Ask HN: Is WWIII already in its early stages?

And before that the US invaded Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, various other countries (arguably including Vietnam and Korea). The USSR also invaded Afghanistan. Plus various other proxy conflicts.

WWIII, in the sense of an all out war, won't happen because the opponents all have nuclear weapons and are too big in any case.

The West is careful not to directly attack Russia in Ukraine. Russia will be careful not to attack any NATO countries. If mainland China at one point launches an invasion of Taiwan the same will happen: China will be careful not to attack the US and allies, and the US and allies will be careful not to attack China.

Really, the same that has been happening since 1945 between US and Russia, and since the end of the Korean War between China and US (when the US understood that China was off-limit as well).

It's just that since the fall of the USSR people in the US and the West have become used to run the show unopposed. This is no longer the case and we are 'simply' going back to a situation where several opposing major powers (really, that means the US and China) match each other (or at least are strong enough relative to each other to be assertive).

I think China and Russia are likely to continue to make moves that economically hurt the West or amplify social divisions here, but I don't see WWIII-type conflict happening personally.

The Taiwan situation is interesting but ultimately China knows they won't be able to take Taiwan by force without extreme consequences - nor would it be easy. China's economy depends on being able to export to the West where as the West could, if needed, find other trading partners. For that reason I think there are limits in how far China will be willing to go with Taiwan. Even if it didn't escalate into direct conflict with the West it would still be economically devastating for China. Maintaining the status-quo is in everyone's best interest.

Then again geopolitical events are nearly impossible to predict. At the end of the day it's just a handful of people who get to decide these things and people can be irrational, emotional and have complex motivations. WWIII will probably happen at some point, I just doubt the probability of it happening soon is as high as some people think.

I was surprised when Putin went ahead and actually invaded Ukraine since I didn't see the cost/benefit justifying the invasion. Putin had a war chest of more than 600 billion dollars. Like half of that was on western banks and it's now frozen, so Putin can't use it. They're burning through the rest quickly as Russian economy is going to the toilet and sanctions are hitting hard. Russia started the war with an inflation of 10% and then it went to 15-17%. Basically all western corporations left Russia. Russian planes are banned to land on most western airports. Russia no longer has access to western technology and global supply chain, which means they can no longer manufacture many things, like cars etc. They're salvaging chips from microwaves and fridges, that desperate they are. Of course China can benefit from it by selling technology to Russia at exorbitant prices, and also by buying Gas and Oil cheaply, but since there's no infrastructure to sell Gas and Oil to China as there is for Europe (like NordStream), that means it takes a very long time for that Gas and Oil to reach China (like 30 days instead of 3 days). Now, Russian economy seems to be doing better than expected, the Ruble stronger than expected, but it's all for the show, in reality they can't hold that position indefinitely. Also if Russia starts opening fronts with other countries they will need to spread their army thin instead of focusing their efforts in one spot. In the months of war so far we've seen how Russian army has low morale and has been ineffective, with seemingly old weapons and tanks, and the territorial gains they won had an expensive cost in lives of russian soldiers and equipment. Theoretically Russia has air force superiority compared to Ukraine but they don't seem to use the full force of their air force. Russia also has a navy and submarines, but that is not very relevant on a land conflict like Ukraine. I thought that maybe they're using conscripted soldiers in Ukraine (cannon fodder) instead of their professional soldiers, to appear weaker, and save their pros for later if the conflict escalates with other countries... that is a possibility.

I think for now Putin will content himself with taking the Donbas and a corridor connecting with Crimea and getting access to the Black Sea, and would be very happy if they could connect that to Odesa and the Transnitria region in Moldova.

Now, Europe will suffer, with inflation now at an average of 10% and many countries relying on russian gas and oil, prices will go even higher and there might be energy shortages in winter (remember, winter is coming). But NATO is avoiding a direct conflict with Russia because that would put two nuclear superpowers on a face to face conflict. USA and Europe are providing hi-tech weapons to Ukraine instead, which has proved to be extremely effective. USA will suffer with inflation/stagflation but not as much as Europe.

Russia has some supporters. Belarus is like a puppet state, it allowed russian forces to use their territory to launch the invasion. Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Kyrgyzstan also support Russia. Other middle east countries have expressed their support for Russia, most likely because they don't like USA. Now, would any of these states get actively involved in a war to support Russia? I believe most would not, they're just cheering on the sides. India is also buying Oil and Gas from Russia, and helping Russia with their banking system to bypass sanctions, but I don't think they would get involved in a war against USA and Europe.

China is a special case. Before the Olympics Putin and Xi Jinping met, and allegedly they signed an extended collaboration treaty. China has been repeating russian propaganda and lies (that Ukraine was infested by Nazis and Russia is liberating it etc) and blocking western news about the conflict. China has also bought a lot of oil and gas from Russia....

The CCP is sabre rattling and blustering to look good to a domestic audience because it has lost huge face when Pelosi visited.

Here's a great video to watch on the topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1sGjulgBBs

The CCP well knows that if it moves to take Taiwan then the outcome WILL be world war 3 and remember all those politicians are leading extremely comfortable lives with everything they could ever want - why risk it?

If China invades Taiwan - and I've read quite alot of stuff that says they don't even have the military capability to do so - then they'll be fighting everyone from Taiwan to USA to Japan and possibly India and who knows what other countries. They won't win, they know it.

While I agree that propaganda has never quite been as hyper-targeted to specific micro-populations as it is today, you can't forget the larger role propaganda has played since, say, the printing press. Especially propaganda tied to the same concerns as today: economic insecurity, racial and cultural in-groups and out-groups, etc. Ask a Southern male US citizen in the 1850s what he thought about the island of Cuba — although he likely never would have any interaction whatsoever with the island, its inhabitants or its politics, he would've encountered (and probably adopted) talking points given to him by propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostend_Manifesto

Local wars here and there happened and will happen in the future. There's nothing special about Ukraine or Taiwan in that regard.

World will move from US-centric model to multi-polar model. One pole is China, one pole is Russia, one pole is EU, one pole is US, one pole is Iran. Confused about India but probably it'll be a separate pole as well. Probably there will be African pole and South-American pole. Economy, Internet, Science will be divided among those poles. Some poles will cooperate, some poles will not. Countries will join some pole or dive into anarchy. That's the script for next 50-100 years, then another country will rise as a world hegemon. I expect it to be China, but I might be wrong.

As long as China doesn't launch missiles at the Pacific second island chain or carriers, an escalation to a world war even in a situation where they launch a military attack on Taiwan is unlikely.

Look beyond the rhetoric and I think even the ~ 20% odds on prediction sites is much too high, mostly clouded by recency bias.

They have been preparing for a long time, but Taiwan is preparing extremely well, too. If China decides to strike, they will take enormous damage and if they succeed, they will just get some barren land with toxic waste which is an unreasonably high price to pay and completely unnecessary - it's not like they lack land like Bangladesh.

I started pivoting my software engineering skills to be more useful at wartime since 2018 (GIS, simulations, network analysis etc.)

That's because it happens this way - not as immediately global and not as intense as one would expect from a world war - because the world has became more dense and viscous so processes like that happen this way like processes in molten glass compared to processes in a gas.

Inevitable because thats history. Pax Americana has effectively come to an end with the Taliban giveaway. The official end will be if/when they abandon Taiwan; and thats why people care so much. If US can't intervene to save its allies then their word means shit. US has become complacent, self-absorbed in its own problems and as every "empire" crumbling from within. The signs are pretty visible both economically and socially and I won't expand because it would take a whole essay. Point is, when an empire stumbles, others run to take its place (or a piece of it). Of course, there is the asterisk of nuclear weapons that ensure MAD but I bet that millions or billions of man hours are spent on finding ways to avoid MAD on both sides. If that will result in MAD in the end , I don't know; but I don't think its a deterrent which is as real as it was in the 60s.

How close are we? I would put a timeframe of 10-15 years if no other major event comes up. Because US is not what it used to be 10years ago even. The fuckup in north africa was the start, the absolute plunder in Afghanistan was next. People in US are tired of wars as inequality grows and the political system offers no exit. Couple this with a societal swift towards postmodernity thanks to the arrogance of the "elites" and you have a great mix of angered populace with no regards to rationality. Now the war in UKR creates a fundamentally unstable system in the heart of Europe. This system will have to stabilize one way or the other, Russia cannot remain a pariah for a long time or it will risk making it even more aggresive. China is asking for "lebenraum" in southeast sea which US doesn't want to give (but IMO they will be forced to). If China decides to take Taiwan the option is either war with china in their backyard, or backing out and accelerate the US downfall. Either way, it won't go out without a boom, it never does.

Newer generations in advanced countries (including me) view war as something extraterrestrial but reality is that its an everyday phenomenon for the biggest part of the world and for the most time in history. So its easy to think/hope that it will be like this forever and "war is finished", but Ukraine showed to most Europeans that its not (and IMO thats what shocked them the most)

"Perceived opportunity" here is the key and actual warfare is less relevant, because in normal situation entering a war has obviously negative outcome.

So, it looks like we're in already.

2) China has a tin-pot military that has not really fought an external war since Korea.

No.

There is, as of now, no evidence China is preparing to invade anything. There's always sable rattling, hasn't happened yet.

> Wars happen when two or nation's drive for self-preservation collide

That's a naive view of war, which ignores individual a-holes. There's no self-preservation in Russia invading Ukraine...

I understand it's easy to despair and fear seeing some of the things happening in the world. I am much more optimistic.

War between nations has mostly gone out of style. From Putin's stated point of view, the war in Ukraine is a police action in a province (more or less) of Russia. Old school Russians think of Belarus, Ukraine, and Georgia as property.

It's similar with Taiwan. Mainland China thinks of the island as part of the country, so they would not really see it as going to war with another country.

I think it would be interesting to think about the groundwork for WWI, like the Franco-Prussian war in 1870.

I think that there will be some wars... to distract or reset from the mess the global economy is in. but nothing "World War" sized.

China is planning to invade themselves? Sounds to me like you've been reading propaganda that's pushing to start a war. Why would China invade themselves?

>In the 2010's, many people told me 'WWIII will never happen, the world is too interdependent'.

Interdependence isn't a factor at all. The only reason WW3 hasn't happened yet is weapons of mass destruction. All major players have wmds, if they admit to it or not. Or they could assemble/build their wmd within days. I couldn't even tell you which is more important.

>At this point, to me, another global conflict with massive consequences seems inevitable. There is just enough desperation, social unrest, government corruption, and resource depletion to trigger survival instincts on the largest scale.

What seems likely to me is USA has a civil war incoming. They've been at war for decades and their war exhaustion is maxed out. Trillions spent in the middle east killing innocent brown people and back at home? Busted roads.

USA seems to need a civil war.

WWIII is already happening. The US is closing up on Russia now for more than a decade. China is growing economically but they are still far away militarily and except for Russia there isn't really another contender for the US militarily speaking.

Before 2010 the world was quite multi-polar with the US being the leader. Now, we are moving to a uni-polar world and this is of course triggering reactions both from China, Russia and countries that want to remain sovereign (ie: India, Brazil, ASEAN, etc...)

Countries not in the western sphere are already aware of this. The EU is quite aware of this too and it's going to be a loser in this new order but it doesn't seem to be able to build a politically independent force to have its own policy. Russia is the main target and they know this, that's why they are freaking out. China probably doesn't like Russia much but certainly would prefer a multi-polar world (at least until they are able to become the leader); so they'll help the Russians to slow down the West. Major other countries like India do not like China or Russia but they are concerned about the accumulation of power and inflation in the West/US hands. Smaller countries are trying to survive in this environment and feed their people either by selling their young labor for pennies, or opening their borders for rich people from the West to sun bathe.

That's the world for you, in a nutshell.

If I am to predict the future:

- Russia gets drawn in a long war with Ukraine. The US is playing the long game of starving them financially and technologically.

- China will probably collapse in a spectacular fashion. They are far from being a united country. The outcome won't be easy to predict and China is huge. It is possible this will happen without much disruption to trading lines.

- Europe/Euro/Schengen will end sometime in the next 10 years. Some European countries will be back to third-world status.

- With the fall of the Euro, the US dollar will become the ultimate currency. The US will be able to yield enormous influence all over the world.

> “We are at the edge of war with Russia and China on issues which we partly created, without any concept of how this is going to end or what it’s supposed to lead to,” he says. Could the U.S. manage the two adversaries by triangulating between them, as during the Nixon years? He offers no simple prescription. “You can’t just now say we’re going to split them off and turn them against each other. All you can do is not to accelerate the tensions and to create options, and for that you have to have some purpose.”

> https://www.wsj.com/articles/henry-kissinger-is-worried-abou...

He had something to say already in May about Ukraine at Davos: “Kissinger vs. Soros on Russia and Ukraine” https://www.wsj.com/articles/dueling-approaches-to-world-ord... (on a lighter note, this URL sounds like a conspiracy theory bingo card)