Soundwave said:
DrDoomz said:
History is a collective wisdom available to each succeeding generation. Technological advancement has made information widespread and available. There are many wrong notions we have managed to leave behind. Slavery is one such example. You don't have to have faith that humans grow and get better from lessons learned in the past. It is visibly evident.
You mean the same nationalism that lets us believe that we should be on top and no one else should come close? Yeah, I agree.
And wars are also fought when one nation dominates the rest to expand its territory. Wars are fought when there are many smaller powers fighting over who can be on top. Maybe its not the number of dominant powers that's the cause here, don't you think?
As with in economies: Larger companies will always want more power/wealth. Smaller companies will try to eke out what they can but will fight to get whatever it can. Competing companies who want a piece of what the market leader's got will find ways to chip at the market leader's dominance. The threat of competition keeps the market leader learning and improving its technology and offerings. It is good for the market. So no, I don't share your "trust us, we are the only world power you want to absolutely dominate the world" belief.
You're right. ISIl is a tiny insignificant problem that any real army can wipe out in a weekend. Yet here they still are claiming responsibility for killing first world citizens left and right. Maybe the outroar should be on why they're still there and not on Russia who didn't even claim responsibility for hacking and releasing information that may not even have been relevant in maybe determining the outcome of an election.
|
Our ability to avoid wars is not visibily evident though. On top of our usual bullshit and random killing we've had two full blown World Wars and a third nuclear World War was only avoided really by luck. That's basically three World Wars in a period of 50 years. How many times do you have to bang your head against a wall before you realize it's not such a good idea? Several times apparently in our case.
Yes you will still have wars with only one superpower, but the casualities and death tolls are miniscule compared to full blown conflicts between "evenly matched" nation states. The Iraq War, which was awful had somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million casualities, World War II had over 60-80 million casualities and it likely would have been triple or quadraple that if they had today's more modern weapons (even putting nukes to the side).
|
The fact that we actually did avoid a third world war (even if it was just by luck as you say) seems to prove you wrong.
WW2 wasn't 2 evenly matched Superpowers. More like several powers jockeying for top position (instigated by one). With the US and Russia coming out on top. So how do you figure the 2 power scenario being an inevitable cause for war?
