Increased Risk of World War III

[Jerry_Atrick]

Sky News (UK - which, although Murdoch owned, is far more moderate than the Australian equivalent) has quoted Genera Sir Nick Carter as stating the risk of WWIII is higher than ever before. As they say in the US, no ship, Sherlock. The question is, with the world a smaller place, what is the appropriate strategy to mitigate against such a disaster?

 

Also, in the article, he is saying the British Army hope to have 30,000 robots in the 2030s. It would be intersting to see what this actually means (i.e. humanoid type robots, or autonomous drones powered by AI). Although, I fear a robotic war would lead to potnetial global disaster as if a country is sending robots to another country to fight, the other country may well use more destructive weapons (ICBMs, Nukes) to attack the country that has sent the robots.. It could get very ugly.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/risk-of-new-world-war-is-real-head-of-uk-armed-forces-warns-12126389

 

[Yenn]

Can't we just go on as we have for the last sixty or so years and get the United nations to spend billions on refugee care and denouncing dictators without ever achieving anything. Maybe the UK is worried about a world war, but I can't see them starting one. They wouldn't have the firepower or resolve to get anywhere, Remember Suez. I must admit that the Falklands war was a surprise, especially to Argentina, but Maggie was not the same as those now in power.

[willedoo]

18 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

The question is, with the world a smaller place, what is the appropriate strategy to mitigate against such a disaster?

The first step would be for Biden to bring the U.S. back into the treaty world and return to a degree of multi-lateralism. Trump's unilateral withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty has made Europe a much less safer place. The U.S. also changed their rules to allow pre-emptive nuclear strikes. All that did was lead Russia to do the same in response. Trump may not have started any new wars during his four years, but from a nuclear war perspective things are a lot more dangerous than pre Trump days.

 

Trump may be a hard nosed business deal negotiator but Biden has decades of experience in political deal making, so maybe that's needed now.

Edited November 9, 2020 by willedoo

[kgwilson]

The poms are hardly likely to start a nuclear war but they do have the capacity. Their vanguard class nuclear subs are pretty lethal with the new dreadnought class currently under construction thought to be superior to anything else out there and the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are second only to the US nuclear carriers and in many ways actually better. These are all being built by BAE systems that arose as the phoenix of the British Aircraft industry & is now the 3rd largest military equipment company in the world and the only foreign company supplying the US military.

[willedoo]

18 hours ago, kgwilson said:

and the only foreign company supplying the US military.

kgwilson, you forgot to add 'in the top ten'.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I credit nuclear weapons for the fact that there have been no world wars for my generation to fight in. The reason being that nukes put the top brass right in the firing line.

So the top brass have only been able to prosecute wars against third-world countries where the locals had no nukes. Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan etc come to mind.

I am not suggesting that the brass are actually cowards, only that they are not stupid.

Would Hitler have moved against ( say ) France if the result could have been a nuke on Berlin? Even if they were winning?  I think not.