The coming war
There's a war coming. I can feel it in my bones.
I don't know how long. Maybe 10 years, maybe 30. Or maybe sooner than that. But there's going to be a major war. And not the little smatterings we've seen since the World War. A big one.
The reasons for this are fairly complex. I'll try to summarize.
Basically, every war is the product of some interplay of three factors: security, economics, and the self-interest of leaders. The last factor encompasses such things as domestic political issues (beyond the desire for security and economics), and personal profit from the policy.
At the moment, the economic factor, which opposes war, thankfully predominates. However, economics invariably bows to security.
The introduction of atomic weapons to the geopolitical scene 60 years ago represented a massive shift in the order of things. However, this led to an equilibrium state of "extended deterrence," whereby governments without atomic arms allied themselves with those that did. Thus, Russia would never nuke Japan (say), since the U.S. would nuke Russia back.
But what happens if the DPRK nukes Japan? Would the US really nuke the Korean peninsula in retaliation?
In fact, the whole 'rogue state' movement is very disturbing. Basically, this is an outgrowth of the 'non-aligned' nations movement during the Cold War. It is motivated by world-wide anti-Americanism.
America (and other European countries) feel very threatened right now. Small states and non-state actors can conduct small-scale operations with large-scale destructive consequences. A little pint-sized nation could obtain a nuke, and hold the world hostage.
Sadly, this is motivated by the third factor. Simply put, anti-Americanism is politically viable. A lot of people hate the US. The world order that the US is supporting implicitly, and often explicitly, is one that has no place for dictators. The US has unfortunately been cast as the representative of this world order, but it really corresponds to the European dynamic, which basically consists of (1) liberal economics, and (2) democratic governments.
So naturally political leaders of various 'small' countries can play upon the resistance to this order. This resistance stems from fear of various transition costs, fear of Western economic hegemony, and distrust of Western motives.
The result is that the USA doesn’t feel safe. There simply is no good way to prevent attacks. Nor is it possible for the USA to physically prevent nuclear proliferation. So the USA has been working on the creation of missile defenses. If these can be perfected, it would end the whole concept of deterrence as we know it. It would take the arms’ race to another level.
Frankly, I don’t think that other countries would let it go that far.
But in any event, the key point is this:
We now find ourselves in an international security situation in which technological advances have massively increased the stakes, while sociological changes have increased the difficulty of effective defenses to these threats. The simple fact is that the problems of security will continue to blossom until we recognize the need for a one-world government.
Given the dynamic nature of the problem, a stable equilibrium cannot be reached without a centralized entity overseeing all security matters. It simply is too difficult to rely on the collective action of a certain group of powerful nations to serve as some sort of emergent monolithic security entity.
The good news is that, while sociological and technological trends point towards destabilization of the security situation, economic consolidation points towards its stabilization. However, I fear that the general opposition towards further economic centralization (due to fear of USA agenda and economic hegemony) will decrease this factor, while the other two continue unabated. I consider war to be inevitable, since a single world government will not emerge without a bloody war. Unfortunately, it takes massive loss of life to enact fundamental structural reform of the international political order, and given the scale of the reform needed, I expect the loss of life to be correspondingly massive.
And then, enter the Antichrist.
I don't know how long. Maybe 10 years, maybe 30. Or maybe sooner than that. But there's going to be a major war. And not the little smatterings we've seen since the World War. A big one.
The reasons for this are fairly complex. I'll try to summarize.
Basically, every war is the product of some interplay of three factors: security, economics, and the self-interest of leaders. The last factor encompasses such things as domestic political issues (beyond the desire for security and economics), and personal profit from the policy.
At the moment, the economic factor, which opposes war, thankfully predominates. However, economics invariably bows to security.
The introduction of atomic weapons to the geopolitical scene 60 years ago represented a massive shift in the order of things. However, this led to an equilibrium state of "extended deterrence," whereby governments without atomic arms allied themselves with those that did. Thus, Russia would never nuke Japan (say), since the U.S. would nuke Russia back.
But what happens if the DPRK nukes Japan? Would the US really nuke the Korean peninsula in retaliation?
In fact, the whole 'rogue state' movement is very disturbing. Basically, this is an outgrowth of the 'non-aligned' nations movement during the Cold War. It is motivated by world-wide anti-Americanism.
America (and other European countries) feel very threatened right now. Small states and non-state actors can conduct small-scale operations with large-scale destructive consequences. A little pint-sized nation could obtain a nuke, and hold the world hostage.
Sadly, this is motivated by the third factor. Simply put, anti-Americanism is politically viable. A lot of people hate the US. The world order that the US is supporting implicitly, and often explicitly, is one that has no place for dictators. The US has unfortunately been cast as the representative of this world order, but it really corresponds to the European dynamic, which basically consists of (1) liberal economics, and (2) democratic governments.
So naturally political leaders of various 'small' countries can play upon the resistance to this order. This resistance stems from fear of various transition costs, fear of Western economic hegemony, and distrust of Western motives.
The result is that the USA doesn’t feel safe. There simply is no good way to prevent attacks. Nor is it possible for the USA to physically prevent nuclear proliferation. So the USA has been working on the creation of missile defenses. If these can be perfected, it would end the whole concept of deterrence as we know it. It would take the arms’ race to another level.
Frankly, I don’t think that other countries would let it go that far.
But in any event, the key point is this:
We now find ourselves in an international security situation in which technological advances have massively increased the stakes, while sociological changes have increased the difficulty of effective defenses to these threats. The simple fact is that the problems of security will continue to blossom until we recognize the need for a one-world government.
Given the dynamic nature of the problem, a stable equilibrium cannot be reached without a centralized entity overseeing all security matters. It simply is too difficult to rely on the collective action of a certain group of powerful nations to serve as some sort of emergent monolithic security entity.
The good news is that, while sociological and technological trends point towards destabilization of the security situation, economic consolidation points towards its stabilization. However, I fear that the general opposition towards further economic centralization (due to fear of USA agenda and economic hegemony) will decrease this factor, while the other two continue unabated. I consider war to be inevitable, since a single world government will not emerge without a bloody war. Unfortunately, it takes massive loss of life to enact fundamental structural reform of the international political order, and given the scale of the reform needed, I expect the loss of life to be correspondingly massive.
And then, enter the Antichrist.