The Mess

[StCapps]

China's angle right now is power projection from their coast into the China Seas, for so called "A2AD" Anti-Access Area Denial, they're still a ways off from challenging the Americans worldwide, but they are racing past the Russians because the Russians shipbuilding industry is still so dilapidated by its Soviet infrastructure that they cannot keep up with Chinese production, the Russians are still dining out on the remnants of the aging Soviet fleets, while the Chinese are cranking out brand new ships at a pace.

How is Russia handling it's slipping position relative to China in this regard? How does becoming third banana effect how Russia deals with the US?

[Smitty-48]

In a way, if Hilary had won the election.... Well I feel like

Man this is fucked up. But I would have been hounding smitty for intel. As it is now, I don't even have the slightest concern about inevitable world wars. Are they even inevitable anymore?

Just unrelated musings.

World wars are inherently wars of hegemonic succession, with great periods of relative peace in between, a world war springs from a power vacuum in the wake of an aging and increasingly enfeebled hegemonic order, like young lions come for an old lions pride, after a long period of hegemonic stability; Waterloo to the Somme; yes, World War Two was only two decades after World War One, but they were in actuality the same war of hegmonic succession, in two acts, since 1945, we have been in a period of American hegemonic stability, a window for a world war will not open until that order becomes sufficiently enfeebled

[Smitty-48]

How is Russia handling it's slipping position relative to China in this regard? How does becoming third banana effect how Russia deals with the US?

Increasingly reliant on their nuclear weapons as their all purpose arm of decision in the event of confrontation.

[skankhunt42]

In a way, if Hilary had won the election.... Well I feel like

Man this is fucked up. But I would have been hounding smitty for intel. As it is now, I don't even have the slightest concern about inevitable world wars. Are they even inevitable anymore?

Just unrelated musings.

World wars are inherently wars of hegemonic succession, with great periods of relative peace in between, a world war springs from a power vacuum in the wake of an aging and increasingly enfeebled hegemonic order, like young lions come for an old lions pride, after a long period of hegemonic stability; Waterloo to the Somme; yes, World War Two was only two decades after World War One, but they were in actuality the same war of hegmonic succession, in two acts, since 1945, we have been in a period of American hegemonic stability, a window for a world war will not open until that order becomes sufficiently enfeebled

Smitty,
I agree with you but I feel that globalization has made a world war almost impossible. The world powers are so interconnected financially I'm not entirely sure world war 3 makes financial sense. What's more likely is posturing, proxy wars, and the poor folks in places like Aleppo get abused.

[TheReal_ND]

Economic orders collapse. Nationalism trumps international trade everytime (or does it?) Probably why the MSM was losing their minds over the slight Nationalistic spin Trump was pitching his ball with.

[Smitty-48]

Smitty,
I agree with you but I feel that globalization has made a world war almost impossible. The world powers are so interconnected financially I'm not entirely sure world war 3 makes financial sense. What's more likely is posturing, proxy wars, and the poor folks in places like Aleppo get abused.

I must disagree because it is ahistorical, this is not in any way the first and only period of "globalization", in fact, globalization is really just an euphemistic term for the American Hegemonic Order, a closer study of history and specifically globalized commercial trading hegemons will reveal that the end of history is not at hand, "globalization" is nothing new, and does not in any way preclude an aging enfeebled hegmonic order from being set upon by rising "globalization" competitors.

Proxy wars are nothing new neither, that is all part of "globalized" hegemonic imperial policing, within the context of the prolonged periods of relative peace between successions.

[skankhunt42]

Smitty,
I agree with you but I feel that globalization has made a world war almost impossible. The world powers are so interconnected financially I'm not entirely sure world war 3 makes financial sense. What's more likely is posturing, proxy wars, and the poor folks in places like Aleppo get abused.

I must disagree because it is ahistorical, this is not in any way the first and only period of "globalization", in fact, globalization is really just an euphemistic term for the American Hegemonic Order, a closer study of history and specifically globalized commercial trading hegemons will reveal that the end of history is not at hand, "globalization" is nothing new, and does not in any way preclude an aging enfeebled hegmonic order from being set upon by rising "globalization" competitors.

Proxy wars are nothing new neither, that is all part of "globalized" hegemonic imperial policing, within the context of the prolonged periods of relative peace between successions.

I don't disagree with you but I think we are in a very different paradigm.
http://www.corporationsandhealth.org/20 ... y-revenue/

If you look at that info graphic that is a lot of red. We are in an era where the world is smaller through technology and corporations have higher GDP's than most of the world. I just don't see how a World War right now is profitable. I feel like these corporations and the market would lose money hand over first, and this time around unless I'm mistaken there is no Nazi party putting Jews in ovens. I just don't see what America, Russia, or China would truly have to gain from a World War.

[Smitty-48]

Case in point, the last time everyone was asserting that "globalization" was going to preclude another war of hegemonic succession was right before the First World War, and in fact, that world was far more "globalized" than now.

[Smitty-48]

I don't disagree with you but I think we are in a very different paradigm.
http://www.corporationsandhealth.org/20 ... y-revenue/

If you look at that info graphic that is a lot of red. We are in an era where the world is smaller through technology and corporations have higher GDP's than most of the world. I just don't see how a World War right now is profitable. I feel like these corporations and the market would lose money hand over first, and this time around unless I'm mistaken there is no Nazi party putting Jews in ovens. I just don't see what America, Russia, or China would truly have to gain from a World War.

Again, all that was so and in fact even more so before the First World War, all these things have been said before, right before a world war, you can go back and check.

[skankhunt42]

Case in point, the last time everyone was asserting that "globalization" was going to preclude another war of hegemonic succession was right before the First World War, and in fact, that world was far more "globalized" than now.

I don't think the world today is anything like it was before that War broke. Hell the internet was one of the reasons Obama didn't put boots on the ground in Syria like it was Iraq. There was a time that was possible and the world flipped shit.

I don't think the world was more globalized 100 years ago. 100 years ago Hash couldn't have run an empire of a message board in Thailand while you and I debated the purpose of world war 3 through the internet.

So maybe globalization isn't the world I'm looking for, I guess technological and financial interdependence through the corptocracy. As far as I can tell the only people that would benefit today are the MIC, but they can just as easily sell weapons to the 3rd world. What would the point be of attacking the first? Or even 2nd?