SolarpunkFan wrote:Problem is, I think Trump would be more than happy to put boots on the ground against both ISIS and Iran (because Republicans think that all Muslims are the same). And with China trying to do some trading with Iran, I wouldn't be surprised if they retaliated too. And if that happened then everything is up in the air as far as conflict goes.
Why would the Chinese fight a war with the US over Iran, exactly? They have a lot of other trading partners. Heck,
we are a bigger Chinese trading partner than Iran is. If it came down to deciding whether to get to trade with the US or getting to trade with Iran, China would have every reason to pick the US.
I hate this election year, so so much.
![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
You hate it more than you need to because you're panicking.
It sounds sort of like you've got this fear of "Trump starting World War III," so you worked backward from the scary conclusion by picking someone else who might fight us, and then picking a reason why that might happen.
That's not the way to make realistic predictions- you have to work
forward and look at what is the most likely outcome of a given situation.
Trump winning the election is at least conceivable. A Trump who wins the election going on to declare war on Iran or other Middle Eastern countries is reasonably likely. But China going to war to
stop the US from doing that is incredibly unlikely, which makes the whole chain of events incredibly unlikely.
The Romulan Republic wrote:Clinton is unethical, but she is neither inexperienced, nor generally incompetent, nor insane, nor an extremist. She will not willingly do something that will destroy civilization, and is less likely to do so by accident.
Willingness to fight an illegal war is hardly an admirable quality, but it does not equate to likelihood of starting WWIII.
I do have some concerns about her no-fly zone in Syria policy, as that could lead to WWIII if enforced against Russia's wishes, but for the reasons I explain above, I suspect its mostly empty posturing, unless she can work out an agreement with Russia on the matter.
Either Trump OR Clinton is likely to do things capable of provoking other great powers in the Middle East. Clinton is more likely to deal with the consequences effectively, but it's a problem either way.
The big consequence of a Trump victory is that we would have effectively no allies or support whatsoever and nearly every foreign power would distance itself from us. No one would trust him (notorious fraudster) or want to work with him personally (obnoxious blowhard). He's very unlikely to start a nuclear war simply because
no one else wants a nuclear war, and he himself probably doesn't actively desire it either. But he's very likely to lose us trading opportunities, basing rights, the cooperation of other countries' intelligence agencies, and all the other things that you normally rely on allies to provide.