I don’t want to unnecessarily downplay fears, but I think the main way a world war would be initiated here would require them to win over the army. While there’s some nutjobs in that sector that will gleefully imprison defenseless immigrants, I don’t think anyone wants to go to war against a world power, and many have taken an oath against following blatantly evil orders.
Much of the control exerted by Trump has been through emails and small bands of fowl actors given security through the executive branch. They also have a faction of chaos enabled by the J6 rioters, who are spiteful but not someone he can direct. That’s scary, but it also means he doesn’t have any kind of actual legion of force lifting their arms in unified salutes.
There is some danger of war creeping out through Russia’s constant slow greed, which would likely mean the USA not getting involved until our internal politics can reach an agreement.
Trump just replaced the the chairman of the joint Chiefs of staff (the highest military position) with a syncopant. He has 4 more years to purge the military and he is absolutely going to try.
If the military stops his coup, it will be the lower ranks overthrowing the leadership. I have no faith. The military will be a different beast by the time trump goes for a third term.
Whilst I would say that triggering an Economic Crisis in the US which spreads to other Economies is a greater risk than a World War, American Presidents starting wars to distract from their own mismanagement is tradition and given Trump’s “if some is good, the maximum possible is the bestest” philosphy in his policy choices so far in this presidency, him through an accumulation of measures that make enemies out of friends, and small military interventions creating a situation that escalates to WWIII, is a realistic possibility.
I mean the idea that the threat of Military Force is a valid tool even against US Allies predates Trump - just look at the Legislation Congress passed to invade The Netherlands if ever an American national was arrested by the ICC - and Fascists traditionally see Military Force as a perfect valid tool in the Great Game and Allies as only good as long as they’re useful.
Considering just how many Americans voted for him and the brainwashed hyper-nationalism that’s the bread and butter of military training everywhere, I wouldn’t rely on the US Army to not go ahead and attack a target in a country that was deemed a US Ally just months earlier and something like that escalating to something much bigger.
What legislation from Congress are you referring to? I searched on the motions you were citing but only found Trump’s recent executive order - and he writes so many (often contradicting themselves, failing explanation, or getting rejected in court) those are often with less merit.
I generally understand that America’s far right doesn’t hope to invade anyone - they vote for their leaders under beliefs that Democratic leaders are “too weak” to prevent conflicts or that they have sinister/hostile motivations.
You’re not completely wrong in your analysis, but these days I think more populations have become aware of the divide between government/civilian opinions.
I don’t want to unnecessarily downplay fears, but I think the main way a world war would be initiated here would require them to win over the army. While there’s some nutjobs in that sector that will gleefully imprison defenseless immigrants, I don’t think anyone wants to go to war against a world power, and many have taken an oath against following blatantly evil orders.
Much of the control exerted by Trump has been through emails and small bands of fowl actors given security through the executive branch. They also have a faction of chaos enabled by the J6 rioters, who are spiteful but not someone he can direct. That’s scary, but it also means he doesn’t have any kind of actual legion of force lifting their arms in unified salutes.
There is some danger of war creeping out through Russia’s constant slow greed, which would likely mean the USA not getting involved until our internal politics can reach an agreement.
Trump just replaced the the chairman of the joint Chiefs of staff (the highest military position) with a syncopant. He has 4 more years to purge the military and he is absolutely going to try.
If the military stops his coup, it will be the lower ranks overthrowing the leadership. I have no faith. The military will be a different beast by the time trump goes for a third term.
Whilst I would say that triggering an Economic Crisis in the US which spreads to other Economies is a greater risk than a World War, American Presidents starting wars to distract from their own mismanagement is tradition and given Trump’s “if some is good, the maximum possible is the bestest” philosphy in his policy choices so far in this presidency, him through an accumulation of measures that make enemies out of friends, and small military interventions creating a situation that escalates to WWIII, is a realistic possibility.
I mean the idea that the threat of Military Force is a valid tool even against US Allies predates Trump - just look at the Legislation Congress passed to invade The Netherlands if ever an American national was arrested by the ICC - and Fascists traditionally see Military Force as a perfect valid tool in the Great Game and Allies as only good as long as they’re useful.
Considering just how many Americans voted for him and the brainwashed hyper-nationalism that’s the bread and butter of military training everywhere, I wouldn’t rely on the US Army to not go ahead and attack a target in a country that was deemed a US Ally just months earlier and something like that escalating to something much bigger.
What legislation from Congress are you referring to? I searched on the motions you were citing but only found Trump’s recent executive order - and he writes so many (often contradicting themselves, failing explanation, or getting rejected in court) those are often with less merit.
I generally understand that America’s far right doesn’t hope to invade anyone - they vote for their leaders under beliefs that Democratic leaders are “too weak” to prevent conflicts or that they have sinister/hostile motivations.
You’re not completely wrong in your analysis, but these days I think more populations have become aware of the divide between government/civilian opinions.