patrick.net

If Patrick.net runs out of bits!

Weakening of the US military.

When no one wants to mess with you, there is usually peace.

rogue nukes in the wrong hands

If history is any guide:
Disputes over whom owns land (I am using the Seven Years War/French and Indian war as a guide here)
Crowning yourself emperor of a major power, such as France.
Someone assassinating head of state
Rouge Dictator bent on revenge. (I doubt that any war that North Korea could start would become a world war).

BlueSardine says

rogue nukes in the wrong hands

Nukes in a crazy leader's hands.
But then they are all crazy?
It's going to be exciting when the first
nuke goes off.Of course no others would light the fuse
on any of their nukes.
I love to hear what the warmongers say about a strong military
when nuclear weapons can take most of us out.
What happens to the global economy when shtf?
Doesn't matter when we all glow in the dark.

HEY YOU says

BlueSardine says

rogue nukes in the wrong hands

Nukes in a crazy leader's hands.

But then they are all crazy?

They aren't so simmer down sparky.

Fucking White Male says

They aren't so simmer down sparky.

They aren't crazy,clever by being in the global big club &
laughing at those that put them in office.They are all getting paid
by SOCIALIST monies/taxes taken from the masses while so many struggle
& will benefit more? after leaving positions of power.

No spark will start a BIG war after the War to end all Wars.
The planet has been living in peace since WW2.
No conflict,fighting,death & destruction.
We be so civilized.

I'm not telling you every other options you fuckers explored has failed.

Using nukes is a heads I lose, tails we all lose proposition. Everyone knows this, even the crazies in Iran. Those fat bitter old priests know that their cushy jobs as well as their fourteen kids would be gone and dead if they ever used a nuclear weapon. They aren't gonna. They have too much to live for. Dying as a jihadi is for the extra young men who can be easily brainwashed.

911.
We are already in WW3. World vs Islam.

Strategist says

911.

We are already in WW3. World vs Islam.

Steve Bannon just "liked" this post.

That's why nukes in the hands of the religious that actually believe in the various "end of times" scenarios are the most dangerous.
What leaders qualify?
What religious nut wouldn't want to be the one to 'bring on the rapture'...

Quigley says

Using nukes is a heads I lose, tails we all lose proposition. Everyone knows this, even the crazies in Iran. Those fat bitter old priests know that their cushy jobs as well as their fourteen kids would be gone and dead if they ever used a nuclear weapon. They aren't gonna. They have too much to live for. Dying as a jihadi is for the extra young men who can be easily brainwashed.

Not to brainwashed terrorists seeking a 72 virgin pinata...

BlueSardine says

Using nukes is a heads I lose, tails we all lose proposition.

WWI: a little unique in that it was the first WW. Essentially nations were pretty naive and wanted a fight. They had been spoiling that way for at least 3+ years prior to the guns of August. Underpinnings were that Germany was expanding but being economically hemmed in, stifled, and controlled by UK and France. Germany saw the fight coming, and decided it would be the first to act, on its time table, to give it an edge over a Russia that was not fully on a war footing yet. Up until this time warfare was not the industrialized affair we know it today, so all nations were playing with something they didn't understand yet. There will never be quite such a reckless desire for conflict again, though we will 'forget' what it's really like, and that WILL be part of the story causing WWIII. (How many WWII vets are left alive now?)

WWII: After the allies punish the hell our Germany for WWI, Germany relights the flame of nationalism in the fertile soils of horrible economic conditions. It's round two of WWI in many ways. Japan's fierce nationalism and imperialist streak sees an opportunity to flex her muscles as well.

WWIII: will come tinged with a cold war trigger, and will be started by a nation state seeking to conquer and grow because of economic hardship or expansionist tendencies. That nation will be steeped in an overwhelming sense of nationalism, and that nationalism will have grown from an economic plight. There will likely be an "us versus them" narrative that is born from a fear to anger, anger to a hate, as a pathway. Sharp lines in the aggressor country will be drawn against those "different" people, and they will be seen as part of the economic burden, though in actuality they will not be.

So, look for a country in a recession/depression, that has a fierce streak of nationalism, and starts to foment a story about how "it deserves" or "it is better than". That will be your precipitator of WWIII. Other nations that move in on different sides will have these things, to lesser degrees, but they will pull them into the conflict.

Crystal Ball Read:
My money right now is on ... yes ... Russia. When things get worse for world economics, she is in the right spot: has been struggling with radical islamic terrorism for far longer than the West, will be severely damaged by collapse of world trade, doesn't have enough domestic capacity to support her population, and finally has one of the most vehement nationalist streaks of all nations right now. What will she come take? Slowly, she will reach back into Eastern Europe ... until a miscalculation puts her at odds with ... Germany.

China licks her lips on the side, and tries to make use of a navy she has built up as the sides are drawn up. US is drawn into conflict.

(EDIT: What I also like about Russia and China being aggressors is they have very good National Mythos stories they can tell their respective populations about reclaiming former historic glories. You want to mobilize a country to war? Tell them they have historically been amazing and that right now "x, y, z" is against them and to go defeat that to regain their place in the world. All the major world wars have that specific component in their nationalism running in them too.)

Timeline for events above to unfold ... 3-4 years. Until then, the world continues to have sluggish "growth" to the top percents, combined with deepening anger and divisive rifts within countries themselves as economics drive up nationalism and hate. China continues its path toward gearing for expansion and dominance.

Who wins? I don't know!

To address "Hey You" and the OP article : my take is that that's regional sectarian violence, and it's a fire that has been burning for a long while. There isn't the fuel build up, spark, explosion type paradigm you need for a world war there.

If anything, I have a tiny bit of hope. Though Iran is coming out pointing fingers, this may actually line up KSA, Israel, and Iran ... all fighting IS ... well, I can dream anyway. ;)

(Also, did anyone catch Trump's reaction and statements. Amazing that he shows more statecraft, compassion, and diplomacy here toward Iran than toward the UK/Manchester bombing.)

Strategist says

We are already in WW3. World vs Islam.

It's not a war if you welcome them with open arms.

I'm probably a little too fast on my timeline guess. Let's give it 6 or more years.

When Russia or China annex territory with little reaction from weakened Western nations you can count that as being on the road to my predictions. Need a few unchallenged grabs at things for them to be emboldened and miss-step.

Trump grabbing Putin's pussy.

Blurtman says

Trump grabbing Putin's pussy.

I think you got the bottom and top reversed there Blurtman. Trump ain't pitching.

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

We are already in WW3. World vs Islam.

It's not a war if you welcome them with open arms.

We are not smart enough to know who the real enemy is. That's the problem.

Strategist says

We are not smart enough to know who the real enemy is. That's the problem.

You and I both very much agree, on the sentiment at least.

Rew says

Strategist says

We are not smart enough to know who the real enemy is. That's the problem.

You and I both very much agree, on the sentiment at least.

he he he. Trust you to come up with something like that.

Strategist says

he he he. Trust you to come up with something like that.

It all depends on how big a threat you think current Western Liberal Democratic weakness is versus the threat of terrorism. I'm far more afraid of what a weakened America, stepping away from global stabilization role, is doing versus IS on the ropes now so bad they have to poke at Iran.

Hiking in the wilderness you cannot defend against all bee stings and mosquito bites. You bet your ass you can protect yourself from a bear though.

And maybe most telling, your and my different beliefs are FAR and away more damaging than ISIS ever will be to America, overall.

Rew says

I'm far more afraid of what a weakened America, stepping away from global stabilization role, is doing versus IS on the ropes now so bad they have to poke at Iran.

Hiking in the wilderness you cannot defend against all bee stings and mosquito bites. You bet your ass you can protect yourself from a bear though.

We don't want to be the policeman of the world for ever.
ISIS going after Iran may not be that bad. Unlike the Yazidis, Iran has the capacity to confront them. I think ISIS in Iran was planned by Saudi, with Trump's tacit approval.

Rew says

And maybe most telling, your and my different beliefs are You and I both very much agree, on the sentiment at least., overall.

No Rew, no. YOUR beliefs are FAR and away more damaging than ISIS ever will be to America, overall.

Strategist says

I think ISIS in Iran was planned by Saudi, with Trump's tacit approval.

I would love Trump to tell the American people he is leading ISIS against foreign states. (face-palm) I can see the headline now: "Not founded by Obama, but actually led by Trump"

Strategist says

We don't want to be the policeman of the world for ever.

Stop policing. Start coalition building. We are freaking leaving allies in the crosshairs of imminent threat. We are endangering foreign allied intelligence assets by being braggarts!

Strategist says

No Rew, no. YOUR beliefs are FAR and away more damaging than ISIS ever will be to America, overall.

If that's so, you best be firing some ranking military officials right quickly! America is in graver danger than you know.

(Edit: to the above about differing beliefs, incase it wasn't clear, I was saying the divisiveness in Western democracies is the most damaging thing: a-la the fact that you and I disagree: that is the issue itself.)

Rew says

Strategist says

I think ISIS in Iran was planned by Saudi, with Trump's tacit approval.

I would love Trump to tell the American people he is leading ISIS against foreign states. (face-palm) I can see the headline now: "Not founded by Obama, but actually led by Trump"

The Saudis are encouraging ISIS to attack Iran in retaliation for Iran getting terrorists to attack Saudi. Getting one terrorist country to attack another terrorist country with arms purchased from us is an absolutely brilliant plan by Trump.

Rew says

Strategist says

We don't want to be the policeman of the world for ever.

Stop policing. Start coalition building.

We just did that with the Arabs, didn't we? Long live the coalition. May the terrorists destroy each other quickly, so that we may be safe.

1) Donald Trump is murdered while in office
2) Muslims pull off major terror attack on China or Russia
3) Leftists pull their heads out of ass and recognize Islam in its current state as is most pressing problem of our time, somehow finds gumption to do the right thing...