Will the inevitable WW3 finally bring meaning to your life?

If by meaning you mean watching live leak videos of normies getting slaughtered in siberia, yes.

>>34130957
It will mean the end of my life as I die in the first salvos of the nuclear apocalypse.

Aren't we gonna be fighting Chang and not Ivan

The world will never see another war on the scale of WW2.

The global economy is simply too integrated, globalization has brought us all together and while it may suck having to deal with the physical and virtual presence of outsiders, it's profitable as fuck for the 1%.

The future of warfare is little wars the general public won't even hear about - namely, counterinsurgency operations. The average American couldn't tell you half the countries his military is operating in (and that's not even including secret black ops shit) on the basis of "counterinsurgency". And yet nobody protests because we simply don't hear about it.

The US military at the moment could EASILY btfw any other military in the world, no fucking question. That's not just american jingoism, it's just a fact. No actual nation could stand against it, terrorist insurgents can only "fight" indirectly, through bombings and public shootings.

Face it, good old fashioned war is dead. We won't even get a Vietnam

>>34130957
Hopefully I will be instantly killed

>>34130957
To be honest hopefully, I was meant to be cannonfodder to die in war l. These peacetimes have left such human waste as myself leftover. I past times I would have been killed in some kind of conflict, but now I just linger feeling like I dont really belong. I think about dying for something meaningful every day, but its not possible nowadays ive become too soft to join the army. Having such peace is a mistake, it's a crime against nature.

>>34130957
I'm a spic in a third world country at the end of the world that no one gives a fuck about.

WW3 will be covered by the news once. then back with our regular schedule of news like little billy who fell on the well, and then the weather. good night Shithole!

>>34131124
its true, even if there is a "WW3" it would be a shadow war fought through proxies

File: 1483974683481.png (210KB, 658x545px)

210KB, 658x545px

wil the ww3w cure my autisims?

>>34131124
Actually we can very easily see a war matching the death toll of ww2. Simply by having China and the US in conflict we could see a larger death toll. The globalism only reduces the number of nations involved. So in a way we could see another war on the scale of ww2.

The future of warfare is changing with technology. As soon as we have a viable way to prevent nuclear strikes the world returns to its old ways of disagreements and alliances ending in conflict. I don't doubt there will be smaller wars and the current trend of proxy wars but the main thing that leads to this is the risk of nuclear conflict. Any other non-nuclear power is fair game for the large powers that be.

The US military would have a hard time taking on China simply because if they actually invest more in weapons they could btfo anyone else in the world. They are actually working on modernizing their military as we speak. Their economy is doing very well and the increase in weapons research is a reflection of that. In 20 or 30 years they could have the most dangerous military in the world.

Old fashioned war has only taken a temporary vacation.