This week marks both the start and end of WWII
70 years ago this week Imperial Japan formally surrendered to the United States, ending World War II. The world emerged from this catastrophic conflict forever changed: national borders shifted, tens of millions — the majority of which were civilians — died, and the nuclear age began.
Germany invades Poland September 1st 1939 + U.S soldiers celebrate V-J Day September 2nd 1945
Reflecting on the atrocities of World War II it’s easy to wonder if another World War is likely in our time. Many historians argue that the world will never again see a true global conflict, as any war between nuclear powers would certainly result in the total annihilation of the planet.
But there are undeniable similarities between the current global political landscape and the precursors of World War II. Economic crises plague much of Europe including Greece. There are certainly similarities between Russia’s presence in Crimea and Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland in September of 1939. Even more chilling, a recent Pew poll, revealed that the majority of citizens in many Asian nations believe China’s territorial disputes with its neighbors will lead to war.
How World War III became possible
A nuclear conflict with Russia is likelier than you think
by Max Fisher on June 29, 2015
Despite growing geopolitical tensions between the world’s superpowers, the actual likelihood of a total world war is remote. Even in the shadow of what some call a new Cold War between the U.S. and Russia, the threat of a nuclear holocaust is enough to stave off a full global conflict. Nine countries possess nuclear weapons, each with varying capabilities. For decades, the mere presence of these warheads served as a deterrent to global war and limited conflict to isolated regions. Since America dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world’s superpowers increasingly protect their interests via proxy wars.
Related Quiz: Do You Know the World’s Nuclear Powers?
In this way, peace is precariously balanced on the possibility of nuclear war. President Obama has, to varying degrees of success, worked towards nuclear nonproliferation with the ultimate goal of achieving peace without nukes. Still belligerent nations actively pursue nuclear weapons. This is why the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal — is so critical. While the deal with Iran isn’t perfect, and far from a permanent solution, it is nevertheless a meaningful achievement. Simply put, the deal significantly limits Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon. Whether or not you agree on the specifics of the agreement, it is important to note that a deal preserves precarious peace and prevents global war.
A nuclear Iran is such a potentially destabilizing force that the mere possibility of that scenario required a joint action between six of the world’s leading nations. The joint coalition made up of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (The United States, Britain, China, Russia, and France) plus Germany — otherwise known as the P5+1 — first attacked Iran’s nuclear breakout plans through economic sanctions. To this point, the very reason for Germany’s inclusion in the P5+1 was based on their position as Iran’s key economic partner. In fact, it is believed the Iranian economy and nuclear program would collapse without German trade. The relationship between Germany and Iran underscores the interdependency of the global economy. In a global war, global trade becomes impossible, and economies collapse. To borrow a phrase from the Great Recession, global interdependence is too big to fail. For this reason alone, World War III is highly unlikely.
POP QUIZ HOTSHOT: THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL IS THE RESULT OF OVER A DECADE'S WORTH OF TALKS BETWEEN THE P5+1 AND IRAN. DO YOU KNOW THE P5+1?
70 years removed from World War II, the threat of another global conflict is at once distant and yet never fully out of mind. Increasing tensions between world superpowers in regions like Crimea and the South Pacific could plausibly erupt into full-scale war. Though the threat of losing the planet to a nuclear holocaust or the total collapse of the global economy both seem powerful enough deterrents to keep us from the brink. However, in the not so distant future world superpowers will be forced to reconcile a new threat though not from any belligerent nation. Severe climate change has already begun displacing populations. Resource depletion and forced migration had a direct role in causing the Syrian Civil War, a conflict that not only destabilized the Middle East but also contributed to Europe’s current migrant crisis.
What is the role of climate change in the conflict in Syria?
SEPTEMBER 03, 2015
This comic shows how drought may have been an unhinging factor for Syria in 2011, and what happened over the following year.
In fact, the massive influx of refugees into Europe from places like Syria, Libya, and Egypt is one example of the unforeseen side effects of climate change. There are certainly more salient examples of this global threat. We take notice (at least we should) when ice sheets twice the size of the Empire State Building fall from a glacier in Greenland or when a historic four-year drought cripples California. But, as we’ve seen with the Syrian Civil War, climate change can have a direct impact on global politics. The hundreds of thousands of refugees seeking asylum in Europe present both a humanitarian crisis and a serious security concern.
Some conservative thinkers believe this migration is, in fact, a Hijrah, otherwise known as a Jihad by immigration. Potential evidence that this is a Hijrah, and not simply a humanitarian crisis, came last February when the Islamic State published a document entitled, “Libya: The Strategic Gateway for the Islamic State.” In this document, ISIS implored Muslims to go to Libya and cross from there as refugees into Europe. Not surprisingly, Jihadis have already been found amongst refugees seeking asylum in Europe. Westerners have cause to be concerned. The effects of this mass migration will transform Europe forever, straining the economies of its wealthiest nations and reshaping the cultural landscape beyond recognition. To be clear ISIS did not cause the current mass migration nor did they have any influence on the environmental factors that led to the Syrian Civil War. ISIS simply took advantage of an opportunity presented by the destabilizing force of climate change.
Clearly the incentives for global war are low and deterrents higher than at any point in history. The threat of Armageddon then comes not from diplomatic agendas, but rather new, universal threats, the most notable of which is climate change. Global warming is a destabilizing force more threatening than any of the world’s nuclear arsenals.
As we honor the victims and veterans of WWII, it is imperative to examine the causes, effects and solutions of global conflict. NewsUp will explore this topic throughout the week and wants to get everyone’s perspective in the mix. Tweet, email, or reply below with your thoughts, comments and ideas.