None of the above.
What hugely reduced the possibility of a World War is what is the big boogy man of many activists: GLOBALISATION
In other words, don't shit in your own back yard, and with everyone trading and depending on each other we all are in the same back yard. Neither America nor any European country isn't going to declare war on China... not while that will risk losing all their cheap but high quality t-shorts, iPods and Xbox video game consoles.
And china isn't going to attack it's customers when it is betting so rich off them buying their goods!
The path to war begins with sanctions or when there is otherwise no trade. Then they don't fear the disruption that comes from interruption in co-operation.
Countries are divided by geography and culture but trade brings people together in co-operation.
1: A shortage of oil is going to affect us all equally, this will make oil more valuable this will be more relevant to oil producing countries. This is not to secure their own oil supply, this is to GET RICH off selling the more valuable oil.
But you won't be able to sell this oil if every country in the world knows you stole the land it lies beneath, they will impose sanctions or use military force to return it to its rightful owners. Either way the oil WILL end up on the open market and sold for it's price. The question is who gets the money. Iraq had a lack of oil and invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, but that started a war to remove them from the land they took. When America invaded Iraq it was not for oil, it had comparatively little and the new democratic Iraq controls that oil so I'll hear none of that conspiracy theory.
(America went into Iraq for many bad reasons but oil wasn't one of them. It was primarily they were spoiling for a fight with Saddam and how they unscrupulously believed the lies of Saddam's enemies who lied about his weapons of mass destruction. They admit to this, they say they lied about Saddam's WMDs and are proud they did as they believed he was an evil man who must be removed from power, and america could only do that fearing WMDs)
In WWII, you could say Japan's involvement was caused by oil, America placed sanctions on Japan refusing to sell oil to them so Japan invaded Philippines and wider islands of Malay peninsula and Pacific to secure their oil. But that was because they were denied the oil that they could afford.
2: one country invading another is not going to lead to a cascade in conflict like in the First World War, as for one EVERY military planner and politicians now realises the futility of starting a huge war over a small border conflict and they have other methods of persuasion, like sanctions.
3. less developed countries are far too divided between themselves and even within themselves to rise up against richer countries, even if they could the rich countries would unite in part or in whole against any country that does. For example poor countries like Afghanistan starting a religious war of training armies of terrorists to carry out attacks like 9/11. Now they are struggling to survive only ever able to fight a low intensity but persistent guerilla war.
What hugely reduced the possibility of a World War is what is the big boogy man of many activists: GLOBALISATION
In other words, don't shit in your own back yard, and with everyone trading and depending on each other we all are in the same back yard. Neither America nor any European country isn't going to declare war on China... not while that will risk losing all their cheap but high quality t-shorts, iPods and Xbox video game consoles.
And china isn't going to attack it's customers when it is betting so rich off them buying their goods!
The path to war begins with sanctions or when there is otherwise no trade. Then they don't fear the disruption that comes from interruption in co-operation.
Countries are divided by geography and culture but trade brings people together in co-operation.
1: A shortage of oil is going to affect us all equally, this will make oil more valuable this will be more relevant to oil producing countries. This is not to secure their own oil supply, this is to GET RICH off selling the more valuable oil.
But you won't be able to sell this oil if every country in the world knows you stole the land it lies beneath, they will impose sanctions or use military force to return it to its rightful owners. Either way the oil WILL end up on the open market and sold for it's price. The question is who gets the money. Iraq had a lack of oil and invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, but that started a war to remove them from the land they took. When America invaded Iraq it was not for oil, it had comparatively little and the new democratic Iraq controls that oil so I'll hear none of that conspiracy theory.
(America went into Iraq for many bad reasons but oil wasn't one of them. It was primarily they were spoiling for a fight with Saddam and how they unscrupulously believed the lies of Saddam's enemies who lied about his weapons of mass destruction. They admit to this, they say they lied about Saddam's WMDs and are proud they did as they believed he was an evil man who must be removed from power, and america could only do that fearing WMDs)
In WWII, you could say Japan's involvement was caused by oil, America placed sanctions on Japan refusing to sell oil to them so Japan invaded Philippines and wider islands of Malay peninsula and Pacific to secure their oil. But that was because they were denied the oil that they could afford.
2: one country invading another is not going to lead to a cascade in conflict like in the First World War, as for one EVERY military planner and politicians now realises the futility of starting a huge war over a small border conflict and they have other methods of persuasion, like sanctions.
3. less developed countries are far too divided between themselves and even within themselves to rise up against richer countries, even if they could the rich countries would unite in part or in whole against any country that does. For example poor countries like Afghanistan starting a religious war of training armies of terrorists to carry out attacks like 9/11. Now they are struggling to survive only ever able to fight a low intensity but persistent guerilla war.
? Just a little misconception that the Korean War stopped. It's just on pause. For now...
