Americans are still not worried enough about the risk of world war
noahpinion.blog
noahpinion.blog
> All of this should scare you a bit.
I don't think the world benefits much from me being scared or worried about world war.
I have to tactically vote Democrat either way because the Republican party is off their rockers and maybe has been since before I was even born.
Beyond that, I don't think I have much influence over global politics - I'm pretty busy with my own life. I suppose I could change my own actions - Get some PV panels and batteries and a plug-in hybrid in case war changes the economics of energy and fuel production. Or simply because I already wanted those things for fun.
More Americans should vote Democrat with me.
It's more the civic disengagement. Since the Iraq War, most electeds' call sheets say nothing about foreign policy. Voters don't call in on it, which means they don't vote in primaries based on it, which means it's a delegated issue.
I haven't seen detailed study on voters' obsessions pre world wars, but at least studying the media, the headlines from the preceding eras are largely obsessed with domestic issues, with foreign wars almost treated as a sideshow.
This is because for Russia and China, the internal processes are vastly different from a country like USA or UK where we debate housing, inflation and number of genders that are there while Russia can easily draft thousands of young men and just send them to capture some shitty ukrainian town.
Blunder, yes. But it remains a conventional war. From the looks of it, one which had the broad support of Moscow's elite. I strongly doubt they would similarly support nuclear armageddon.
I can't speak for other US citizens about why they don't worry about the prospect of a world war but I can explain why I don't worry about that prospect. The United States military establishment learns its lessons very well. The pattern of is destabilization and stabilization that it engages in is very strategic around the world. It would be nice if everyone got along and it wasn't needed but the days of that kind of grand Utopia will not be for several lifetimes. So instead of risking countries banning together as we saw in previous world wars there is constant meddling to prevent that. When certain powers become aggressive such as Russia with Ukraine we don't have to physically engage we can simply engage with support and equipment.
This kind of support allows us to effectively drain the resources of Russia and by connection China by really only spending money. The US military when it shows force it typically shows an overwhelming force. When we talk about a war with China even a direct war with China I'm not sure people comprehend the military might of the United States. China loves to put out propaganda as does Russia and so when you see something like the Chinese Navy is nearly double the size of the United States Navy it sounds impressive. But when you look at the actual tonnage in the water and the capabilities of the fleet the United States Coast guard which operates worldwide could take out the Chinese Navy.
When other countries are afraid of 50-year-old jet technology that the United States developed that tells you how far advanced we are compared to anyone else. They may field a few advanced technologies but all of the things the United States Fields is advanced technology.
The only cause for concern I would have in a war with another major power is not anything with conventional weaponry it would be with nuclear weaponry. Because once nuclear weapons begin to be fielded in an exchange there is no winners. A conventional war the only hope that others would have against the United States is if they could band together long enough and support each other long enough to exhaust the supply of smart weapons that were able to field. That would be an incredibly difficult thing to do for China and still remain a viable fighting force. The United States does rely much to heavily on Smart weapons and that risk is they do not get replaced as quickly as dumb weapons. There is something to be said about fielding a battleship that can just throw many tons of high explosive shells cheaply and repeatedly.
The really scary thing is that the F-22 is effectively old technology and it has never been allowed to engage and intercept an enemy. Enemies flee the field of battle to protect their planes when an F-15 comes within range because it does done hundreds of interceptions and have never been shot down. I know people like to bring up the battle scenarios that we engage in with other countries and point out that they're able to defeat us in many cases in these contrived scenarios. It's important to realize that the United States intentionally handicaps themselves in these scenarios because we learn more from losing than we do from just defeating everyone.
The real risk in a world war to the United States is the war of propaganda more than of military might. Because the sway of the people will hold our victory or our defeat in our hands not the capability of our military establishment. Both China and Russia know this fact which is why they would never challenge us in conventional warfare. They wage these proxy wars as well to see what the capabilities are.
No, we don't. We're simply exceptionally bad at following through.
You're on the money with our air superiority. It's ahead of the competition to an unknowable degree, beyond "a lot." Unfortunately, that's lead to a doctrine--since WWII--of trying to bomb our way to strategic ends. That doesn't work. It's never how air power has worked. But we like our Air Force, don't like losing troops, and are optimistic about our allies' competence, so time and time again we try solving problems that can only be solved with boots on the ground with bombs. (Air only doesn't work because planes can't hold ground, but they can push someone off their hill. It thus creates power vacuums. Which is fine if there is someone competent to fill it. But there usually isn't. Almost certainly not after we've bombed the infrastructure the last regime used to project force.)
> instead of risking countries banning together as we saw in previous world wars there is constant meddling to prevent that
This is 19th-century realism [1]. It remains a good geopolitical model. (I have a copy of Clausewitz above my desk.)
But American foreign and military policy is only loosely realistic. Exhibit A: China.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relatio...
As a teenager who lived through the Cold War and especially the 13-day Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 I've never since been so worried about a major war outbreaking as I am now. No doubt tensions haven't yet reached those 13 worrying days but it seems we could be heading that way. I just hope to hell I'm wrong.
What I find most troubling is that no matter how much new upcoming generations are taught about political tensions, risks of war outbreaking and its horrible and tragic consequences by their fathers and grandfathers they always remain unprepared and ill equipped to prevent it. As those who've lived the experience and suffered often repeat, nothing prepares one for war other than war itself.
Tragically, as the old adage goes, wisdom doesn't fit well on young shoulders. It's as if our inability to convey adequately how important such notions are to upcoming generations is a flaw in the human condition.
In any case there's little point to worrying about things you can't affect or change. No amount of worry will prevent a war.
There is an article called The Rise of the Rest: https://fareedzakaria.com/columns/2008/05/12/the-rise-of-the... that talked about Russia getting more aggressive, and everyone else growing their economies and competing with the USA and Europe. It is a global economy and a global war. It is from this book: https://www.amazon.com/Post-American-World-Rise-Rest/dp/0241...
Extrapolating from the map, I don't know where even a large big mac meal would cost $18 in CA
What about Connecticut? $18 that's Pizza money!
While the "labor market" works globally, across borders, employment does not. Just like food -- American produces more food than Americans need, but people in other parts of the world (and even plenty of poor Americans) don't have enough to eat. So while it's generally true that innovation can lead to net job creation globally, it has local effects that can lead to unemployment and displacement.
This fear of the global labor market and technological changes creating mass unemployment hasn't materialized until now so I don't see why it would at this point.
The global labor market enables labor arbitrage. A person in India or Vietnam gets an offshored job and goes from 0 to 2. A person in Detroit loses their good job and gets hired at Burger King, going from 8 to 4. The savings goes into the pockets of people like Jeff Bezos.
My point was to distinguish between global trends and broadly true -- at scale -- claims about innovation and technology improving employment conditions and local effects caused by job displacement. Those happen together. It does little good to laid-off programmers in California to learn that their sacrifice means thousands of Indian programmers now have jobs.
As for the global trends, nothing points at job displacement until now, everything until now points to the pie getting larger, the opposite of your statement.
I doubt you could fit the needs of any country on earth with just its local workforce nowadays anyways, even China itself can't.
It's been a dozen technological revolutions and none of that happened already so I don't see why the next one would. Black swan events can always happen of course but I would not bet on it.
I honestly think this is false. Americans have decided to turn their back on many issues going on outside their borders, especially Ukraine.
Russia invading large areas of Europe is definitely how World War 3 will start, Putin is pushing us closer to that place each day the US stalls giving Ukraine more aid. If there was a strong deterrent, Putin would back off, but he and Xi are watching this and getting ideas about conquest. There also seems to be quite a strong alliance and cooperation between N Korea, China, Russia and Iran forming. While we're not helping our friends and allies out, the enemy seems to be growing stronger and getting more organized.
Why let this threat continue to grow?
I'm really, really shocked about how much the USA is aiding Russia to succeed.
> Why let this threat continue to grow?
Why is it self-evident that giving Ukraine weapons decreases the 'threat' and risk of the last world war.
I though the deal was that the American and Russian elite invades countries every now and than and the rest of us just complains. Not put our neck on the line?
Noone asked me to see my kids die from radiation posioning and starvation when the US invaded Iraq. Somehow there is some phychosis ongoing where people pretend to care for Ukraine's war effort on the 'willing to die' level...
Thankfully the alleged Gaza genocide made them calm down a bit though. It was like the jingoists remembered who they cheered for.
FTFY -
https://www.youtube.com/@ZeihanonGeopolitics covers this better than most.
Recently, his predictions about the UK look to be trending as he predicted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjmBAhTDRXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFHWVAXSGYQ&pp=ygURdWsgc3RlZ...
He's well regarded and makes some compelling arguments for the support of Ukraine and the overblown concern over China's future, regarding Taiwan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYLoW7Mn6CY
The UK is terminally tossed to and fro between the US and Russia. In the long run, the UK will become as tiny as Australia is today.
"The UK is terminally tossed to and fro between the US and Russia."
I don't think Mosley's positions hold much water, today. He was a reactionary, of sorts and delusional at worst.
Worry and idle talk, however well-intentioned, won't help. Voting may help but probably not much -- American foreign policy and mutual defense obligations don't change much across administrations. I grew up with the Vietnam war raging, and I worried about getting drafted, but my worry didn't affect the US politicians, or the North Vietnamese. Since then I've learned that it does little good for an individual to internalize world-scale problems and suffer over things none of us individually can change.
I don't know what I could do to influence possible futures at scale, especially in Russia or China or anywhere else. I can influence my own life and well-being, and have some influence over my children and family. I have enough things to care about that I can change, I don't need to waste time and energy worrying about or debating things I can't change. That doesn't mean I don't care, but it means I accept the limits of my influence and decide not to take a mental health hit over what happens in Moscow, Beijing, or Washington.
Some people worry so much about possible catastrophes they end up on Doomsday Preppers looking ridiculous. I have better things to do, and I can't afford to build a billionaire bunker in Hawaii.
Explain how the original article includes anything you or I can act on, other than commenting or worrying, and I'll pay attention.
Some level of worry is good, "I worry if I eat too much choclate I'll get bad teeth, therefore i'll stop eating chocolate". Excessive worry is what happens when we let things go bad, and bad, and more bad and realize we're actually in a bad place.
Worrying about the Ukraine war, or Taiwan, or possible escalations of those conflicts, does no good except to make my mental health suffer. Writing to my member of Congress, or joining demonstrations, or doing anything that might sway politicians amounts to some kind of action, though very likely futile given the way American government works. More immediate problems that elicit lots of press and demonstrations and letters to Congress, such as homelessness, gun control, etc. don't necessarily affect government policy. Some action is better than none I suppose, but action isn't the same as worry.
I have friends who live in Kiev. I can do my small part to help them get out. I can contribute to relief efforts. I probably can't influence politicians in Washington, much less the Russian regime.
> Why let this threat continue to grow?
Because this is not a fairy tale and there is no way to forcefully stop them without damaging the entire world potentially irreversibly. The US and NATO bit off more than we can chew.
No, they won't. Ukraine is already aligned with the U.S. NATO's borders with Russia have grown, and it's an alliance that has been irrevocably strengthened for a generation.
Contrary to popular belief, Putin's invasion of Ukraine was popular among Moscow's elites. That isn't true of nuclear war.
(Keep in mind that Putin has repeatedly drawn red lines, they've repeatedly been crossed, and every time it's turned out to be a bluff.)
> US and NATO bit off more than we can chew
What nonsense. We've hamstrung Ukraine's ability to fight the way we'd fight. If we wanted the war to end decisively, we could, and without a single NATO boot hitting the ground. Putin, in all likelihood, would likely survive such a blow by being able to blame NATO for having intervened against him.
NATO is only seemingly strengthened, EU countries have been hit hard by the disruption in energy supplies and despite the heavy rhetoric don’t have money to remilitarize. The only thing that strengthened was the US’s grip of the EU, but even that may be reverted if Trump comes back to power.
Nuclear war likely won’t happen on purpose, but by accident. The fact that neither the US nor Russia would want nuclear war is not a surefire way of preventing it, as we know from various near-catastrophes such as Able Archer or the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_al...
Putin’s red lines are more of an invention of the press than a well-defined thing. The Russians responded and adapted to each escalation from NATO/Ukraine. Most recently they’ve hit Ukrainian power generation hard.
> We've hamstrung Ukraine's ability to fight the way we'd fight. If we wanted the war to end decisively, we could, and without a single NATO boot hitting the ground
Just based on public info, they’re getting access to world-best information, satellite data, intercepts, etc and we’re basically planning their actions for them. We’ve scoured the planet for weapons to give them and we’re literally paying their salaries, pensions and keeping their country afloat.
Your claim could have been realistic back in 22, but today it’s clear that Ukraine didn’t stand a chance even with all the help it could get. Nobody knew what would happen if we’d send tanks or planes or specific weapons. Being prudent was smart.
Right now, no. You can't win wars without ammunition. Europe can't do shit on its own. As the adage goes, we'll always do the right thing--after exhausting all the alternatives.
> NATO war planners basically just believed their own propaganda and thought the Russians would run when attacked
Across NATO, and especially in America, the tone has been distinctly pessimistic from the start.
> Putin’s red lines are more of an invention of the press than a well-defined thing
He's been directly quoted [1]. In English, at times [2]. They're for foreign--most directly, American--consumption.
> We’ve scoured the planet for weapons to give them
We haven't given them range equipment and forbade strikes inside Russia, even clearly military targets of direct pertinence to Ukraine. Look at the effects of their strikes on Russian refinery capacity. This is a carbon copy of British and American strategy against the Nazis, to pull air-defence assets away from the frontline. (Or Ukraine's strikes on Crimea breaking Russia's blockade of its grain shipments.)
Had Ukraine had a full complenent of range armament when they started taking out Russia's warships and aircraft near the frontlines, they could have dealt an irrecoverable blow in '22. Instead, we drew things out, letting a few successful strikes show the Russians their weaknesses, letting Putin regroup and redeploy.
> Nobody knew what would happen if we’d send tanks or planes or specific weapons. Being prudent was smart.
Every military planner worth their salt did. We never equipped Ukraine to win. We still can. But it's been an ongoing political choice to draw the war out. (We did the same before the last world wars. Hence the analogy.)
Appreciate the civil discusssion, by the way.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini...
[2] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-path-...
Referring back to my original comment, Americans have more immediate and pressing things to get pissed off about and pressure politicians over, like price inflation, housing costs, medical costs, homelessness, infrastructure, loneliness, etc. I don't think a majority of Americans can find Ukraine on a map, or know one fact about it other than it has some conflict with Russia. Politicians trying to get more money or do anything that increases America's involvement will not have much public support.
I just spent some time with a friend who lives in Kiev, and was there when the war started. He's leaving, can't have a normal life under those conditions. He agrees with your assessment: Ukraine needs a lot more political and military support from the US or they will lose.
One Y was cancelling the grain deal. Another is hitting energy infra (thermal power plants recently). Another could be precision strikes on particular targets, hitting NATO personnel in Ukraine, etc. So there’s this tit for tat happening, not a dramatic “we’ll nuke you alll”, no matter what Medvedev says.
—-
It’s not entirely correct that strikes within Russia are forbidden. Officially sure, but the intelligence for those strikes in Crimea and Russia must be coming from the NATO AWACS and other assets and are happening with UK and French weapons. Without those two elements Ukraine would be completely blind and unable to do any deep strikes (except drones).
Could we have done more? Certainly. But Russia has WMDs, is unpredictable and too big to (let) fail, so there’s this dance happening where in NATO we want to hurt Russia, but not too bad.
I still don’t think it’s possible to say what would have happened had NATO intervened more forcefully. The discussions between Macron and Scholz where one wants to send troops and the other fears WW3 indicates to me that there is no clarity within NATO either. There’s also all sorts of backroom negotiation happening between Russia, Ukraine the US and others.
The current situation is bad all around. China and Russia deepening their partnership, Ukraine falling apart, Russian army reconstituted, bigger than before the invasion and pissed off with the EU and US.
I honestly don’t understand what you think would help Ukraine win at this point. Massive amounts of artillery, combined with planes they’ll learn very fast to fly (unlikely) and deep strike capabilities… would IMO keep them in the game, but not help them win. They’re running out of men and their economy is running on fumes (EU and US money).
Thanks likewise for the discussion :)
Don't underestimate the destabilising political consequences of losing a major war.
Since America almost certainly won't get attacked or invaded on its own soil, the US can't "lose" a war in the same sense Ukraine can, or Germany and Japan did. The US can lose face and influence, but I think we're used to that by now after Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. We "lost" all of those wars in some sense (failed to achieve stated strategic objectives) but didn't experience destabilizing political consequences.
Yes. I haven't researched this extensively, but losers in even foreign wars have a tendency to suffer populist revolutions. (Think: Russia v. Japan, Argentina after losing the Falklands/Malvinas, the Ottomans.) We seem to have a deep-built anger response to leadership's martial failures.
America forcibly losing e.g. its bases on an entire continent would credibly put not only America's leadership, but the entire system around them, into legitimate question. Instead of a minority calling for the Constitution to be terminated, we might have a brief majority.
Hopefully not, though. A brilliant counterpoint being Rome's resilience against being repeatedly decimated (or worse) by Hannibal.
Russia almost certainly faces a bigger risk of internal convulsions and populist revolution than the US or any western European country. Putin has apparently staked everything on winning in Ukraine, so a loss or even a stalemate might very well topple him and his regime. Russia has a history of populist revolutions, the USA does not.
I think losing Europe seems farfetched. Russia can barely maintain a war with a weaker country with a long land border. Europe and NATO have a lot more resources and advantages such as the superior US and British navies. Russia is surrounded by neutral or hostile countries, many of which have American/NATO missiles in range, but the USA does not have that problem. The bases the US maintains in Europe exist primarily to oppose Russian (formerly Soviet) expansion, so if Europe actually fell to Russia those bases would have no purpose anyway.
(One also assumes the victor(s) of that war would seek to constrain America's ability to ever check them again.)
Sounds like a solid silver lining we could look forward to.
Hmmm Argentina was under a military dictatorship which started the war and after that we managed to finally have democratic elections again, not sure where the "populist revolution" comes into play there.
Uh? Ever heard of nuclear intercontinental missiles?
If missiles launch then both sides get damaged so badly that conventional attacks or invasions can't happen. The US is too big, too far away, and protected by oceans, so the only possible attack on US soil is missiles, and if that happens the other side will cease to exist as a military power.
I'm sure you understand my point that as long as the war in Ukraine, or a Chinese attack on Taiwan, remain conventional (non-nuclear) the damage will happen far away from American soil. If those conflicts escalate to nuclear weapons then all bets are off.
"If those conflicts escalate to nuclear weapons then all bets are off."
Exactly, trouble is escalation can occur though some overly noisey side issue or one that's hardly related. In an ideal world a trigger point can be known, in a noisy one randomness makes the point much less certain.
My view is to do everything possible to keep well below that trigger point. Having as much margin as is possible is always a good idea.
The problem is this can slip into appeasement, which is how we stumbled into the last two world wars. You have to be credibly ready to end a war. But have the discipline not to start them.
I prefer to reflect on what a Buddhist doctor told me: whatever will kill me has already happened.
You're living proof of my point that knowledge of errors of past generations is never sufficiently conveyed to the next to stop those errors propagating.
Also anger and worry only distracts. Stay focused on the task at hand.
Also what's with these crazy long responses in this thread. That's why I have a quit posting for 10 years. Who is has the time to put together these mini novels.
It's an election year. People are getting paid to post. People are getting paid to sway opinions.
Though in terms of war, I worry more about civil war than world war.
I am genuinely open to a suggestion because I see no serious contenders to the US in terms of technological, economic, military, and diplomatic advantage. (Obviously were talking about war here not ‘inherent goodness’)
You're describing an energy, food and minerals exporter with internally-navigable waterways and the world's largest rail network. Oh, and friendly neighbours to the north and south--both of whom we dwarf militarily--and oceans on each coast to keep the meanies away.
Adapting to self (more realistically: continental) sufficiency wouldn't be fun. But I struggle to think of a country better situated for a collapse in global trade. (Caveat: agree with you on our political structure being questionable in terms of harnessing these advantages.)
The US will do very well for decades, compared to most of the world. US resources, other than rare earth elements, are abundant in the US alone. The rest is available from neighbors. The US has been the one securing globalism. This is changing, intentionally.
North America has plenty of rare earths [1][2]. We just don't want to process them domestically because it's dirty.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-showing-the-global-d...
[2] https://energyindustryreview.com/metals-mining/upcoming-comp...
Is it all relocatable, rebuildable, yes - but on what timescale after a disruption.
In fact all of Latin America is incredibly blessed, yet look at Venezuela. Despite what's actually surprising geopolitical calm in the region, there's disastrous outcomes abound.
It's one of the important lessons from Why Nation's fail. You can walk from an American town into a Mexican town 50 miles apart, people with the same families, same geography etc. But one side is ten times as wealthy. The US is not doing well because of some geographic determinism but because of institutions whose existence is not god given but contingent on making correct choices.
Correct. Why the US is doing well (for some value of well), is not what I was referring to.
The issue under discussion was the breakdown of globalism, and the effect on the US. The US navies will stop patrolling international waters to protect all popular shipping lanes, over the next decade. The US presence in the oceans will be reduced, drastically. There's a couple reasons for this. The US just doesn't care enough to guard the oil sea thoroughfares anymore, which covers half the globe's oceans. Second, the demographics of most countries has created an age bubble that will cause consumerism to drop off a cliff, making the other half of the world's oceans (around southeast asian countries) less attractive to patrol. Third, the Navy continues to decommission ships faster than it builds them.
If you work for a retail-based business/corp, inflation is only part of the spending decline.
US and Japan pursued policies over time that lead to escalation rather than de-escalation.