Why is it unlikely for two countries to go to war anymore? Is it really that bad?

there is a lot of reasons

one of the biggest is the large scale globalization that we currently live in. we are connected as a globe more so than ever before. from internet, to language barriers, to travel, trade routes, work outscourcing, etc.

Say it again

Attached: Screenshot_20180503-100304.png (1280x720, 651K)

wars make money for the 'helping' countries.
cold war is basically back on with china and usa atm. no were not as bad thou.

Alliances and nukes
You pants a lil faggot looking country, its big brothers will fuck you up big time
Which will inevitably end up having your big brothers joining in and next thing you know life on earth is obliterated

alright so what if the seaniggers REEEEEEE'd and attacked china first? what's stopping them from grouping up and taking on china?

what would go out first you reckon in a world war with no nukes?

air travel or internet?

Let's say hypothetically, 2 countries started a war with each other. Other countries butt in to stop it, but then it brings up the bad blood between other countries, and it all turns into an all out war

lol are you quoting that Rush hour/small soldiers song?

probably air travel

Attached: 1418219120.jpg (2112x1614, 142K)

it wouldnt even be possible between 2 globalized countries nowadays. like if japan and the usa went to war? i literally cant imagine what would happen

would we get our nintendos taken away? can we still watch anime? do the weebs have to come back to the usa?

Attached: 8458612788.jpg (1014x1670, 116K)

does anyone remember that song from moving targets?

Attached: 2000.jpg (480x360, 45K)

I was referencing to this
m.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk
Reread the other user’s post
Pretty sure i’m right on the money

sounds like the german/poland war 1939.
things get complicated every quickly.

ww2 seems easy to understand.
germans attacked poland in spet 1st 1939

but 4 years before, france signed a pack with the ussr to attack germany in the event of war.

poland even asked france to attack germany in 1937 - about 20 people died in "border actions"
france didn't attack then, just poland.

in this case, i bet germany felt like piggy in the middle.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Soviet_Treaty_of_Mutual_Assistance

yeah that's the song. i've heard it battlefield vietnam, eddsworld, and like you said, rush hour

user, Anime is banned. it helps the japs!
they're trying to brainwash you.
send him to the camp.

well there's no chance war between nuclear-armed major countries would happen, because it wouldn't end in anything besides total annihilation.

smallers countries with strong alliances to the nuclear powers where there's defense agreements... same reason

3rd world shitholes still go to war all the time, usually as proxy wars for the big boys who can't fight eachother for the above reason

Right, so it basically boils down to mutually assured destruction, alliances, and treaties prohibiting it? Guess we arent going to see WW3 anytime soon

Attached: 1539541096108.jpg (464x404, 55K)

pretty much this.

nukes are pretty much saving lives.
lets hope we don't have to pay for it with interest.

MAD isn't it?

India vs Pakistan might want a word with you.

if they weren't nuclear armed it would have been war, instead of minor skirmishes in kashmir. they're not at war.

Attached: goddamnit carlos.jpg (216x200, 10K)

...

Go fuck your self faggot, still better than all the gay ass faggot threads omnipresent at all time of the day on here

Yea Forums is a porn thread btw

more money to be made in not. i mean if biological weapons weren't in such a bad light people would be dropping by the millions so some one else can take their resources and infrastructure. war in the conventional sense is simply too destructive and the people that run the world have to much invested to see it blown to shit. why do you think they created a virtual one?

>thread
lurk moar

With jews on our side, war is easy

War is what happens when the perceived potential gains of aggression outweigh the perceived potential losses.

World War 1: The losses were thought to be minimal, because everyone thought they had secret alliances, chemical weapons, new tech, etc. They didn't realize that everyone ELSE also had secret alliances, chemical weapons, new tech. The potential gains was CONTROL OVER THE ENTIRE POST-INDUSTRIAL WORLD.

The inverse was true for World War 2. The German economy was trashed after WW1. A god awful system was created to manage their country into the ground while being burdened with impossible debt. With LITERALLY NOTHING LEFT TO LOSE, Germany rallied behind someone who told them they had everything to gain, and started that war.

Since then, two things have happened:

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (There is EVERYTHING TO LOSE, all the time.)

And

The viability of net gains through international trade.

Prior to the Cold War, international trade and communication lines were insufficient to really draw out the benefits of cross-border opportunity costs. Suddenly, both communication and transportation got significantly better and cheaper, meaning that those minor gains from buying blue cheese from Europe of Lamb from New Zealand became hugely beneficial for both parties involved -- new markets for sellers, new products for buyers, and instead of square peg into round hole style manufacturing and skilled labor, countries could finally focus on doing what they're good at.

Now that entire system can collapse if war were declared. Even if the world didn't end, the potential benefit of war between the USA and China is virtually zero. The loss of trade for both countries alone would far exceed any potential gains. Plus we'd nuke each other into the ground anyway.

Now, every war is a proxy war, and the world going forward will be decided by those who have locked in that ability of mutual destruction.

Unless you can steal it. See: NK and Iran.

Attached: rhinos.png (712x589, 625K)

As a follow up: It is incredibly fortunate that the USA nuked Japan when it did. It's a terrible fucking thing, but it happened at the best moment.

If the war had happened 20 years later, EVERYONE would have had nukes, and the world would have ended. Period.

If the war had happened 20 years earlier, NO ONE would have nukes, and nobody would be scared enough to prevent them from using them once they became super pervasive.. meaning the next war would have been game over.

Because it happened at precisely the time that ONE power had access to that tech, a message was delivered. Not to Japan -- though they got the message first -- but to the entire world.

Don't use nukes.

Attached: 89684.gif (240x240, 310K)

based

Would you happen to have a source user?

/thread

Also democracy. People don't generally like to be shipped off to war, so as long as people have some say in what happens, they'll usually choose not to do it.

But that's a story for another time.

Do I have a source? I graduated 3.9 with a bachelors in International Relations. I paid attention in class.

If you are also trying to do the college thing, that's basically the theory of classical realism. It's the thing that drove the world's conflict up until the cold war.

Since then, there are other types of conflict and determining factors. See: The Copenhagen School of International Relations. Primarily the work of Barry Buzan.

Secondary to that, check out the work by Johan Galtung

twitter.com/JohanGaltung

He's the leading man on the concept of nonviolent conflict, which most things fall into lately.

Thanks for coming to my fucking ted talk.

Attached: 70-Weepinbell.png (300x228, 42K)

First to the Soviets

Civil wars in the West, caused by kike subversion, are the next big thing.

Duly noted user

>thousands of deaths
>mayhem
"IS IT REALLY THAT BAD"

imagine wanting war

>imagine not wanting warcrimes