Hilary would have had us in a war with him. Now maybe you're not in this country and don't care or maybe you are, but I don't think anyone would think a war with Russia is a good idea. Hillary who is supposed to be the peaceful liberal made comments about going to war with several countries including Russia while Trump got us out of wars and didn't start any. Liberals who are for peace and smoking weed are not in alignment with modern day Democrats. Modern day Democrats are war hungry, power hungry deceitful people. You only have to look on Television for proof as they encourage rioting. Peacful Liberals are being fooled and lied to.
8D chess indeed.
Btw, have you ever heard of the concept of mutually assured destruction? There is no way there would or will ever be a direct war between the US and Russia.
Fallback to that is nuclear winter, which always happens if enough nukes are launched at any cities, doesnt matter which ones. That also ensures, that there never will be a fully fledged nuclear war.
Want proof?
Kim Jong-un has only become a thing in the collective consciousness of US citizens, because of 'mandatory diplomacy' that follows, if another state has developed nuclear warfare capabilities. From that point forward, some methods used to pressure countries are not used anymore, and you dont use them as patsies in situations anymore where you redraw borders.
Russia doesnt want to wage war either, economically and militarily the US would still be on top. What russia wants and does, is to 'secure its borders' and 'stabilize' its ally states (the not so neutral neutrals), strike down revolts in countries on the edge of its sphere of influence, and fight proxy wars in countries in the middle east, like everyone else.
US wouldnt want war (aside from proxy wars), because if they cant draw in china - whats the point? International and economic importance would suffer, at least for a while. The way the US gained dominace over the world economy at one point was to enter WW2 - late.
Currently wars between developed nations are fought economically, if at all.
Reasons given for war that start with 'democracy' are BS, under Pax americana (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana ) and
starting at 4:01 (sadly its german dubbed, but if you listen to whats said in english, this imho is the best primer) - whats done is the following:
Everyone profits if flow of resources and goods is uninterrupted (this is on the verge of changing somewhat
- but still important.).
If as a small unimportant state, you want to become something, in the past first you tried to get your population up, then had an access of young males, you could first exploit labour wise to buy weapons, and then intervene in your neighbor state, that might be richer, but 'older' in terms of population age. Issue: While that is going on and you try to become the new head honcho, flow of ressources and goods is interrupted. Which is why as a developed nation, you dont want that - so you intervene. US did this for ages as 'the world police' (people outside the Nato dint like, but what are they gonna do), which you could read about by reading up on the concept of american exceptionalism.
Then relative worth of oil sank (because the US became a net exporter of gas and aquired new reserves (fracking, new pipelines from canada), and the US got less interested in 'doing that service' for the oil rich countries in the middle east (Last wars kinda didnt go so well also.).
Then OPEC dropped the oil price to the point where fracking wasnt viable anymore, and that industry largely went bankrupt in the US (but it could be restarted in the future, if there wasnt the climate change thing), partly because they needed a stable income at a certain rate (their own populations wouldnt have been happy otherwise), partly because you bought US interests for a while longer, that and they bought US weapons overpriced, and in high quantities, not to use them, but to basicaly 'hold interest'/bribe also to hold the US in the region for a while longer. That and Israel wants it as well - because rich, but old (demography) country, with a bunch of 'natural' enemies around it.
Russia, is more agressive currently, because if they have to stabilize something, now is the time, because demography wise, they'll lack young people/solders 20 years from now as well. Also they try to uphold a sphere of influence, that basically runs north/south, so from russia, down to the middle east. Conflicts are mostly baked in with US allies (Europe), not with the US themselves.
Russia interfering in the US election and maybe sponsoring Trump (loans) was just some high risk/potentially high reward international play, with no concrete purpose, that - if anything allowed them to focus on getting their boarder infrastructure under wraps, while sabotaging US/European ally relations.
US and Europeans being allies (NATO) loses importance, as - first more countries become a little less globalized in terms of their economic flow of goods, less important with russia becoming less important (as is the case now), and with the middle east becoming less important.
This means that Europe has to increase military spending, which it has done. Diplomacy still is preferred when dealing with other first world countries, but agein - the stabilizing effort.
As Nato and the UN become less important, another goal like fighting climate change, would ensure international cooperation. Thats not me saying that climate change is not real, thats just another angle to the whole thing.
Hillary would have, and war and, ...: Hillary was seen as a Hawk, that would have reacted in some proxy wars with more military intervention. Thats all.
For US military families, this still sucks, but none of this is a reason to fear another world, or even nuclear war.
On the nuclear front, US has to replace old nuclear weapons right about now, and moves out of treaties, that are supposed to reduce weapon count and potency (so its not constantly on heads of states mind), so it can upgrade their toys to never seen before capability (threat factor), russia cant compete, no money. The other question is - should they compete, the answer is still no, the US should not be upgrading capability. But tell that to the US. So US is dismantling international treaties, and says it does so, to force china to get into newer ones - but that is largely bull, chinas capabilities are still rather basic in that sector (because it wasnt a priority for anyone for quite a while).
Issue - if climate issues cause insurance companies to default and retract, and there is much more 'pressure to survive' in certain regions of the world, and the US has just enhanced nuclear capabilities (including smaller nukes), preassures could arise to use them against states without the ability to strike back. Thats what has everyone worried in that sector currently.
ANY idea that goes beyond that and talks about the possibility of a hot war in or near the US, or a war with russia, or a nuclear war - is entirely 'off the charts' and only exists in common peoples minds, mostly because of extremist propaganda. Left or right in that case.
Didnt cover south east asia conflict potentials which are largely china asserting dominance over trading routes and getting into conflict with US allies (f.e. Japan, whose position is solely dependent on being an active sea power in the region (in itself its a comparatively very small island)).
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Friendly reminder that Wallace was biased and Biden told Trump to "shut up, man".
Untrue, and the President interrupted Biden 73 times during the debate:
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54350538
