Two issues raised by the idea of global power shifting towards the Global South:
a) if WW3 started tomorrow, I think the chance of Brazil and Mexico (approximately half of Latin America’s population) remaining stable democracies is less than 1⁄4. And I don’t know what could happen to India and Pakistan.
Either we’d have dictatorships (like in WW2 and the cold war—but possibly worse), or civil war. And notice, especially in Brazil, the rising political power of the military and charismatic churches makes things worse.
b) would a post-nuclear world be one where WMD are seriously oulawed (like Harbingers in Palmer’s Terra Incognita), or quite the opposite (i e., a race to the bottom where every country would need a stockpile of WMDs to ensure sovereignty)? I think the former is more likely: without international pressure and some coordination among nuclear powers, it’s quite likely that many other countries would have nukes (or bioweapons) today.
Two issues raised by the idea of global power shifting towards the Global South: a) if WW3 started tomorrow, I think the chance of Brazil and Mexico (approximately half of Latin America’s population) remaining stable democracies is less than 1⁄4. And I don’t know what could happen to India and Pakistan. Either we’d have dictatorships (like in WW2 and the cold war—but possibly worse), or civil war. And notice, especially in Brazil, the rising political power of the military and charismatic churches makes things worse. b) would a post-nuclear world be one where WMD are seriously oulawed (like Harbingers in Palmer’s Terra Incognita), or quite the opposite (i e., a race to the bottom where every country would need a stockpile of WMDs to ensure sovereignty)? I think the former is more likely: without international pressure and some coordination among nuclear powers, it’s quite likely that many other countries would have nukes (or bioweapons) today.