Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ryan
@ryanfmason
Going by @balajis.eth century in reverse thesis, the world wars were an inevitable conflict because of the growth of centralized powers. If those centralized institutions are decentralizing, “WW3” could be more like the friction between those smaller institutions competing for the (now fractured) support
3 replies
0 recast
8 reactions
Ryan
@ryanfmason
So in OP’s terms more like the second but I don’t think anything has to be coalitions. It could just be a lot of weird seemingly aimless turmoil that happens before an eventual recentralization
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jordan
@ruminations
Hm, I think the scenario you lay out is interesting and compelling. That said, I'm not sure if I buy the century in reverse thesis. The standard (and emprically borne out) view in International Relations theory is that the likelihood and intensity of conflict international systems increases as power is distributed more horizontally. Conflict is the most likely when new / emerging powers are on the precipice of overtaking incumbent powers. WW1/WW2 happened because there were too many "near peer" powers competing for influence: Germany, Japan, U.S., Britain...etc, etc. Whereas there was no "hot war" during the cold war because U.S. / Soviets were fairly evenly matched with no real competitors.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Arad
@arad
An east asian regional war seems likely with the growth of centralized power in that region, but agree with your premise about the West
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
