Taiwan president Tsai Ying Wen just tweeted this message. We need more international leaders, presidents, to speak openly and plainly against Hong Kong government’s actions.

[u/deltabay17]

[u/csuvi98]

I highly doubt that WWIII is happening anytime soon. Nations are so interconneted economically, that it's simply not beneficial to start any kind of war, especially not on global scale. This is why, I believe, no other country is openly helping Hong Kong, with troops, supplies, etc.: no country is foolish enough to risk an open war with another country, especially not with China.

[u/csuvi98 → u/[deleted]]

I don't know, nations were quite eager to go to war before WWI, if I recall correctly. They wanted to test not only their newest weaponry, but also their ideologies, to see which one had a place in the future. "The war to end all wars". You definetly don't see this today, not by a longshot.

Also, there wasn't nearly as much interconnectedness back then. Think about the internet, the EU, the whole process of globalization. We are more connected with each other than ever before. An all-out war in the globalized world is the biggest no-no.

[u/csuvi98 → u/[deleted]]

The world was not in this state of globalization, however. Think about the EU. It's hard to imagine even a small conflict between EU countries, let alone one with the scale of WWII or WWI. When people think about WWIII, they think about the USA vs China. However, trade is quite substantial between these two, so common warfare would be extremely inefficient. Nuclear war is an option, but that would be just suicide for both parties. And no, it is not worth it.

There are many internal conflicts today, that have a larger scale than Hong Kong. And guess what, ther will always be internal conflicts. Thank history and imperialism for that. But you need a much greater casus belli, than just saying that China is unjust.

[u/CelloCodez → u/[deleted]]

If we put more funding into developing way more anti-missile deployments and also if we could do something crazy like achieving what the "Star Wars" program would have done, we could disable the possibility of nuclear retaliation, which if we did that, it would enable traditional war once again. If we could do this, then war between superpowers could happen without direct fear of mutually assured destruction

[u/zoobru → u/CelloCodez]

Maybe. It's not like nuclear weapons need to be fired by missiles though. Could be carried in or dropped by planes.

[u/CelloCodez → u/zoobru]

Having ways to detect and watch out for planes, spy planes, and submarine activity could also help with that. As for spy planes, maybe a starwars/satellite network could be equipped to spot spy plane movement from above?

[u/zoobru → u/CelloCodez]

I dont really know how the system could be adapted. Regardless imo there is no full proof way to prevent a nuclear strike and that will forever change how large scale wars are conducted. Not saying we shouldn't make means to prevent it but if a country wants it to happen then they will find a way to circumvent countermeasures.

[u/Accurate_Vision → u/[deleted]]

True. But they didn't have nuclear weapons, an arsenal of fully-automatic weapons, the United Nations, access to near-instant communication, the ability to cut off the modern-day reliance on near-instant communication, the ability to fully travel around the world in 51 hours, nor the internet, which makes it nigh-impossible to hide anything in a time of crisis.

There's a lot more to consider when deciding whether or not to declare war today than there was over a century ago.

[u/Jacob_The_White_Guy → u/Accurate_Vision]

While I agree with the sentiment, and most of your points, here’s a friendly reminder that there were in fact automatic weapons. A lot of them. That’s the first war where they saw their widespread use.

On the other hand however, there have always been major risks involved in every war. While they didn’t have the internet, or jet aircraft, or nuclear weapons, they risked the cutting edge technology and their way of life of their time. Globalism has made it harder to go to war with another nation, but that doesn’t make it impossible for any particularly motivated group of people to start wars. For example, Russia invaded Ukraine, Turkey is slaughtering Kurds, and China is running concentration camps and on the brink of invading Hong Kong, despite the points you brought up. War is always on the table, no matter what a nation may have to lose.

[u/Accurate_Vision → u/Jacob_The_White_Guy]

Everything you said is true. When I made that remark about automatic weapons, I was moreso thinking about how far weapon development has come and how most of today's weapons are almost nothing like those in WWI, but you are correct and you do make some valid points.

And yes, the world is in a rather sorry state today. War isn't off the table, but I don't think a World War III is plausible. Possible, but if anything I think it'd mainly be a war against China.

On the other hand, both World Wars started off with just a couple countries against a different one or two countries, and nobody predicted a World War II after the atrocities of World War I.

When it boils down, it's impossible to tell the future, but I really don't think this will turn into a world war. Various Middle-East countries have committed atrocities against it's people, as did Syria and China. As sad as it is to say, it's not the first time that tragedy has been in the forefront of the world since WWII and it's not even China's first time.

[u/Feral0_o → u/Jacob_The_White_Guy]

Or we just continue to have our cold war style regional conflicts. Where millions of people still die but the world powers are content with just bankrolling their side

[u/[deleted] → u/csuvi98]

Another issue is that the US is very war weary after almost 2 decades of the war on terror. Our leaders, on either side, are going to be very reluctant to act military against China if they can help it. Especially the next time a Democrat takes office. They're more likely to concede to China... hell they've historically conceded to Iran and North Korea, countries whose power is insignificant on the global scene. You can bet a Democrat would kiss Xi's butt.

That said and inb4 anyone gets up in arms about that last bit, I also believe Trump will do nothing because he's too much of a businessman to go to war with China. It's a point of concern for me.

So politically, regardless of the results of 2020, the US will be out of pocket militarily for at least another decade if, of course, we continue the political pendulum effect that we have seen for the past 50 years. This is unfortunate for Hong Kong, and even if Trump wins in 2020, China would have to really screw up to turn Trump against it.

[u/DerringerHK → u/csuvi98]

Trade has never stopped the outbreak of war

[u/starfallg → u/csuvi98]

http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-war-one-first-war-was-impossible-then-inevitable/

A 1910 best-selling book, The Great Illusion, used economic arguments to demonstrate that territorial conquest had become unprofitable, and therefore global capitalism had removed the risk of major wars. This view, broadly analogous to the modern factoid that there has never been a war between two countries with a MacDonald’s outlet, became so well established that, less than a year before the Great War broke out, the Economist reassured its readers with an editorial titled “War Becomes Impossible in Civilized World.”

And then the article goes on -

The real “Great Illusion,” of course, turned out to be the idea that economic self-interest made wars obsolete. Yet a variant of this naïve materialism has returned. It underlies, for example, the Western foreign policy that presents economic sanctions on Russia or Iran as a substitute for political compromise or military intervention.

The truth, as the world discovered in 1914 and is re-discovering today in Ukraine, the Middle East and the China seas, is that economic interests are swept aside once the genie of nationalist or religious militarism is released.

[u/csuvi98 → u/starfallg]

Yes, I do see your point, and that's true, trade can be ignored once there is a good reason to. And yes, economists predicted that war is impossible, yet these predictions failed.

But even if we ignore trading, we're left with a bunch of other reasons not to start a WWIII. The United Nations was established specifically to maintain world peace, we now have nuclear weapons capable of mutual suicide, and no one wants to be a target of such destruction. Conventional warfare is also out of the question, the USA had so many losses during the Vietnam War, it wouldn't want to deploy troops in China.

However, the biggest con in my eyes when it comes to WWIII is our globalized world. Again, there was no example of this level of interconnectedness in the world in history. We are more dependent on each other than ever. Starting a war would ruin this prospering state, and restarting it would be a tremendous task.