(this was a rant posted in response to somebody pondering a nuclear holocaust)

a concept developed out of the 60s, called mutually assured destruction, pointed out that any future large scale war would be against the interests of virtually everybody. if you accept the idea that war is economic, it follows that that kind of war isn't likely.

the one caveat to that is the idea of population control, particularly in the developing world, but climate change may make that unnecessary.

in short, i don't think there's a serious threat of anything blowing out of proportion. obama buckling to russian pressure on syria just enforces that point. that doesn't mean people shouldn't take the idea seriously; specifically, it doesn't mean that "decision makers" shouldn't behave as though the threat is real. it just means realizing that we're actually not that stupid.

again, the way that that analysis could be flawed is the threat of extremist movements, which could be religious or political - anything ideological. just groups that actually are that stupid. looking at the world, the greatest threat is religious. the americans have pakistan under control, but india is persistently on the brink of hindu extremism. the jews are currently actually pretty prudent but there's a sector of their ruling class that is very frightening. and the saudis are flat out insane.

there's also the republican right in the united states, but they're subservient to the military-industrial complex. the americans can't be too destructive because it would be bad for business. it's a balancing act between ensuring the flow of profits and cutting them off entirely.

i think it's worth cautiously acknowledging that the political situation in russia is somewhat fragile and that, despite western perceptions to the contrary, the most likely successor to putin - at this point - exists on the hard, pro-nationalist right. putin is reacting to populist forces that are further right than him in an attempt to maintain power, not pushing right-wing policies out of his own desire. if elections in russia lead to a shift to a fascist government, the whole calculus of power in asia changes. conflict instantly develops with china, to begin with. that's a wild card, but it's a threat at the moment rather than a reality.

china's expanding nationalism looks scary, but it's hard to see how anything can break in the region, except by accident. it's more just an excuse to build arms. again: it's scary, and if anybody fucks up it could be lethal. but even if such a flare-up did accidentally happen, it's hard to see why it wouldn't be glossed over quickly. well...there might be a proxy war in southeast asia. vietnam II.

the series of proxy wars that we're fighting right now in the middle east and africa - which is between nato, israel, japan (and allies) and the gulf monarchies on one side and iran, russia and china on the other, with india and south america wavering as neutral - is the closest thing to a world war that we're likely to see any time soon. which isn't to say it isn't a world war, so much as to point out that it's been the state of normalcy for roughly 70 years.

this explains the world war that currently is being fought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

...but it's just an extension of the cold war. and the same basic ideas of MAD apply, even when extrapolated to missile defense.

btw, for those that are all like "that's old news, it died with bush", behold:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_a_New_American_Security

(i put the see also link in wiki. no comment on other wiki entries i've written :P)

and, creepier, the "new american" thing seems to come from a periodical by these fuckers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

 ....which is to say that the americans are still trapped in the cold war.

except the cold war is older than the cold war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance

this is apparently the actual source of anglo-russian hostilities, driven by the russian tzar being sneaky and the british developing a distrust of dealing with russian officials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Russian_War_%281807%E2%80%9312%29

yeah. that source doesn't discuss it. but apparently the tsar signed a secret agreement with napoleon that was uncovered by british intelligence, and the british have refused to trust them (except when they had to, like in wwii) ever since.

"Alexander agreed to join Napoleon's Continental Blockade against Great Britain, and in a secret addition to the treaty, Europe were divided into an eastern and a western part, the eastern Russian part including Sweden. Europe was thereby and in this way, divided between the two great empires."

^ that, there:
http://www.multi.fi/~goranfri/bioalexander.html