[jandrewrogers]

A war with large geographic scope has been independently modeled as having a high probability of occurring circa 2030 by major governments for a decade or more. As time has passed, reality has not diverged from those models, so confidence in the conclusions have grown. It is worth noting that this pre-dates current political dramas, Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, etc. The underlying strategic geopolitics driving it is much deeper than those issues.

It has been accompanied by a large spike in military spending globally. The backlog of foreign military sales of US weapons just waiting for approval is ~$1T.

[Jalad]

> A war with large geographic scope has been independently modeled as having a high probability of occurring circa 2030 by major governments for a decade or more

Do you have more information about this, or a source?

[jandrewrogers]

This has been discussed in strategic geopolitical circles for a long time. When surveying defense analysts and similar if they believe a "great powers conflict" will occur in the near future, the percentage that say yes has been rising rapidly (currently 40-50%). If you search for "probability of global war in $YEAR" you will find a lot of discussion of varying quality.

The major alignment is almost always assumed to be something like Russia/China vs Europe/US/Japan.

You can find circumstantial evidence for this in the change in military posture of many countries and rapid scaling of production capacity. Some random examples:

French General states that they are preparing for open war in "3-4 years" in 2025:

https://www.politico.eu/article/french-top-general-expects-s...

Sweden increases defense spending by 40% starting in 2021:

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/12/15/sweden-...

[ColdStream]

Up until a about a decade back, here in Australia/New Zealand, politicians behind door always talked about the tyranny of distance. Simply due to distance we were largely kept out of or behind larger global flows.

Nowadays it is seen as having the world largest moat.

When things like global conflict starts, it does impact us but it is more the flow on effects rather than direct impacts.

The last few minutes of this 2025 recap by 'Ordinary Things' did the best job or summarizing how the world is getting ready for war.

https://youtu.be/ZEobLPh82-w?si=hrUaw-vTx4mWU6T6&t=6627

I hope we avoid this but I fear we will not.

[jandrewrogers]

Australia at least is taking it very seriously and aggressively upgrading their capabilities.

If things go down in the Pacific no one will be safe.

[ceejayoz]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/russia-nato-arms-germany-wa...

> Germany's defence minister is frank and plain-spoken, but also deliberate with his words and intention. When he talks about Russia, the future of the West and the possibility of another European war, the message however becomes stark: "Our experts say it can happen in 2029."

> In remarks published Wednesday, Generalleutnant Christian Freuding, the inspector of the German Army, said the 2029 date was not a figure pulled out of thin air by his government's national security establishment, but an actual consensus view among Western allies.

https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-mark-rutte-says-europe-...

> NATO Chief Mark Rutte urged member countries to do more to prepare for the possibility of large-scale war, warning that Russia may be ready to attack the alliance within five years.

[CamperBob2]

Russia may be ready to attack the alliance within five years.

Russia can't even take the country next door. How exactly are they going to attack NATO? With a bunch of rusty nukes that almost certainly no longer work, and that would get their (relatively few) major population centers vaporized by nukes that almost certainly work just fine?

[ceejayoz]

> Russia can't even take the country next door.

Neither could the Weimar Republic.

> With a bunch of rusty nukes that almost certainly no longer work, and that would get their (relatively few) major population centers vaporized by nukes that almost certainly work just fine?

Even 1% of Russia's arsenal being functional would be a problem, and I can imagine someone taking a gamble on "will Germany/France/England want to take a nuke to the face over the Baltics?"

[ColdStream]

Pretty much this. If a single nuke detonates over say Leipzig, it would be the most deadly single attack on European soil in history.

[Sabinus]

Nukes aren't relevant unless Russia uses nukes or tries to take Paris or London. No one is going to nuke Russia over a Polish-Russian border town, and maybe not even over Warsaw falling. Until Poland and the Baltics get their own nukes, of course.

[AnimalMuppet]

"Almost certainly no longer work"? I'd be interested in seeing your basis for your "almost certainly".

[CamperBob2]

Have you seen the state of the rest of their armaments? Countries that have to bum artillery and soldiers off of North Korea are not in any position to go up against NATO.

If you're a Russian officer in charge of nuclear stockpile maintenance, why in the world wouldn't you pencil-whip the paperwork and steal the funding? If you're ever caught, it will be under circumstances where nobody will be in a position to do anything about it.

[ColdStream]

There is a good chance of this. Nukes need ongoing yearly maintenance to be operational, without that they are basically just a flying tin can. The whole movie trope of stealing an old nuke and using it doesn't apply to the real world.

Also corruption is somewhat accepted in some countries as it allows those at the top to have legitimate means of disposing of traitors when needed without that hassle of drumming up fake charges.

[onlypassingthru]

> Russia may be ready to attack the alliance within five years.

With what, sharpened sticks? Russia will soon only be left with rattling its nuclear saber as its once mighty military is left in ruins.

[ceejayoz]

> With what, sharpened sticks?

Deniable, asymmetrical attacks?

Look what Ukraine did to Russia's air bases with a couple truckloads of drones.

[weberer]

The Atlantic Council and RAND corporation both report on this.

https://www.rand.org/topics/taiwan.html

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-coun...

[petcat]

There is a lot of nuance missing in public discourse about the US threats of leaving NATO, stopping direct arms support of Ukraine (except for intelligence), and generally scaring NATO members and Europe into funding their own defense.

Every USA president since the fall of the Berlin Wall has implored NATO members take control of their own defense. The US has long since abandoned the two theater war doctrine. The US is not going to fight Russia. Doing so would just be taking the bait to split their forces when China simultaneously decides to mobilize in the South China Sea. All of USA military planning has been in preparation for that theater.

Trump's belligerence has accomplished the US foreign policy goals of every administration for the last 40 years.

[nemomarx]

How's the Iran thing figure in, then? That's a lot of the stockpile used up before China starts.

[petcat]

It's the same as Venezuela. These are strategic moves to control China's crude oil supply.

[margalabargala]

The point made by the parent comment should not be taken to mean that the Trump administration strategically accomplished the aforementioned goals, just that they were, in a vacuum, accomplished.

If you're saying that it seems to you that the tactical goal was accomplished at the expense of the broader historical strategy, I would respond that yes, it does seem that way.

[nemomarx]

I'm also personally a little skeptical that the current administration would actually go to war with China over, say, Taiwan or control of the South Sea or so on. Maybe they are keeping that in mind, maybe they're just isolationist in general?

Whether the admin would have done anything to Iran without being asked by Israel is a big open question for me here.

[actionfromafar]

The logistics are already straining against Iran, can't see how the US could hold up around Taiwan. And China can now see for themselves how weak the US military machine has become.

Testosterone injections won't help there.

[no_wizard]

They aren’t. Political will is faulting but the military is holding back on Iran. There is no follow on ground invasion or clear carpet bombing of the entire country. These strikes are all suppose to be strategic. If the US military was waging a true all out war, Iran would be piles of rubble and glass

I am not supportive of war with Iran by a long shot but to see the US military and be like “oh it’s strained” is just not talking from a place of knowing. The politics is straining the military and rightly so, but capability wise it’s as good as ever

[ColdStream]

It is all starting to feel like a stalemate between the US and China, each hoping the other fails from their own internal issues before it comes to actual battle.

[s1artibartfast]

Possibly the first strike in the war with China.

[Ylpertnodi]

True about trump....but at a terrible (longtime) cost to the USA.