Comment on We already passed 1984's prediction of the future: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever"

<- View Parent
AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

I suppose I didn’t think about the distance, but in the past I don’t think that’s been much of an issue. WWII seems to be a good example of war literally right outside the countries involved. The isolation of the US actually seemed to discourage involvement rather than encourage it.

Now I’d imagine the immediate aftermath of the collapse would slow conflicts for a time. However, I think the collapse of the US would increase the already increasing desire for weapons production in Europe and with “defense companies” in the US dissolving, the manpower would head wherever there is pay for weapons. (Or it would stay in the US forming terrifying little weapons manufacturer feudalist states still making weapons for wars across the sea… I shouldn’t give the universe any ideas…)

I also think the collapse of the US will fuel the already growing right wing movements in other countries as Nationalism and “protecting our country from the enemy” will become even stronger pathos in the wake of fear and insecurity caused by the upset in world order.

On your note of locality, Ive just had an interesting thought: Maybe the most effective way to end war in the east would be to have multiple simultaneous armed conflicts happen nearer to every nation. If you are dealing with a war on the home front, it is unlikely you’ll be willing to spend resources far away. And people who have seen the ravages of war first hand are probably not going to want to start new ones once the fighting finally stops. Kind of like forest fires doing less damage if they burn through a forest quickly, the world explodes with war and for once actually tires itself out.

source
Sort:hotnewtop