What would another world war do for modern society? Would it be positive or negative in the long run?
>inb4 extinction
Just hypothetically assume that there wouldn't be a full nuclear exchange
>Would it be positive or negative in the long run
Depends where it is. It would fuck us up right properly, though; all the asbestos that would be released from the inevitable destruction would probably kill just as many people in the long run as the war itself.
>>884376
>What would another world war do for modern society? Would it be positive or negative in the long run?
you tryin to tell me there's ever been a world war that was positive or what?
>>884417
I don't think you realize just how profoundly different everything today would be if WW2 in particular had not happened.
Were the changes more positive than negative? Nobody can say, but you would be a fool if you were to claim that they didn't at the very least pave the road for quite a few very useful things.
If your notion of positive is the deaths of gorillions of people and multiple nations in ruins, then yes it would be.
>>884428
We probably wouldn't be as technologically advanced
I honestly don't see an all-out world-war occurring. People don't have the same kind of imperialist drive anymore, everyone's more-or-less keeping mostly everyone else in check, in terms of world powers at least.
The only (serious) wildcards seem to just the Saudis, North Korea, and Afghanistan.
I think it's going to be continual terror-cell warfare instead. Once ISIS goes, some other group's just gonna pop up in its place, and if they're smarter they'll rely on cyber-warfare.
We're entering a post-state era boys.
there are 105 male births every 100 female births
we are supposed to kill each other off every few years
>>884376
>Just hypothetically assume that there wouldn't be a full nuclear exchange
There probably would be one, but it won't matter. The result will be the destruction of the current hegemonic regime and the establishment of another, even greater, hegemony. Probably by the Chinks, but maybe Brazil, India or even Australia could do, if the world is sufficiently fucked. Long term, this will lead closer to teh inevitable end-state of a single global government, and will drive down crime and violence as large-scale enlargements of power have always done, historically.
>>884463
This seems unlikely. Technology is hard to lose with modern infrastructure and even a small surviving technologically intact region would quickly establish dominance over "Mad Max" regions. And in the long term, the massive free infusion of land and minerals the former powers would leave will power a new golden age for whoever survives.
>>884509
>Australia
Imagine whole superpowers backing down after hearing Australia's banter.
Positive.
The self-hating, nation-hating cucks need to be culled in the name of eugenics.
That's a stupidly vague question that nobody is qualified to answer. I'm sure this thread will be full of /int/-tier military wanking and the same old boring statistics you miliboos always throw around.
Take this to /pol/, desu.
>>884376
>Just hypothetically assume that there wouldn't be a full nuclear exchange
There doesn't even need to be one, conventional weapons alone could end civilisation.
>>884438
Jets. Space rockets. Penicillin. Radar. Pressurized aircraft cabins.
>>884632
Could you make an argument instead of naming things that aren't inherently good?
>>884661
Please explain how those things have been anything but beneficial for human development.
>>884632
And the extermination of millions upon millions upon millions
>>884901
Yes, and?
