I want to hear you reasons, why do you think that.

  • Tabitha ☢️[she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s possible none of those would technically be WW3 by itself, perhaps the start of heavier US commitment in the first of those conflicts might be perceived as the opportunity for the others to get started. Maybe even some less obvious conflicts are merely waiting for NATO to be preoccupied (e.g. random colonies being invaded or declaring independence). The US will be forced into taking at least one L, or switching back to a war economy.

    • India vs Pakistan
    • ISIS expansion
    • Water Wars (multiple locations)
    • USA invading Mexico
    • Syrian Civil War
    • Greenland War
      • IDK if Denmark can defend Greenland, but NATO could article5/split
    • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      India vs Pakistan

      not plausible, neither of them are that stupid

      Afghanistan vs. Pakistan, or Iran, is infinitely more likely. Pashtun supremacists (yea the Taliban) are actually stupid af

      You remember how the Tamil Tigers invaded Sri Lanka? Now imagine if they were doing that but to China. That’s basically what the Taliban is doing right now lol

      (just to be clear, Tamils were actually fighting oppression, Pashtuns are not)