this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
898 points (96.0% liked)

Political Memes

5483 readers
2543 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I do not see any world wars happening anytime soon either, given a somewhat rational (read non-suicidal) leadership of key nations. The original comment you responded to said that none would survive a nuclear total war, to which you replied that there have been wars fought in the nuclear age. This is true, even to the point of proxy wars between nuclear powers. However, they are not world wars, for which I think the original comment's argument holds true. In effect the idea is that a world war would almost by definition have some nuclear power on either side.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If a world war can only exist between nuclear powers then does the first one (and most of the second) not count?

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No, but a conflict pretty much has to include major powers to escalate to a world war and the major powers coincide with the nuclear powers either directly or peripherally. I get the sense that you are arguing in bad faith here.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It can involve the nuclear powers without them being in direct, overt conflict with each other. I'm not arguing in bad faith; I genuinely believe that your definition of "World War" is remarkably narrow and I feel I've been pretty consistent about trying to lay out my reasoning for that.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Proxy wars historically have never constituted world wars by any account.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Neither has it's participants' nuclear capable status.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, that is vacuously true. If it stops being so, recorded history will end.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If all the nuclear powers aligned against all the non-nuclear states and waged a war of extermination against them, that would, by your terms, not qualify as a "World War".

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago