The only naïve one is you, how anyone can be so ignorant isn't even funny.
You're opening your mouth so big, here, that your foot is just bound to get in there, somehow.
You do know that the US isn't the only country in the world? The UK can't afford a World War economy wise or in regards to the population. And they would have to get involved with the situation because of the Budapest Memorandum.
So... if the UK decides not to get involved, some divine light shines down upon them and begins burning holes in their skin until they do get involved?
What force, aside from honor, compels the UK to take action?
Economies are not made healthy by peace or stagnation. Economies are born from the struggle to supply new and ever-changing demands. Large companies wax when they gain the majority market share through refined processes, and wain when a smaller company develops a product or process that the larger company cannot economically re-tool for. The large company often splits into smaller independent businesses that broker their lines and services outside of the original company.
There is only the free market.
The current economic slow-down? Entirely manufactured (not necessarily intentionally). Government made promises that it does not have the power to keep. People became stagnant and expect supplies to be delivered without the labor to produce it.
Wars are powerful motivators. Governments relax regulatory constraints, people realize they can provide a product or service without going to jail for attempting to do so, and everyone profits in the end.
Of course - under a central bank, no one ever wins but those who have dibs on the currency before it is soaked up by inflation.
There's 63 million people in the UK, and they share a very small landmass. A WWIII would ruin the country completely.
That land mass is easier to defend - particularly concerning ballistic missile shielding. Even so - after the horrors of The Great War, many believed another world war with the advances made through the 30s would destroy Britain.
You're a hardier bunch than you give yourselves credit for.
You've got the simplistic mindset that everything is the same in comparison to WWII, it's not. Global policies are far different, the latter of which tie in with global conflicts and make them implausible.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Please, tell me all of what has changed since World War II.
The key factor that has changed is how rapidly forces can deploy.
I never expected much from a government lackey anyway, but what you brought to the table was unsound to say the least. Apparently people's lives are of little concern to you, describing extensive destruction as a "sting". Good God, you remind me of the people at the start of WW1, blind and naïve to what was to come.
You simply prattle on about how World War III 'can't' happen, how everything has changed, how I am naive and know nothing, etc.
Bluntly - who the **** are you?
You obviously aren't anyone with a clue about my standpoint on my government - which puts you in the ill-informed category around here.
You insist that World War III can't happen.
What's changed about people since World War II?
Did you learn all of the lessons of your parents, grandparents, and great grandparents by some kind of mystical genetic osmosis? No. You read about it and thought you understood what it meant.
An individual can learn from his or her own experiences, smart individuals can learn from watching others, and exceptionally wise individuals can learn from accounts of history. People, on the other hand, do not.
For whatever strange reason, the world has always seen fit to involve itself in the wars and affairs of the Balkans. Of course - the major powers find it in their hearts to somehow blame the Balkan populations for it (because they made us get involved in their goings-ons... they came over here and ... wait a minute...)
To deny the possibility of escalation is foolishly naive. History tells us that, time and time again, the world will stick its nose into the region.
If anything - world wars under our current system will be -worse- than they ever were. They will be fought across countries that do not have the military standing to stand independently as the world basically becomes one giant semi-proxy war for influence. Because of the perception of nuclear warfare and because of the financial damage it can cause - the nuclear powers will largely avoid direct attacks and invasions. Strikes and raids may be made from time to time in order to disrupt industry and infrastructure - but much of it will be tug-of-war over sprawling geographies.
Why continue it? Because "they" will get the upper hand. Further - spending on wars is far less detrimental to an economy than spending on entitlements. When you have to show up to the bomb factory to get your healthcare - or learn how to patch holes in people to keep them from bleeding out in order to have free shelter - you're at least getting some return on what would otherwise be money thrown into a hole.
Nothing rallies people to war quite like an ideological dispute. Further, there are few things politicians will agree upon unless it allows them to have control over something. Thus, war is the rule rather than the exception in human societies.
