[guerrilla]

Obviously, but you missed the point. The problem is competetion by increased polarity between the haves and have-nots. The latter aren't just going to roll over and die. They're going to go to war to survive because there's nothing to lose in not doing so and everything to gain.

[echelon]

> The latter aren't just going to roll over and die. They're going to go to war to survive because there's nothing to lose in not doing so and everything to gain.

And they'll lose.

If you look at the distribution of power, it's not predicted to change all that much. The superpowers are enormously capable of maintaining their grip.

The complaints of poor nations will be met with meager welfare packages and mostly tuned out by the working class of weather nations. It's how the world already operates.

[guerrilla]

I figured you would say that but your hubris is entirely unwarranted. The Taliban just handed the most powerful military on the planet their ass. They beat the USSR too. The Veitcong did it before them. Look at how badly the barefoot Houthis beat the shit out of KSA even with direct US support. Look at Russia being sent packing. Don't gamble on these things. It's foolish to expose yourself to those kinds of risks if you don't need to.

[echelon]

I'm not sure this is a good stick to measure. The American voting public didn't have an appetite for those fights.

Put the American economy at risk and you get the Gulf War. Attack America directly and you get the Pacific theater.

In any case, none of those particular points matter. No poor country is going to be able to resource starve the wealthiest nations. If they try to invade or block trade, they'll find out the limits of their power.

[guerrilla]

It's irrelevant what appetite they had because they lost abd they were losing long before they left both Afghanistan and Vietnam.

Several of the countires made "poor" by climate change will have nuclear weapons: Indian, Pakistan, France, Israel, North Korea. You're living in a fantasy. Time to wake up.