this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2025
67 points (74.8% liked)

Asklemmy

44413 readers
1330 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't know if I'm going crazy but looking at the current situation in the world ... please tell me that I'm overexagurating

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Many will say that World War Three cannot happen, that nuclear weapons will prevent it. However, this assumes that World War Three has to be global thermonuclear war, rather than some repeat of the previous world wars.

Cities don't have to be leveled for nations to fight a world war. The US fought two world wars, and we never had our cities and infrastructure decimated. What I can imagine is a future world war where all the major players fight the war in the same way the US fought the two previous wars. Both sides contribute massive resources, adopt wartime economies, throw their whole populations behind the effort etc, but at no point do the various combatants directly attack the main territory and population centers of the other side. You could have a conflict where both sides lost millions of troops fighting it out in some third party territory, but the nukes never fly as all sides realize that invading the home territory of the others is suicide.

[โ€“] meowMix2525@lemm.ee -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Proxy wars. You just described proxy wars. Ukraine is one of them.

[โ€“] guy@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The war in Ukraine in absolutely not a proxy war. Also, that description is neither of proxy war since the whole point of them is to not engage your own troops.

[โ€“] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Fair enough on the description part but Ukraine is absolutely a proxy war on the US end of it.

[โ€“] guy@piefed.social 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

How so? The US is supporting Ukraine in the same fashion as the rest of Europe and other parts of the world. They are hardly engaged in a proxy war against Russia?

I believe a big difference is also that the US offered evacuation in the beginning of the war, but lent help instead when it became clear that the Ukranians wanted to defend themselves