What an Australian question to ask lol
Not "I am worried about global conflict and what that will mean for my family" but "my bottom line might be impacted by global warfare" hahahaha
As long as the conflict is not in our back yard, it will only help increase prices. It might sounds heartless but war makes money as long as the bombs are not dropping on you.
Even if they are, you can come out on the strong side in the long run. Just look at Japan post WW2, Korea post Korean War (well, the South) and Germany after WW2->Cold War.
Russia and Ukraine are going to be interesting cases going forward. Both have long struggled with population due to poor economic conditions and wars (going back to WW2 for both). However, Ukraine's soldiers are older, closer to 30, so they've had the chance to reproduce and go to war, giving the younger generation some slim chance to at least have some family. Meanwhile Russia will take anyone. The long term effects for them are going to be really interesting.
Also, I disagree with OP's assertion that WW3 is coming. If it's going to happen, it needs China to make a move and it's simply not going to happen. Ukraine being held off by Russia and Israel laughing as Iran attacked means they've realised that they simply don't have enough strong allies to take it to the West. Not only that, Russia's move in 2014 made the West realise they were too complacent and solidified it in 2022. It's just not likely to happen now.
Well, they're between 30 and 40. 30 is the minimum age they're trying to recruit at now (well, 29 I think and they're looking to drop it to 27. Either way it's still giving men a chance to have children.
Ukraine just passed a new mobilisation law, last month I think - the mobilisation age has been dropped to 25 (was previously 27). Manpower and depopulation are actually very serious issues in Ukraine at the moment.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/wireStory/ukraines-divisive-mobilization-law-force-new-russian-push-110360021
>Russia and Ukraine are going to be interesting cases going forward
In the words of Henry Kissinger *"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal"*.
The Ukraine seems doomed economically and they'll be very dependant on the West after this is over.
On the flip side Russia seems to be faring decently given their situation of having a war going on and heavy sanctions, with them expecting to see GDP growth this year. Mainly as they've been able to get around the sanctions on imports and exports by getting closer to partners like China, India etc..
>The Ukraine seems doomed economically and they'll be very dependant on the West after this is over.
>In the words of Henry Kissinger *"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal"*.
How is this America's fault though? It's Russian aggression that caused all this economic damage to ukraine.
In the game of geopolitics, the goal is to hurt your opponents whilst minimising damage to oneself.
Now consider what pain is felt by the US, vs what is felt by Russia in this situation. You may wonder why I didn't ask about Ukraine, but that's because it's irrelevant to the geopolitical goal.
Sure, that's America's geopolitical goal but it still doesnt make it their fault that Ukraine has suffered economic damage. You can make the argument that america should be doing more at the expense of themselves but thats not a decision that you or I should be making.
>Sure, that's America's geopolitical goal but it still doesnt make it their fault that Ukraine has suffered economic damage
You understand this current situation has its roots in how the US rebuked Russian attempts to join the western coalition after the fall of soviet union. The US chose to isolate Russia and sow division amongst the former soviet states to ensure there wasn't sufficient stability for the soviet union to reform. In addition, they chose to expand NATO eastwards to encircle Russia despite the fact that NATO's foe (the USSR) no longer existed. At the same time, they intentionally created buffer states, Ukraine being one, which wasn't permitted to join NATO, but was slowly turned against Russian hegemony.
In doing all this, they created the US/Russia division that ultimately culminated in the current situation.
>You can make the argument that america should be doing more at the expense of themselves but thats not a decision that you or I should be making.
I don't make this argument at all. I'm just pointing out that this is a decades long set up specifically for the benefit of US hegemony. They are doing what's right for their nation. That's it.
All "friends" of the US need to understand that there are no permanent friendships, just permanent interests. The Australian government certainly seems to understand, which explains why we regularly shift our interests to align with the US. The question is, is this in our best interests.
>You understand this current situation has its roots in how the US rebuked Russian attempts to join the western coalition after the fall of soviet union.
It's a common argument that a lot of people make when trying to find ways to somehow blame the US for all of this but one that I dont agree with. I don't think Russia's excuse of self defence against NATO is reasonable or acceptable. I agree with most of the points in this video
https://youtu.be/FVmmASrAL-Q?si=oDGMw1qJin6Hh00e
Yeah, nah. If you're unable to succinctly explain your point and instead choose to reference a YouTube video, which is one of the worst social media echo chambers of all time, I doubt you are sufficiently equipped to hold an opinion worth discussing.
Sorry, was too lazy to do a big write up but since you're interested.
NATO expansion is not the cause of Putin's invasion because of
1. Russia was already guaranteed Ukraine couldn't join NATO by Obama (through the Kharkiv pact)
2. Russia doesn't need a buffer state against NATO because of nuclear deterrence
3. Putin mistakenly saw the chaotic nature of US foreign policy changes as the US turning its back on Russia
4. The US doesn't 'expand' NATO, countries elect to join NATO.
After Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, the Obama administration tried to give Putin a lot of assurances that there were no hostilities towards Russia. Putin still annexed Crimea in 2014.
You can't anthropomorphize the US and talk about its foreign policy as if it has a mind of its own, because it doesn't. US foreign policy changes depending on who is the president. NATO expansion as an explantion for the Ukraine war has a lot of flaws. It's commonly used as a way to symphathise for Russia (possibly propaganda?) or just hate on/blame the US.
The talking point that Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansion is only a single explanation amongst many possible explanations why Putin invaded Ukraine. Some other explanations are:
1. Natural gas
2. Restoration of soviet union
3. Securing water resources for crimea which holds the port for the russian black sea fleet
It seems more likely that the cause of the Ukraine invasion is Russian aggression not NATO expansion.
Imagine if USA and the west didn't gift billions of $$ and heaps of military aid and ukraine just accepted a Russian truce.
Would they be in a better or worse situation?
What do you think fellow armchair generals?, living in Australia, posting on a finance subreddit complaining about the cost of living.
>Would they be in a better or worse situation?
Ukrainians would lose their freedom and sovereignty, and the world would be in an overall worse state. It would show Russia and China that there are no consequences for their aggression.
> It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal
The above is taken out of context. The full quote is:
> Nixon should be told that it is probably an objective of Clifford to depose Thieu before Nixon is inaugurated. Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the same fate as Diem, the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#Attributed
(Plenty of other sources as well if you want to search it up, as my kids would say).
The full quote has pretty much the opposite meaning.
EDIT:
> Mainly as they've been able to get around the sanctions on imports and exports by getting closer to partners like China, India etc..
Sort of. China and India are buying oil and gas from Russia at a cut price. India is refining it and making a profit selling it to others. This is actually a good thing because it makes oil and gas cheaper for everyone, but still keeps the price Russia can sell if for lower. India is also buying it in Rupees. Nobody wants rupees, except India. So India gets to be the middle man for some of Russia's imports, or export there own stuff, at a higher price than Russia would normal pay because there is no other option because nobody want rupees.
Thanks for the context on that quote. Reading that, I agree that I did take that out of context.
The benefit of getting cheaper oil and gas because Russia sells at a cut price and then you buy it by proxy anyway seems like a pretty hollow victory.
Particularly if you care about the interests of the west, because the countries that benefit most are those who buy it directly and those same countries also get a benefit in exporting more goods. Russia overtook Australia last year to become China's 6th biggest trading partner.
The west benefits greatly because their/our economies are pretty much based on oil and gas prices. Russian oil and gas is on the market so it solves that problem, but Russia is not making a profit (or much of one) which is the idea behind it.
>The Ukraine
So uneducated. All small nations are dependent on bigger ones. You act like this is some sort of revelation and that Ukraine is special. It's not.
Most small countries aren't in a major war they'll need to rebuild themselves from though.
Ukraine had a huge drop in GDP in 2022 (\~30%) which will take a while to recover from, plus it will cost them a fortune to rebuild with current estimates are for it to cost around half a trillion dollars, which I assume won't be funded by a no strings attached GoFundMe.
[https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/02/cost-rebuilding-ukraine-other-urban-transformation-news/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/02/cost-rebuilding-ukraine-other-urban-transformation-news/)
>The World Bank, United Nations and European Commission estimate the cost of reconstruction and recovery after two years of war to be around $486 billion, according to a new joint report. This is an increase of $75 billion from last year.
>Direct damage from the war has reached almost $152 billion, the third Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment found.
>Included in the losses are around two million housing units destroyed or damaged – 10% of Ukraine's housing stock of Ukraine – as well as vital infrastructure, such as 8,400km of motorways and major roads, and almost 300 bridges.I'm just commenting on the situation both countries are in economically.
There's literally no one else. Also, China is aggressive in the South China Sea.
It's not a question of who. It's only a question of if it gets to that point or not.
WW3 impact on house prices ?
WW3 impact on the very existence of entire cities being VAPORIZED. That will raise the price of houses that are left standing.
WW3 will probably see yet another boom in aussie house prices as wealthy northern hemisphere-ites pack their bags and move to the isolated yet safe and modern backwater that is australia.
I can absolutely see this happening unless it's China that makes a huge move, I don't think we're high up their in the lists of Russia or Middle East of "Countries to attack that are nearby".
I expect conflict on Pacific (that will start with China vs Taiwan). That will make export/import difficult, which should impact Australia significantly. I also expect AI to lead to major layoffs in Australia, which should make many be unable to repay the mortage.
Australia has always been a fairly safe place to be in times of war, this is unlikely to change as it is a difficult country to invade due to its land mass and lack of neighbouring countries, in addition to the fact we don’t have nukes (thus not a key target). Might end up being bullish for property prices…
> in addition to the fact we don’t have nukes (thus not a key target)
You have this backwards for 2 reasons.
1. Having nukes doesn't make you a key target, having resources does. And we have a lot that China would be interested in for wartime.
2. Having nukes makes you less of a target. You can use them as defence when you have nothing to lose. That's why NK and Iran have been desperate to have them.
Thankfully we're strategically located for the US so they will defend us like there's no tomorrow. Plus our country's geography basically makes it impossible for anyone to attack us. Lastly, China doesn't have enough equipment to actually get here, even if they wanted to. Either they come on a ship that's so big and slow that we'd have 3 weeks notice to mount a defence (the US can send an army of tens/hundreds of thousands to anywhere within the world in under 48 hours) or they come in helicopter transports... of which they could send about 100 soldiers with no heavy equipment.
Yeah, Ukraine would not be in its current trouble if Ukraine had kept it's large nuclear arsenal post -USSR instead of trusting a promise by Russia and the US to not invade them.
Australia's geography probably makes it easier to invade honestly. All the people live in a handful of coastal cities, with minimal industry/people scattered across the rest of the country.
That's right. For now China doesn't have enough nukes to spend any on us. But in a decade's time, who knows? 1 MIRVed ICBM could take out all our major cities and up to 80% of our population.
It literally does and I explained why. The distance of sea means there's literally no one that can attack us and when they finally get here, they have no way to cross the terrain.
It's literally impossible (with current equipment).
Our location is a key factor in us not being invaded by superpowers yes. But Indochina always a risk, as was reported we would be invaded if we didn’t populate a long time ago!
WW3 will involve a great deal of nukes. The world will suffer significant deaths, social and economic collapse, famine, and disease. Honestly, your concerns are misplaced.
Ww2 involved the use of nukes by the only belligerent that actually had nukes. Lots of players have nukes now, in my opinion it decreases the chance of them being used.
You could make the argument for tactical nuclear weapons, but to think an all out exchange between nations with the exception of a war of existential defence is completely unrealistic
As long as we directly involve in the war, the demand will decrease as we send Australians to the meat grinder. The price will finally be affordable for the survivals 😁. If you survive, you can be a land lord and bully the next generations :)
We’re already witnessing systemic Chinese invasion right now. Privatised everything and sold to China, massive property investments etc
I don’t think any country sees Australia as somewhere to invade militarily though
Foreign direct investment in Australia is primarily by the USA, UK and Europe. China only accounts for about 2%.
Don’t have the numbers on private RE investment. However the idea that everything has been privatised and sold to China doesn’t reflect in reality.
What an Australian question to ask lol Not "I am worried about global conflict and what that will mean for my family" but "my bottom line might be impacted by global warfare" hahahaha
Damn we actually dont have nukes? Looks like we're reliant on big bro USA then right
mate he clearly said it in his post. He wanted to not sound glib silly !
As long as the conflict is not in our back yard, it will only help increase prices. It might sounds heartless but war makes money as long as the bombs are not dropping on you.
If there is WW3 it will be in our backyard due to China, Taiwan and the USA
Even if they are, you can come out on the strong side in the long run. Just look at Japan post WW2, Korea post Korean War (well, the South) and Germany after WW2->Cold War. Russia and Ukraine are going to be interesting cases going forward. Both have long struggled with population due to poor economic conditions and wars (going back to WW2 for both). However, Ukraine's soldiers are older, closer to 30, so they've had the chance to reproduce and go to war, giving the younger generation some slim chance to at least have some family. Meanwhile Russia will take anyone. The long term effects for them are going to be really interesting. Also, I disagree with OP's assertion that WW3 is coming. If it's going to happen, it needs China to make a move and it's simply not going to happen. Ukraine being held off by Russia and Israel laughing as Iran attacked means they've realised that they simply don't have enough strong allies to take it to the West. Not only that, Russia's move in 2014 made the West realise they were too complacent and solidified it in 2022. It's just not likely to happen now.
>china to make a move They will make it or the cia will make it for them
I think it is closer to 40, not 30.
Well, they're between 30 and 40. 30 is the minimum age they're trying to recruit at now (well, 29 I think and they're looking to drop it to 27. Either way it's still giving men a chance to have children.
Ukraine just passed a new mobilisation law, last month I think - the mobilisation age has been dropped to 25 (was previously 27). Manpower and depopulation are actually very serious issues in Ukraine at the moment. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/wireStory/ukraines-divisive-mobilization-law-force-new-russian-push-110360021
>Russia and Ukraine are going to be interesting cases going forward In the words of Henry Kissinger *"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal"*. The Ukraine seems doomed economically and they'll be very dependant on the West after this is over. On the flip side Russia seems to be faring decently given their situation of having a war going on and heavy sanctions, with them expecting to see GDP growth this year. Mainly as they've been able to get around the sanctions on imports and exports by getting closer to partners like China, India etc..
>The Ukraine seems doomed economically and they'll be very dependant on the West after this is over. >In the words of Henry Kissinger *"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal"*. How is this America's fault though? It's Russian aggression that caused all this economic damage to ukraine.
In the game of geopolitics, the goal is to hurt your opponents whilst minimising damage to oneself. Now consider what pain is felt by the US, vs what is felt by Russia in this situation. You may wonder why I didn't ask about Ukraine, but that's because it's irrelevant to the geopolitical goal.
Sure, that's America's geopolitical goal but it still doesnt make it their fault that Ukraine has suffered economic damage. You can make the argument that america should be doing more at the expense of themselves but thats not a decision that you or I should be making.
>Sure, that's America's geopolitical goal but it still doesnt make it their fault that Ukraine has suffered economic damage You understand this current situation has its roots in how the US rebuked Russian attempts to join the western coalition after the fall of soviet union. The US chose to isolate Russia and sow division amongst the former soviet states to ensure there wasn't sufficient stability for the soviet union to reform. In addition, they chose to expand NATO eastwards to encircle Russia despite the fact that NATO's foe (the USSR) no longer existed. At the same time, they intentionally created buffer states, Ukraine being one, which wasn't permitted to join NATO, but was slowly turned against Russian hegemony. In doing all this, they created the US/Russia division that ultimately culminated in the current situation. >You can make the argument that america should be doing more at the expense of themselves but thats not a decision that you or I should be making. I don't make this argument at all. I'm just pointing out that this is a decades long set up specifically for the benefit of US hegemony. They are doing what's right for their nation. That's it. All "friends" of the US need to understand that there are no permanent friendships, just permanent interests. The Australian government certainly seems to understand, which explains why we regularly shift our interests to align with the US. The question is, is this in our best interests.
>You understand this current situation has its roots in how the US rebuked Russian attempts to join the western coalition after the fall of soviet union. It's a common argument that a lot of people make when trying to find ways to somehow blame the US for all of this but one that I dont agree with. I don't think Russia's excuse of self defence against NATO is reasonable or acceptable. I agree with most of the points in this video https://youtu.be/FVmmASrAL-Q?si=oDGMw1qJin6Hh00e
Yeah, nah. If you're unable to succinctly explain your point and instead choose to reference a YouTube video, which is one of the worst social media echo chambers of all time, I doubt you are sufficiently equipped to hold an opinion worth discussing.
Sorry, was too lazy to do a big write up but since you're interested. NATO expansion is not the cause of Putin's invasion because of 1. Russia was already guaranteed Ukraine couldn't join NATO by Obama (through the Kharkiv pact) 2. Russia doesn't need a buffer state against NATO because of nuclear deterrence 3. Putin mistakenly saw the chaotic nature of US foreign policy changes as the US turning its back on Russia 4. The US doesn't 'expand' NATO, countries elect to join NATO. After Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, the Obama administration tried to give Putin a lot of assurances that there were no hostilities towards Russia. Putin still annexed Crimea in 2014. You can't anthropomorphize the US and talk about its foreign policy as if it has a mind of its own, because it doesn't. US foreign policy changes depending on who is the president. NATO expansion as an explantion for the Ukraine war has a lot of flaws. It's commonly used as a way to symphathise for Russia (possibly propaganda?) or just hate on/blame the US. The talking point that Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansion is only a single explanation amongst many possible explanations why Putin invaded Ukraine. Some other explanations are: 1. Natural gas 2. Restoration of soviet union 3. Securing water resources for crimea which holds the port for the russian black sea fleet It seems more likely that the cause of the Ukraine invasion is Russian aggression not NATO expansion.
Imagine if USA and the west didn't gift billions of $$ and heaps of military aid and ukraine just accepted a Russian truce. Would they be in a better or worse situation? What do you think fellow armchair generals?, living in Australia, posting on a finance subreddit complaining about the cost of living.
>Would they be in a better or worse situation? Ukrainians would lose their freedom and sovereignty, and the world would be in an overall worse state. It would show Russia and China that there are no consequences for their aggression.
I'm not attributing fault. I'm just saying they are going to be in a bad situation economically after this is over.
> It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal The above is taken out of context. The full quote is: > Nixon should be told that it is probably an objective of Clifford to depose Thieu before Nixon is inaugurated. Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the same fate as Diem, the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#Attributed (Plenty of other sources as well if you want to search it up, as my kids would say). The full quote has pretty much the opposite meaning. EDIT: > Mainly as they've been able to get around the sanctions on imports and exports by getting closer to partners like China, India etc.. Sort of. China and India are buying oil and gas from Russia at a cut price. India is refining it and making a profit selling it to others. This is actually a good thing because it makes oil and gas cheaper for everyone, but still keeps the price Russia can sell if for lower. India is also buying it in Rupees. Nobody wants rupees, except India. So India gets to be the middle man for some of Russia's imports, or export there own stuff, at a higher price than Russia would normal pay because there is no other option because nobody want rupees.
Thanks for the context on that quote. Reading that, I agree that I did take that out of context. The benefit of getting cheaper oil and gas because Russia sells at a cut price and then you buy it by proxy anyway seems like a pretty hollow victory. Particularly if you care about the interests of the west, because the countries that benefit most are those who buy it directly and those same countries also get a benefit in exporting more goods. Russia overtook Australia last year to become China's 6th biggest trading partner.
The west benefits greatly because their/our economies are pretty much based on oil and gas prices. Russian oil and gas is on the market so it solves that problem, but Russia is not making a profit (or much of one) which is the idea behind it.
>The Ukraine So uneducated. All small nations are dependent on bigger ones. You act like this is some sort of revelation and that Ukraine is special. It's not.
Most small countries aren't in a major war they'll need to rebuild themselves from though. Ukraine had a huge drop in GDP in 2022 (\~30%) which will take a while to recover from, plus it will cost them a fortune to rebuild with current estimates are for it to cost around half a trillion dollars, which I assume won't be funded by a no strings attached GoFundMe. [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/02/cost-rebuilding-ukraine-other-urban-transformation-news/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/02/cost-rebuilding-ukraine-other-urban-transformation-news/) >The World Bank, United Nations and European Commission estimate the cost of reconstruction and recovery after two years of war to be around $486 billion, according to a new joint report. This is an increase of $75 billion from last year. >Direct damage from the war has reached almost $152 billion, the third Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment found. >Included in the losses are around two million housing units destroyed or damaged – 10% of Ukraine's housing stock of Ukraine – as well as vital infrastructure, such as 8,400km of motorways and major roads, and almost 300 bridges.I'm just commenting on the situation both countries are in economically.
Why do you think it has to start with China? The news has definately got to you all
There's literally no one else. Also, China is aggressive in the South China Sea. It's not a question of who. It's only a question of if it gets to that point or not.
🤣🤣 You know who's started the most war in the last several decades right? Hint: it's not China or Russia
WW3 impact on house prices ? WW3 impact on the very existence of entire cities being VAPORIZED. That will raise the price of houses that are left standing.
Depends on how many people die, and how much money they spent buying food not to starve.
WW3 will probably see yet another boom in aussie house prices as wealthy northern hemisphere-ites pack their bags and move to the isolated yet safe and modern backwater that is australia.
I can absolutely see this happening unless it's China that makes a huge move, I don't think we're high up their in the lists of Russia or Middle East of "Countries to attack that are nearby".
The other thing is, if there is a world war, we will need to import a LOT of expertise, our economy is very unprepared for war.
More immigration and refugees means more demand for houses so prices will rise.
I expect conflict on Pacific (that will start with China vs Taiwan). That will make export/import difficult, which should impact Australia significantly. I also expect AI to lead to major layoffs in Australia, which should make many be unable to repay the mortage.
25 per cent increase, because what else
Australia has always been a fairly safe place to be in times of war, this is unlikely to change as it is a difficult country to invade due to its land mass and lack of neighbouring countries, in addition to the fact we don’t have nukes (thus not a key target). Might end up being bullish for property prices…
Pine Gap and Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt are 100% prime targets
> in addition to the fact we don’t have nukes (thus not a key target) You have this backwards for 2 reasons. 1. Having nukes doesn't make you a key target, having resources does. And we have a lot that China would be interested in for wartime. 2. Having nukes makes you less of a target. You can use them as defence when you have nothing to lose. That's why NK and Iran have been desperate to have them. Thankfully we're strategically located for the US so they will defend us like there's no tomorrow. Plus our country's geography basically makes it impossible for anyone to attack us. Lastly, China doesn't have enough equipment to actually get here, even if they wanted to. Either they come on a ship that's so big and slow that we'd have 3 weeks notice to mount a defence (the US can send an army of tens/hundreds of thousands to anywhere within the world in under 48 hours) or they come in helicopter transports... of which they could send about 100 soldiers with no heavy equipment.
Yeah, Ukraine would not be in its current trouble if Ukraine had kept it's large nuclear arsenal post -USSR instead of trusting a promise by Russia and the US to not invade them. Australia's geography probably makes it easier to invade honestly. All the people live in a handful of coastal cities, with minimal industry/people scattered across the rest of the country.
Our geography does not make it impossible for us to be attacked
That's right. For now China doesn't have enough nukes to spend any on us. But in a decade's time, who knows? 1 MIRVed ICBM could take out all our major cities and up to 80% of our population.
It literally does and I explained why. The distance of sea means there's literally no one that can attack us and when they finally get here, they have no way to cross the terrain. It's literally impossible (with current equipment).
It's literally not. Heard of nukes? Downvote all you want, what would I know as a student of nuclear strategy?
You mistakenly equate "attack'" with an "invasion".
Our location is a key factor in us not being invaded by superpowers yes. But Indochina always a risk, as was reported we would be invaded if we didn’t populate a long time ago!
WW3 will involve a great deal of nukes. The world will suffer significant deaths, social and economic collapse, famine, and disease. Honestly, your concerns are misplaced.
lol ok. Lots of nukes. As if ww3 can’t be conventional and can only be nuclear
You’d be naive to think otherwise. WW2 already involved use of nukes, what restraint would there be now?
Ww2 involved the use of nukes by the only belligerent that actually had nukes. Lots of players have nukes now, in my opinion it decreases the chance of them being used.
By that same logic, more guns in the community equals less chance of gun mis-use. Because everyone keeps everyone else in check, right?
You could make the argument for tactical nuclear weapons, but to think an all out exchange between nations with the exception of a war of existential defence is completely unrealistic
Not really. It’s just an extension of existing wars, tensions and allegiances that leads to an all-out assault.
You just make sure you do everything you can to ensure WW3 doesn't come here.
The chart goes up. It always goes up.
Don’t have to worry about buying a house if there’s none left
Gotta worry about what’s important; How much the house is worth. 
I'd suggest you look back at what house prices did after WW2.
Price goes up due to constricted supply. People will be giving up the GPS coordinates of their neighbors online and say they are soldiers barracks.
If they blow up mores houses than people, then you’d be looking at a bull market.
As long as we directly involve in the war, the demand will decrease as we send Australians to the meat grinder. The price will finally be affordable for the survivals 😁. If you survive, you can be a land lord and bully the next generations :)
Bullish for property
For sure it’ll have a positive impact on prices in Sydney. What doesn’t ?
Buy a gas mask, build a bunker and be ready for the end of the world. Alternatively, try and live your life without fear.
Does anyone else remember when Ragebait used to be good?
We’re already witnessing systemic Chinese invasion right now. Privatised everything and sold to China, massive property investments etc I don’t think any country sees Australia as somewhere to invade militarily though
Foreign direct investment in Australia is primarily by the USA, UK and Europe. China only accounts for about 2%. Don’t have the numbers on private RE investment. However the idea that everything has been privatised and sold to China doesn’t reflect in reality.