Politics Are we sleepwalking to World War III?

Remove this Banner Ad

"Australia is plunging headlong into catastrophe and we are utterly unprepared. In fact, we may be past the time when we can prepare.

The time-bomb is ticking and it will explode in our lifetimes.

All certainty will be lost, our economy will be devastated, our land seized, our system of government upended.

This isn't mere idle speculation or the rantings of a doomsday cult, this is the warning from a man who has made it his life's work to prepare for just this scenario.

Admiral Chris Barrie was chief of Australia's Defence Force between 1998 and 2002.

He has seen war and sent troops into battle.

Now, he says we are sleepwalking towards a conflict that will alter the world as we know it.

Australia, he says, will be invaded. He fears for the country his grandchildren will inherit."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-14/sleepwalking-to-world-war-three-stan-grant/8710390
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #2
Print Email Facebook Twitter More
Are we sleepwalking to World War III?
ANALYSIS
The Link
By Stan Grant
Updated earlier today at 8:02am

PHOTO: Is Australia fully prepared for a 21st Century conflict? (Australian Defence Force)
MAP: AustraliaPHOTO: Admiral (ret.) Chris Barrie says a misunderstanding or miscalculation could tip the region over the edge. (ABC News)


Admiral Barrie delivered his warning to me over a Korean barbeque meal in Western Sydney.

I was interviewing him for The Link to get his assessment of the North Korean nuclear threat, but his fears expand far beyond the hermit kingdom.

Over kimchi and slices of beef, Admiral Barrie guided me through our region's many tripwires.

A miscalculation or misunderstanding, he said, could tip us over the edge, countries would be backed into corners and we have no way right now of talking our way out.

This is a warning that comes from our past, and if unheeded, will shatter our future.

"History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme."

That quote is often attributed to the great American writer Mark Twain, but its sentiment speaks to us through the ages.

History can appear as inevitable even as we fail to see it.

The French diplomat and political scientist, Alexis de Tocqueville, said of the French Revolution:

"Never was any such event, stemming from factors so far back in the past, so inevitable and yet so completely unseen."

In a new century, simmering tensions and geo-strategic alliances would tip the world into all-out war.

Historian Christopher Clarke's book Sleepwalkers reveals how the assassination of Habsburg heir, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, on June 28 1914 in Sarajevo triggered a domino effect that pitted the reining global power Britain against the rising Germany.

The world thought it couldn't happen — Germany and Britain were each other's single biggest trading partners; the royal families were blood relatives — yet it did.

How? Clark says political leaders become hostage to events.

"Causes trawled from the length and breadth of Europe's pre-war decades are piled like weights on the scale until it tilts from probability to inevitability," he wrote.

Admiral Chris Barrie says he has been reading Clark's book and thinking how events then mirror events now.

He is not the only one.

The Thucydides Trap
PHOTO: Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June 1914, shortly before he was assassinated. (Imperial War Museum)


Founding dean of the Harvard University Kennedy School, Graham Allison, fears the world is lurching towards conflict unseen since World War II.

He puts his case in a new book, Destined for War: Can America and China escape Thucydides' Trap?

Thucydides? He was the Greek Historian whose writings about war 2,000 years ago resonate still.

"It was the rise of Athens and the fear this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable," he writes.

Then it was Athens-Sparta. In 1914 it was Germany-Great Britain and now China-United States.

"As far ahead as the eye can see, the defining question about global order is whether China and the US can escape Thucydides's trap. Most contests that fit this pattern have ended badly," Allison writes.

On the current trajectory, Allison says, war is "not just possible, but much more likely than currently recognised".

Any clash between the US and China is potentially catastrophic, but as much as we may try to wish it away, right now military strategists in Beijing and Washington are preparing for just an eventuality.

Global think tank the Rand Corporation prepared a report in 2015 for the American military, its title could not have been more direct — War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable.

It concluded that China would suffer greater casualties than the US if war was to break out now. However, it cautioned, that as China's military muscle increased so would the prospect of a prolonged destructive war.

Where would such a conflict spark?

Many potential faultlines
PHOTO: A satellite image of Subi Reef which appears to show anti-aircraft guns and a weapons system.(CSIS AMTI: Reuters)


The entire Asia region is a tinderbox.

Historian Michael Auslan, thinks Asia is so potentially unstable and insecure that he has questioned the very future of the region in his new book, The End of the Asian Century.

War and economic stagnation are the two biggest risks, Auslan identifies.

"Here be dragons," he writes.

Mr Auslan reminds us the Asia-Pacific is the most militarised region in the world, it's home to some of the world's largest armies, technologically advanced fighting machines, nuclear armed states and added to that a massive American military presence.

To the military muscle add the incendiary mix of history: old bitter enmities, existential stand offs, and a fierce competition for scarce resources.

The faultlines are many: India-Pakistan, North and South Korea, China-Japan.

Much of these simmering tensions coalesce around territorial disputes notably the Diaoyu-Senkaku islands claimed by Japan and China and the islands of the South China Sea.

It is these disputes that most observers fear could escalate.

China has dredged up sand to expand the islands, building runways and harbours potentially to deploy fighter jets and war ships.

Mr Auslan points out that militarising the islands not only allows China to project power but bolsters legal claims of territorial control.

The US has demanded the right of freedom of navigation through the islands and to fly over the disputed territory.

Tension has ebbed and flowed, at one point in 2016, a Chinese state-run newspaper declared war as "inevitable".

But is it?

Has the first 'shot' already been fired?
PHOTO: Cyberspace is expected to be the frontline in any confrontation. (Reuters: Rick Wilking)


Some fear the war has already begun — in cyberspace.

The US reports massive hacking by groups controlled by the Chinese military.

In 2015 the Obama administration revealed that Chinese hackers had hacked government personnel files potentially exposing every US state employee.

But what of a shooting war?

Certainly the world is very different to the time of Thucydides.

Even compared to 1914, we are a more interconnected, economically entwined global community.

Since the 1960's peace in Asia has allowed unprecedented growth.

Chinese scholar Wu Zurong, in a 2015 article for Foreign Policy magazine called No Thucydides Trap, wrote of how globalisation and the links between China and the US mitigates war.

China, he wrote, seeks "a modern relationship ... a win-win scenario".

In a speech in the United States in 2015 China's President, Xi Jinping, spoke of an opportunity for the two powers to boost global security but he also issued a warning.

"Should they enter into conflict or confrontation, it would lead to disaster for both countries and the world at large," he said.

Admiral Barrie has looked at how the world can avoid its sleepwalk to disaster.

This week he joined with fellow Australian National University scholars, Roger Bradbury and Dmitry Brizhinev, for an article in The Conversation that measured what they termed "hawkishness" — a preparedness for war — with risk.

They found that a little bit of risk aversion significantly increases the chances of peace.

"Hawkishness alone", they wrote, "will not lead to war unless risk aversion is also low."

Simply put, how willing are countries to avoid war? How much do they fear the consequences?

Risk on the rise
PHOTO: China has been increasing it military power. (AP: Vincent Yu)


In Asia there are many unknowables. Who is prepared to say for certain, that Kim Jong-un will not launch a nuclear strike?

Would a downed plane in the South China Sea push China and the US over the brink?

Would an attack in Kashmir bring the nuclear armed stand-off between India and Pakistan to the brink?

What would happen in Taiwan declared independence?

What's to stop any of this happening?

As Mr Auslan writes:

"Risk that should be falling is instead rising. As Asia's nations become wealthier and have more resources to devote to their militaries, they seem less interested in avoiding confrontation."

Personally, as someone who has reported across Asia for two decades and lived many years in China, I err on the side of peace.

America is crucial to the stability of the region and we cannot afford for it to retreat or to weaken its resolve. I don't believe it will.

China for all its military build-up, knows it still cannot compete with US firepower.

Yet, people with far more experience in matters of war than I, fear the worst. People like Admiral Chris Barrie.

How does Allison answer his question: can America and China escape the Thucydides trap?

He believes our fate depends on realism on all sides, vital interests must be clearly defined, America must strengthen its democracy and China address its failures of governance - threats come from within.

There is a need, he writes, for great thinkers to devise a grand strategy.

Allison concludes with a quote not from Thucydides but Shakespeare, our destiny lies "not in our stars, but in ourselves".

I can think of something else Shakespeare wrote in Macbeth:

"And all our yesterdays have lighted fools.

"The way to dusty death."
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Chinese are to interested in making money to kill everyone, NK will become the same once leadership changes, look at SK for example

MO is the war will be one of secular Western interests which will include Asia, who are not really the religious types against yes you guessed it Islam. :)

The ideology of Islam is not interested in money, it is only interested in spreading its religion through basically any means, China may well control the world financially but a war against the West is actually counter productive to that.

China and the US will end up as 'friends" similar to the USSR and the USA.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #5
Chinese are to interested in making money to kill everyone, NK will become the same once leadership changes, look at SK for example

MO is the war will be one of secular Western interests which will include Asia, who are not really the religious types against yes you guessed it Islam. :)

The ideology of Islam is not interested in money, it is only interested in spreading its religion through basically any means, China may well control the world financially but a war against the West is actually counter productive to that.

China and the US will end up as 'friends" similar to the USSR and the USA.

China controls the world financially but Islam controls it fanatically? :(

Iran, Saudi and Turkey all with ambitious expansionist agendas they might be tied up fighting each other for a while yet. This out of Iran has the christians in Lebanon really worried.


joumanaonIran.png
 
War metals have been on the increase for 12 months. Russia and India firmly locking their relations. India investing big in Australia.

Personally I think that bodes well for us, having 3 of 4 major powers, given the US is an ally.


but yes, war is inevitable but it's not all bad. WW2 was arguably the best thing to happen for billions.
 
but yes, war is inevitable but it's not all bad. WW2 was arguably the best thing to happen for billions.

Why exactly?

I did watch the documentary Stan Grant put together and it was very good.

While I did not agree with everything I do agree War is inevitable and Australia is unprepared and will get sucked in. Traditional Warfare WW1 or WW2 line up at the trenches or an invasion of tanks is probably from a bygone era but the seeds of many overlapping conflicts coming together and kicking off in a big way seems very very real.

We are at a very dangerous point in history with an overpopulated planet, dwindling resources and a stuffed economy. A movement amoung lose badly affected/sponsored by a nation and it all kicks off.

On a positive level I don't believe the current younger generation or the next coming through really have the inclination for a fight as in times gone by. Especially with the world becoming more globalised. (Politicians worst fear is declaring war and having no one show up to fight). To spite these good intentions we and many other nations may have no choice if the fight comes to us. However if the young get screwed repeatedly more or squeezed out they may quickly develop a war footing.

The best thing Australia can do is strategically choose our allies, use deterrence (nuke up) and stay as neutral as possible using our resource and geographical advantages.
 
Australia already has been invaded and taken over. Soft War.

Yes and No. Mutual exploitation. Certain nations exploit us by dumping their money and buying up. We in turn (the privileged few) lap it up and feed them a bunch of bullshit about what can be accomplished. Fine for now but can't or won't last one way or another.

Rather than the conservative 1 2 idiots we have in now wouldn't shock to see an Australian nationalist type figure emerge.
 
World-War-Z10-650x400.jpg
 
Why exactly?

I did watch the documentary Stan Grant put together and it was very good.

While I did not agree with everything I do agree War is inevitable and Australia is unprepared and will get sucked in. Traditional Warfare WW1 or WW2 line up at the trenches or an invasion of tanks is probably from a bygone era but the seeds of many overlapping conflicts coming together and kicking off in a big way seems very very real.

We are at a very dangerous point in history with an overpopulated planet, dwindling resources and a stuffed economy. A movement amoung lose badly affected/sponsored by a nation and it all kicks off.

On a positive level I don't believe the current younger generation or the next coming through really have the inclination for a fight as in times gone by. Especially with the world becoming more globalised. (Politicians worst fear is declaring war and having no one show up to fight). To spite these good intentions we and many other nations may have no choice if the fight comes to us. However if the young get screwed repeatedly more or squeezed out they may quickly develop a war footing.

The best thing Australia can do is strategically choose our allies, use deterrence (nuke up) and stay as neutral as possible using our resource and geographical advantages.

war is never good for those involved but those that survive and the generation will benefit.

Before I go on, resources are not dwindling. There are more resources today than in history. There will be more resources in 100 years than there is today. but resource economics and that's another issue.


Post WW1 and WW2, we have seen a number of global initiatives such as anti-racism, equal opportunity and benefited from an array of technical changes. I have no doubt post a decent war, we will see further social, economic and technical advances.

I only have to point at the US with Trump. Personally I don't see Trump as the problem, rather just the symptom of a nation that needs a massive constitutional overhaul. This simply isn't possible without a civil war or a "war to end all wars". Further, globalisation to work requires international co-operation on medicare, social welfare, taxation, criminal law, banking etc etc. Again this co-operation isn't possible without a major shock to the system.


and yes, good advice. Keep our heads down and focus on the footy, rather than getting involved.
 
World is becoming multipolar again for the first time since World War II. The US, China, Russia and Germany all have legitimate claims to great power status for various reasons, with India, France, Japan and Brazil in the next bracket. Multipolarity breeds instability. Every state is looking in every direction rather than at a single opponent.

It does make for powder kegs. But it also creates a situation that is less likely to cause a true 'world war'.

World War 1 was a global conflict due to the nature of the two sides - every great power bar the United States was allied to one side or another. World War 2 ended up in a similar fashion.

Right now, there isn't that grand alliance systen in the same sense putting both sides at risk. There are some instances - NATO - but not to the same extent on both sides as existed in 1914 or 1939.

I think there's a high chance of regional conflict, particularly in East Asia and the Persian Gulf, but not to the extent of a world war.
 
war is never good for those involved but those that survive and the generation will benefit.

Before I go on, resources are not dwindling. There are more resources today than in history. There will be more resources in 100 years than there is today. but resource economics and that's another issue.


Post WW1 and WW2, we have seen a number of global initiatives such as anti-racism, equal opportunity and benefited from an array of technical changes. I have no doubt post a decent war, we will see further social, economic and technical advances.

I only have to point at the US with Trump. Personally I don't see Trump as the problem, rather just the symptom of a nation that needs a massive constitutional overhaul. This simply isn't possible without a civil war or a "war to end all wars". Further, globalisation to work requires international co-operation on medicare, social welfare, taxation, criminal law, banking etc etc. Again this co-operation isn't possible without a major shock to the system.


and yes, good advice. Keep our heads down and focus on the footy, rather than getting involved.

Trump is a symptom of many being sick of ignored and bypassed and deciding to shake things up. He aligns with their best interests.

What's wrong with the footy? Should we all go goose stepping into another war and needlessly get blown away?

Yes Wars led to mass technological change (due to the pressing necessity) but I'd argue many changes are made without war and innovation is probably best with a free mind rather than threat of war. Just that during war the whole power of a state invests in innovative capital to save everyone as opposed to investing in a Real Estate ponzi scheme. Matter of priorities.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

China controls the world financially but Islam controls it fanatically? :(

Don't know they do control it financially. If anything by keeping their currency too low and with an increasing Upper Class this blows living costs out of the water and a 2 tier society results. Alternatively keep currency too low growth is limited and the escalator effect to push numbers out of poverty doesn't exist. They have a tight balancing act ahead.
 
Trump is a symptom of many being sick of ignored and bypassed and deciding to shake things up. He aligns with their best interests.

What's wrong with the footy? Should we all go goose stepping into another war and needlessly get blown away?

Yes Wars led to mass technological change (due to the pressing necessity) but I'd argue many changes are made without war and innovation is probably best with a free mind rather than threat of war. Just that during war the whole power of a state invests in innovative capital to save everyone as opposed to investing in a Real Estate ponzi scheme. Matter of priorities.

I was serious........we should focus on footy and not get involved. War is about protecting the assets of the rich, skimming the economy with war contracts, making the rich richer, kick backs to politicians and making politicians relevant.

The nations most likely to love a war are India, Russia, China and the US......all nations with corrupt systems and big variances between the rich and poor. Let them go at it.


I'd much prefer to watch Port v Collingwood than sit in a trench
 
I think as the USA tries to exact "full spectrum dominance" without really having the capability to reign in the rapidly strengthening China Russia alliance, we are in a super dangerous phase, while the US still has the upper hand but is slipping.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Politics Are we sleepwalking to World War III?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top