EDIT: For clarification, I feel that the current situation on the ground in the war (vs. say a year ago) might indicate that an attack on Russia might not result in instant nuclear war, which is what prompted my question. I am well aware of the “instant nuclear Armageddon” opinion.

Serious question. I don’t need to be called stupid. I realize nuclear war is bad. Thanks!

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    Assuming no one nukes the world or that all air defenses work, it’d be a mess. There’s no force in human history that can stop NATO in a traditional war. (Maybe the Mongols because they’re always the exception.) But it’s very likely China, North Korea, Iran, and others would be much harder to conquer/occupy at the same time.

    It would be widespread suffering in most of the world. The truth is that war is obsolete as a means of accomplishing 99% of political goals. Most of the world would descend into chaos and civil war. Food would be scarce and in times of scarcity, the drunkest, most violent people usually end up in charge. You’d have warlordism in the vast, vast majority of the world.

    The natural state of humanity isn’t trade and property rights. It’s warlords offering protection in exchange for whatever they need. No one “wins” wars in 2024. Groups like ISIS would thrive, not law and order.

    • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Easy way to kill a country: Disrupt the critical infrastructure at multiple points.
      Just imagine how crippled we are without AWS, Azure, Cloudflare and Gcloud. Kill electricity, damage water supplies and destroy medication supply and the chaos is perfect.

      • iamtrashman1312@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, I don’t think we’ve had a real “natural state” since we discovered agriculture. Our whole thing is kinda setting ourselves above/apart from nature

      • credit crazy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Like I mean after Rome fell the kingdoms that arose were pretty warmongering picking fights with other kingdoms for mearly having a different religion and even when Rome was a thing capital punishment was pretty common and brutal and Rome was a super power for being military strong nations only really started to be widely civil to one another by id say 1880 somewhere in the late 1800s leaving about 1,850 years of constant wars between all nations

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Wait I’m confused. Why would a NATO invasion of Russia destroy the rest of the world? Sure, Russia would be fukd. And if China tried to defend Russia for some insane reason, it would be one heck of a war. But not “entire world falls into anarchy and chaos” levels, that’s absurd.

      • Somethingcheezie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I think the assumption is China would join in with defending Russia for fear that it would be next and alone. I’ll edit this and add Iran to the assumption that they don’t want to be next and alone either.

        China clearing wants more resources and land. China has historical ambitions in Taiwan. China has historical grievances with Japan.