Should we be worried about war

[Seasidesand76]

Seen a lot in the news about Ukraine using USA missiles against Russia. I've been thinking more along the lines that it won't start a WW3 and will resolve at some point without the UK getting directly involved in war. But there seems to be more and more tension and threats of an all out war recently.

Should we be worried about WW3? I haven't been prepping or anything but does make me wonder if I should start getting a few days worth of food in case. At the same time I don't want to go down the prepper hole and start getting over the top.

The true crime is that the previous government failed to plan and have new ships ready to bring into service.
Just one of the many reasons the conservatives were fucking useless.

Maybe I put it the wrong way, because I agree - he doesn’t need excuses. But the fact remains that many state actors are looking to his next move because they’re taking it that he’s done warning and is ready to act. China has urged restraint but that’s as far as they’ve commented.

@Rosscameasdoody

"Oh please. Have you never heard the phrase ‘To the Victor the Spoils’ ? What do you think the real reasons for the war with Iraq were, given that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found ? Not to mention how the contracts for rebuilding after war are meted out. War is good for the economy - that’s a fact, whether you like it or not."

Oh please- I am tired of all the conspiracy bullshit about Ukraine's strategic minerals - with a possible exception on titanium there is bugger all of value there that can't be more easily and more cheaply obtained in other countries.

The real reason for the war with Iraq was not oil but ego. The US had been pissed off for years about violations of the no fly zone and denying access to weapons inspectors. Plus a feeling that the job hadn't been done because Saddam was still in charge.

Then over 6 months the US then started assembling an invasion force in Saudi and Kuwait to oust Saddam. Once he realised this he quickly got rid of the few weapons of mass destruction he actually had. But by this point it was too late to row back and bring the troops back home which would have been humiliating.

War is extremely expensive and bad for the economy and that's a fact whether you like it or not.

What you say here is almostly entirely made up and incorrect. War is of significant value economically, this has been confirmed many times over by different western leaders, not to mention the senator referred to abover, this most definitely is not or anywhere near conspiracy country.

In Iraq, the oil fields were made a military zone, I really don't think there is any secret about this now.

You are very badly informed about minerals and strategic value

@deeperdrivens

It's a typical conspiracy theorist approach when confronted with reality to claim that the opposing view is somehow uninformed or naive and that only the conspiracy theorist know the "real truth".

War does increase GDP in the short term as more money is spent on running a war time economy. However the effect of this (along with any increase in Government spending) is to increase inflation and Government debt causing both short term and long term economic damage.

If the government wishes to boost the economy in the term by increased spending then there are much more effective means of doing this such as building roads or hospitals rather than missiles which tend to have a much shorter life span.

An analysis of 22 conflict episodes shows that armed conflict is associated with lower growth and higher inflation, and has adverse effects on tax revenues and investment. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S017626800300098383*_

Conflict has clear detrimental effects on the reduction of poverty and hunger, on primary education, on the reduction of child mortality, and on access to potable water.
** https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X1200101515*_

@1dayatatime a quick PS - at least two senior politicians from the west have said in the last year or so that the west should all support the war effort as it will bolster their economies.

Thinking that commercial interests are what causes countries to wage might not be a conspiracy theory, but at best it's overly simplistic and lazy thinking. It's not a key that unlocks every door. Countries wage war for many reasons, economics is just one of them.

https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/The-Main-Reasons-For-War

Henry Ford might have made money during WWI, but that doesn't mean that he or others like him controlled the political decision to enter the war.

@deeperdrivens I don't even know where to start with the above. Misrepresentation, of facts, half truths and a total lack of understanding and bias on the facts.

Before spouting bollocks, perhaps read some actual history books of the time periods to learn and grow as an individual.

I didn't say it was the only reason, but if you analyse the last century, you will find economic interests - whether of individuals or on behalf of governments (influenced behind the scenes or not) will play a majority part in the majority. Not conspiracy or overly simplistic or lazy thinking - historians are not usually simplistic or lazy! (How rude....again...)

Henry Ford was not a driver for war, no, but he was persuaded to join the war effort by individuals who were drivers. He was in fact in favour of peace, he agreed to join the effort to help the US but vowed to give the money he earned to charitable things. But sadly he changed his mind and did not give any money away at all.

I studied history at a good university, there was no misrepresentation, of facts, half truths nor lack of understanding and no bias.

The personal attacks from you and your friends are appalling.

@MissConductUS who funds owlcation? And who are its business associates? I just googled it and found some pretty poor reviews, such as:

"They look like personal articles, and it's not clear how much editorial control there's been. Some might be good, but others less so, probably ok for basic facts but could be one sided if there's any controversy, I'd be particularly wary over any health claims."

"I looked at a couple of botany articles, which seemed to me to be pitched at middle-school level, and be remarkably free of adequate detail. (In other words, I was not impressed, and not convinced that these rose to the ideal of the site quoted in #1 above.)"

(Genuine reviews from a site which academics use)

Here. You can have a go at Stanford University next.

web.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/war-overview.pdf

I asked a question, didn't "have a go" - can you answer the question please, about funders/associates? I had already answered the part of your post about drivers for war! If you could answer the question (and my other questions on other posts) that would be great, thanks.

@littledrummergirl by "good" I mean Russell Grant, just in case you were going to make an issue out of what "good" means too!

Exactly, dealing with these plots and infrastructure attacks is just business as usual for GCHQ and MI5. I can imagine that the first briefing that a new home secretary has with the Joint Intelligence Committee is a pretty traumatising experience!

Politicians say a lot of things but it doesn't mean they understand basic economics as Liz Truss found out.

Increased Government spending in any form increases the GDP in the short term but also increases inflation and the burden of Government debt.

Who knew he had his own university 🤷🏻‍♀️



😂

It's where all of the best astrologers go to study.

Business will do what business does and adapt to the conditions they find themselves in.

You see this with the sanctions on Russia, they ve not made the difference many thought they would, business finds ways to make money and sell goods.

But its doesn't mean they want war or drive it forward... if when there is peace in Ukraine, business will rush in & make billions.... will you then say "there is only peace because of economic factors?"

@Alexandra2001

"But its doesn't mean they want war or drive it forward... if when there is peace in Ukraine, business will rush in & make billions.... will you then say "there is only peace because of economic factors?""

Good point. You could extend this argument that natural disasters such as storms are good for the economy because of all the repair work and cleanup afterwards, so why bother with things like flood prevention.

The reality is neither natural disasters or wars are good for the economy.

Personally, I have noticed the local Sainsbury's has expanded it's offering of long life tinned goods in the last week. That's not just a winter soup thing. We've now got more tinned fish, ham, chicken, beans, fruit. Supermarkets review customer buying activity data every day and respond to it so this means people ARE buying the tins to make a stash. I haven't exactly made a stash under the stairs but I have made sure my kitchen cupboards are full and I have food for a week as per Sweden, Norway guidance issued recently. I actually think the UK isn't preparing us properly. Whilst there's nothing we can do about these stupid power hungry men waving their willies, we should at least have bottled water in case of hybrid warfare attacks on our mains water, and food in case more fibre optic cabling is slashed, our internet goes offline, our logistics suffer and panic buying starts. Those are more real possibilities than nuclear. I'm more concerned about hybrid warfare and that's already in play.

If the internet goes down we're pretty much screwed. So many people rely on it for finances. It would be sensible if you can to have some cash in the house. No internet means no online banking. No cards or phones to beep in shops to pay for stuff. I filled the car up yesterday and their card machine went down. I had to pay 2 quid to get my own money out of the cash point so I could pay for petrol.

It hurts my head because a lot of people just can't have a chunk of cash in the house. Nor do they have the room for a load of tins and especially the water required by the average household per day. Then you have the memory of the chaos what panic buying did and those of us who prep got a load of abuse.

I'm uneasy.

You say "if you only you had a world of information at your fingertips" which is your special wording given to a link (I am sure no sarcasm or rudeness was intended and so I haven't taken offence), but the link is very general and goes back over historic resources too which apparently no longer have value. My question was - what specific minerals was the senator talking about, please could you answer? I am assuming you know the answer and can reply in your own words rather than linking a general resource. I would love to know what minerals he had in mind, what value placed against each and over what period of time. Thank you!

They always do this at this time of year. People buy more canned and long-life foods in winter.