why has war between countries come to a weird pause? what the

>>1694303
>what the fuck happened?
MAD

>>1694303
MAD and NATO

>>1694310
>>1694320
MAD?

>>1694303
It's generally condemned and recourse to war is, for the most part, deemed pretty illegitimate these days. Between middle or lower powers, it's also generally pretty bad for business - a country rarely stands to gain more than it loses by going to war.

>>1694332
Mutually assured destruction (nuclear weapons - the concept that if a war escalates to the point that nuclear weapons are used, no one can win - as the other side will retaliate with their nuclear weapons, destroying both belligerents).

>>1694303
>between actual relevant countries

But all these wars currently playing out today (in the middle east and north africa at least) are all proxy wars between relevant countries.

>>1694303
Conquest is no longer profitable. It was once that land = money, but now there is more money in having cultural and financial influence over another country than there is in taking it over violently.

>>1694347
Except only 7 countries on earth have them and if one party in the war does have them, they will not be used.

i.e. i can understand why america and russia would never go to war, but country's like Argentina and brazil or India and Pakistan at war don't seem ridiculous.

>>1694303
Besides MAD: globalism and international treaties that will start activating once shit happens.

Yes, even in Africa. The last time more than two African countries went to war, they took the whole goddamn continent.

>>1694356
India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers.
But I take your point, I wasn't one of the people who posted MAD as a reason, just explaining it. >>1694337 was my post

>>1694303
War between major powers became so destructive that even for the winner it would be a netloss.

>>1694359
will this ever end and major powers will retreat back into isolationism? or are we doomed to 1000 years of nothing ever fucking happening

>>1694370
Too much economic interrelation I would have thought. I'm not an economist, but I suppose if something eventually caused the collapse of the global economy (which, by all accounts, isn't eternally sustainable) then you might see something like that. Really, dwindling resources and accompanying state collapse might trigger wars at some stage.

>>1694370
nah m8 history is over, this is it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

File: 1473437953813.png (47KB, 568x678px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 568x678px

>>1694380
What if a trump victory triggers a second american civil war? Sounds crazy but not out of the question.

>>1694387
Well... putting aside how unlikely that is, I'm not sure - we're moving into the realm of speculation there. The US going down that rapidly would be in almost nobodies interests. I suppose that might facilitate some kind of global economic collapse, you'd probably see regional powers making local power grabs (e.g. China in the South China Sea) in the absence of the US, and that could pretty easily trigger conflicts. It's hard to say man, if the US became embroiled in a really bad civil war (bad enough for it to have to abandon its foreign interests) you'd see a complete realignment of the global order.

File: 1470919939980.png (650KB, 1314x820px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 1314x820px

>>1694409
please let this happen

War is too costly, nowadays its all about covert operations and freedom fighters.

Apple, McDonalds and Coca Cola would lose money.

>>1694417
It'd be an interesting world to see, but I'm not sure it'd be an interesting world to live in.

>>1694431
Anything would be more interesting than the modern age. We live in an era defined by the consumption of media.

>>1694460
I suspect this may be a case of needing to be careful what you wish for. The return of war as a legitimate means for settling disputes between states isn't good for anyone - even if it seems more interesting or exciting than the way things currently are.

>>1694476
War strengthens national identity, creates industry, and veterans are eager to start families and work hard when they return. It would solve a lot of the problems facing the west. It would have to be coupled with major political changes though, either fascism or some other far-right take over.

>>1694387
People do realize the USA has seen worse than this without going to war?

>>1694519
Alt rightism is only kept together by the common enemy.

>>1694519
The things you listed are consequences that may come from war, not what will definitely come from war. "War creates industry" is a bit of a simplistic generalisation, it can also ruin economies - particularly when the wartime economy can't be easily repurposed post-conflict.
>>1694530
This guy is right, you need an enemy - the 'other'. The reason the left becomes dominant is because when you have 'others' that aren't 'enemies', nationalism and ideology premised on it tends to be eroded. I'm just not sure a system premised on constantly requiring an enemy is a good one.

Interesting conversation though.

>>1694530
>Alt rightism is only kept together by the common enemy.
The alt-right is only a trojan horse for right-wing politics to be taken seriously again. It will all be for nothing if Trump loses and if other European nations don't follow Brexit.