I wish to propose a set of theories.
#1:
Brilliant, cunning minds inevitably rise to the top of any organizational hierarchy that is subject to natural selection.
Most of the governments of the world, and, inherently, any government where technology, the media, etc presents
a significant proof-of-work burden to leadership, are directed by individuals who are quite brilliant. Nevermind the
people we see on TV. Many of their decisions can easily be seen as not to have come from them, but from others.
Therefore- We must assume that most of the world is directed by competent leaders who will not go to war unless it is necessary.
There is no risk of nuclear war between any of the superstates, despite the sizable stockpile. Those weapons are comparable to
the spear collection of a mighty chieftain. There is only a risk of war in chaotic areas or between nations conflicting for resources.
#2:
Ukranian situation is misunderstood. If we assume that the reports by defecting spies from the former soviet union
are true, then the "democratization" of russia, as described in novellas, with many of the predictions having come true,
is a fictional effort to lul the west into a state of complacency(something which hasn't happened), then the Ukraine is still
part of Russia proper and Russia is merely activating invisible networks of influence, sweeping over resistance with military force,
and re-establishing territorial dominion, both as a training exercise for their forces and a demonstration of their capabilities to the west.
So it can really be chalked off the list of international conflicts. It's within Russia proper and even a Western presence means nothing.
Russia, a LAND power, with hundreds of years of experience in LAND wars, is not threatened by Western forces in Europe/Ukraine.
For the US and others to need to have a presence is simply a sign to Russia that they continue to represent a respectable enemy.
#3:
With regards to the Syrian(High leadership)+Lebanon(hezbollah) + Iran triad vs the Sunni commonwealth as regards the Iraq Question,
There is chronic instability produced by ideological differences over a thousand years old, instigated by acute Israeli and Western influence.
There is ZERO risk of this conflict leaking out and causing a chain reaction that creates worldwide conflict, as no nations which are
involved in this hinterland game of musical chairs consider peace or victory solely for peace or victory's sake a valuable outcome.
The west is only interested in continuing the chaos, and the other superstates are only marginally involved to extend their power projection.
So we can chalk this off too.
#4:
China has zero respect for NK, but won't allow an invasion to happen right next door to their borders. That would be enmasculating
to Chinese power projection. This won't happen, due to theory #1. However, the US could use air, naval,
and land forces on the far side of the DMZ to support and finance war by SK on NK. If this happens, China could make a repeat of
Vietnam and finance/equip NK to parity and create a stalemate. This seems quite likely as China wants to test her boundaries,
test her advances in warfighting technology against the US's advances, and spend military budget vis-a-vis 1984.
NK is a highly unstable third world country run by an emotionally charged sociopathic midget. They honestly believe in their capability
to challenge and threaten superstates globally. They have recruited talent and a large fiscal reserve, and as demonstrated in previous
economic statistics posts made by me, are in a quite healthy state for war.
My hypothesis - The only likely destabilizing(globally) event presently possible is that NK will launch an attack on the US.
This scenario isn't likely to persist, nations rise and fall all the time. I give it 5 years before some other nation is being threatened.
#1:
Brilliant, cunning minds inevitably rise to the top of any organizational hierarchy that is subject to natural selection.
Most of the governments of the world, and, inherently, any government where technology, the media, etc presents
a significant proof-of-work burden to leadership, are directed by individuals who are quite brilliant. Nevermind the
people we see on TV. Many of their decisions can easily be seen as not to have come from them, but from others.
Therefore- We must assume that most of the world is directed by competent leaders who will not go to war unless it is necessary.
There is no risk of nuclear war between any of the superstates, despite the sizable stockpile. Those weapons are comparable to
the spear collection of a mighty chieftain. There is only a risk of war in chaotic areas or between nations conflicting for resources.
#2:
Ukranian situation is misunderstood. If we assume that the reports by defecting spies from the former soviet union
are true, then the "democratization" of russia, as described in novellas, with many of the predictions having come true,
is a fictional effort to lul the west into a state of complacency(something which hasn't happened), then the Ukraine is still
part of Russia proper and Russia is merely activating invisible networks of influence, sweeping over resistance with military force,
and re-establishing territorial dominion, both as a training exercise for their forces and a demonstration of their capabilities to the west.
So it can really be chalked off the list of international conflicts. It's within Russia proper and even a Western presence means nothing.
Russia, a LAND power, with hundreds of years of experience in LAND wars, is not threatened by Western forces in Europe/Ukraine.
For the US and others to need to have a presence is simply a sign to Russia that they continue to represent a respectable enemy.
#3:
With regards to the Syrian(High leadership)+Lebanon(hezbollah) + Iran triad vs the Sunni commonwealth as regards the Iraq Question,
There is chronic instability produced by ideological differences over a thousand years old, instigated by acute Israeli and Western influence.
There is ZERO risk of this conflict leaking out and causing a chain reaction that creates worldwide conflict, as no nations which are
involved in this hinterland game of musical chairs consider peace or victory solely for peace or victory's sake a valuable outcome.
The west is only interested in continuing the chaos, and the other superstates are only marginally involved to extend their power projection.
So we can chalk this off too.
#4:
China has zero respect for NK, but won't allow an invasion to happen right next door to their borders. That would be enmasculating
to Chinese power projection. This won't happen, due to theory #1. However, the US could use air, naval,
and land forces on the far side of the DMZ to support and finance war by SK on NK. If this happens, China could make a repeat of
Vietnam and finance/equip NK to parity and create a stalemate. This seems quite likely as China wants to test her boundaries,
test her advances in warfighting technology against the US's advances, and spend military budget vis-a-vis 1984.
NK is a highly unstable third world country run by an emotionally charged sociopathic midget. They honestly believe in their capability
to challenge and threaten superstates globally. They have recruited talent and a large fiscal reserve, and as demonstrated in previous
economic statistics posts made by me, are in a quite healthy state for war.
My hypothesis - The only likely destabilizing(globally) event presently possible is that NK will launch an attack on the US.
This scenario isn't likely to persist, nations rise and fall all the time. I give it 5 years before some other nation is being threatened.