this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
27 points (78.7% liked)

Asklemmy

44611 readers
895 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_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I want to hear you reasons, why do you think that.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, we are not headed for WW3.

The military-industrial complex must be fed, our weapons sold or used. But, a large magnitude hot war has far more social and economic risk and not enough return on investment relative the alternative of multiple proxy wars. We've currently proxy wars in Israel and Ukraine. Economic growth is optimized by beginning a proxy war with China.

If Trump was smart then he might internally convince others in his administration to diplomatically and operationally over-commit. Then we could have WW3. But, he's a puppet ruling by fear. We've been fighting our proxy wars since Reagan. Trump isn't capable of overcoming capitalism's mandate for optimized growth.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Economic growth is optimized by beginning a proxy war with China.

But where? Taiwan seems the obvious candidate. Not sure if that would really lead to (quaterly) economic growth though.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Not sure if that would really lead to (quaterly) economic growth though.

Regarding war and money, the question often isn't who's positioned to gain the most, instead who's positioned to lose the least. We often don't measure self against history and reason, instead relative our competitors.

Taiwan seems the obvious candidate.

The US has already manufactured consent to have a proxy war with China. I assume we've not done it in Taiwan because we'd lose more on trade than we'd gain consuming weapons, perhaps also because China could absorb the loss of Taiwan as a trade partner better than the US.

But where?

To be determined. We're ready and waiting for an opportunity to present itself.