just about nothing in this thread is a geopolitically feasible action, the guy who mentioned Iran would be closest to the possibilities presented by our current world order. US/CN would like to avoid conflict as much as possible as both sides are held in financial equilibrium by the other. US aggresses CN, CN employs debt domination. CN provokes US, US switches creditors.
japan wage a war? with who? china? do they really love that little island that intensely? with a stagnating yen and tsuntsun approach to international relations, what sort of allied coalition would they be able to entice?
i get the read that no one here has done any formal study of geopolitical theory.
everyone in this thread needs to take the first step and read the geopolitical pivot of history and then afterwards geocentralism theory, the grand chessboard. from there, branch out sociology putting emphasis on pathological and domination paradigms.
in our world order, no super power would benefit from instigating military conflict with another. a war is expensive, and if there's no profit to be made, there's no reason to begin one. the most likely scenario resembling international civil war 3 would be initiated by western europe's and china's dissatisfaction with their energy dependency. which the scenario, all guns would turn to the former arab spring in an attempt to resource raid. china and europe would love to rid themselves of their energy dependency. russia would prefer to have the middle east off the map because the have no vested interest in undercutting themselves competing with a producing nation and the cooperative nature of the cold war is long over. the united states's only vested interest with the middle east is the hold of Israel which hates their neighbors. maybe throw in a little pretext that there's a new upcoming terrorist cell to entice public support.
who would actually take the defendant's side? no one because human nature is self gratifying and no one likes paying $3.99 for whopper combo inflated to $7.99 because of transportation costs. if the humanitarians want to cry out injustice, remind them of their human nature and the futile crop of futility and carry on carpet bombing the part of the world that should have dissapeared after the collapse of the ottoman empire.
And it unlikely, it'd be something similar to the cold war I would have thought. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) would probably prevent anything like this from happening.
i always laugh a little when i hear someone bring up deterrence theory as if it's any bit relevant today. we've had the capabilities for decades to deploy stealth nukes from satellite orbit, completely undetectable and could bypass nuclear impact defense systems like norad. in modern world order, weapons for deterrence are like the trophies in a display case. if someone breaks into your trophy case and crushes your trophies before you can react, your mantle piece nuclear warhead is already useless.
additionally, there are far more destructive technologies than nuclear warheads available today. even 20 years ago.
electromagnetic scaler deployment is a far greater threat than a nuclear explosion, additionally doesn't fuck up the land for decades onward.
thermobaric bombs are also far more feasible than personnel sized nuclear warheads, and we've had that technology even when nukes were relevant.
