no one cares about and besides voting is more important. That was fast. The Fuhrer weeps. //:-=(
Last response before you get blocked; I'm sure between here and Reddit you've lots of "reVoluTiOn" to fantasise over with other powerless, functionally challenged, non-entities. However, my time is valuable and far above the pay-grade of your juvenile attempt to deflect from your endorsement of a Soviet Marxist on a forum where, I'd hazard, that is near-universally abhorred. But, as someone else may get something out of it...

I would not preach to others anything I have not practiced myself. That includes a selective take on which national laws to align with, which to ignore and which, when certain activities are "legalised", to use to the fullest extent possible. In the case of Ukraine, fighting there may be, in the right context, a law worth breaking. In Britain, prosecutions for joining the International League were not enforced in the early stages of the invasion and there was a guiding, Daemonic principle behind my own interest in serving there. When I was told that a good deal of previous military experience was required, I asked "Is there anything I can do to support you". The answer was to work in my own countries in ways that counter Russia. I am, fortunately, in a well-off position in life and have been able to carry out some of that modest work, even if it's only engaging MPs and introducing ideas in certain forums.

In hindsight, two years later, what I would not advise is the sacrifice of a noble life (indicated by a willingness to give it) without certainty that it's going to be for a cause that is worthy of it. Almost a million American and British lives were lost in the war with Germany. General Patton and most of the British aristocracy quickly realised that this was all in vain. Looking at what both nations have become, I'd be surprised if any but a tiny number thought it was worth it. There is no doubt that the destruction of Russia would be of value and an opportunity for the renewal of certain energies. Yet it would be pointless if those sympathetic to the exact ideology which poisoned Russia in the first place are waiting in the wings to reduce the homeland even further.

It needs to be rooted out of our own lands first though a greater conflict may be a useful opportunity to do that.

Actually I need to lose weight
One of the things I love about the internet is you never know who is on the other side of the screen. My ilk aren't given to slobbery. Enjoy yours.
 

Xingtian

Zealot
Joined
Apr 10, 2023
Messages
195
Reaction score
371
Awards
5
Last response before you get blocked; I'm sure between here and Reddit you've lots of "reVoluTiOn" to fantasise over with other powerless, functionally challenged, non-entities. However, my time is valuable and far above the pay-grade of your juvenile attempt to deflect from your endorsement of a Soviet Marxist on a forum where, I'd hazard, that is near-universally abhorred. But, as someone else may get something out of it...

I would not preach to others anything I have not practiced myself. That includes a selective take on which national laws to align with, which to ignore and which, when certain activities are "legalised", to use to the fullest extent possible. In the case of Ukraine, fighting there may be, in the right context, a law worth breaking. In Britain, prosecutions for joining the International League were not enforced in the early stages of the invasion and there was a guiding, Daemonic principle behind my own interest in serving there. When I was told that a good deal of previous military experience was required, I asked "Is there anything I can do to support you". The answer was to work in my own countries in ways that counter Russia. I am, fortunately, in a well-off position in life and have been able to carry out some of that modest work, even if it's only engaging MPs and introducing ideas in certain forums.

In hindsight, two years later, what I would not advise is the sacrifice of a noble life (indicated by a willingness to give it) without certainty that it's going to be for a cause that is worthy of it. Almost a million American and British lives were lost in the war with Germany. General Patton and most of the British aristocracy quickly realised that this was all in vain. Looking at what both nations have become, I'd be surprised if any but a tiny number thought it was worth it. There is no doubt that the destruction of Russia would be of value and an opportunity for the renewal of certain energies. Yet it would be pointless if those sympathetic to the exact ideology which poisoned Russia in the first place are waiting in the wings to reduce the homeland even further.

It needs to be rooted out of our own lands first though a greater conflict may be a useful opportunity to do that.


One of the things I love about the internet is you never know who is on the other side of the screen. My ilk aren't given to slobbery. Enjoy yours.

//:-=(
 
Top