Read on Twitter
Halfway serious about this:
I don’t think it’s likely that we’re headed to a World War 3 that comes with a big (nuclear) bang. It’s more likely that we could see a cascading series and coincidence of wars in different parts of the world (rather world wars than a World War).
I don’t think it’s likely that we’re headed to a World War 3 that comes with a big (nuclear) bang. It’s more likely that we could see a cascading series and coincidence of wars in different parts of the world (rather world wars than a World War).
The effect would be, as we already see now: difficulty to focus attention and resources when too many things are happening at the same time.
Much will depend on the US ability to contain this development in the parts of the world where it has extended deterrence obligations.
Much will depend on the US ability to contain this development in the parts of the world where it has extended deterrence obligations.
And that ability, in turn, will depend on the political trajectory in the US, i.e. whether the commitment holds to stick to treaty obligations and other commitments to allies and partners. (See Trump 2.0)
The problem with this potential trajectory of cascading “world wars” is that it likely requires a different containment strategy than one big World War 3 would. Hesitance in countering one adversary (out of fear of WW3) can rather embolden others, hence leading to the world wars.
It’s understandable why many Western leaders, due to their socialisation in the Cold War, still think of one big WW3 as the worst case scenario. But unfortunately, we need to be more creative what comes to possible worst cases, and think outside the old frameworks.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
