War is extending from territories to the economy.

[CTO114]

It is increasingly prominent in conflicting situations that military conflict is now entering economic infrastructural warfare.

When we talk of geopolitical conflicts now, we're talking of; semi conductors, trade routes, data and energy.

The next world powers may not be those with the most formidable army, they are those who control; A.I, chips and energy infrastructure.

[Die_empty]

It is increasingly prominent in conflicting situations that military conflict is now entering economic infrastructural warfare.

When we talk of geopolitical conflicts now, we're talking of; semi conductors, trade routes, data and energy.

The next world powers may not be those with the most formidable army, they are those who control; A.I, chips and energy infrastructure.

A typical example is what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's blockage of that passage has triggered a global economic crisis due to the increase in oil prices. Iran might not have the military might to match the US, but it has maximized the economic importance of that location to boost its negotiation power.

Another example is the Chinese law that mandated foreign companies to acquire approval from the Chinese Ministry of Commerce before exporting rare earth elements. This move was a retaliation for the US sanctions. China dominates the rare earth industry and is aware that Washington heavily depends on suppliers from Beijing.

Let me add the blockade of Cuba by the US, which restricts foreign oil shipments to Cuba. It has an economic war to force a change of government.

Economic wars have existed for a long time. But the style and products used change over time.

[noorman0]

And countries that excel in computing today can dominate the digital economy, surveillance, and industrial automation (AI) sectors simultaneously. This remains relevant in today's economic development, where many countries are competing. On the other hand, it will be a deadly weapon for countries that achieve superiority first without firing a single shot.

[BIT-BENDER]

It is increasingly prominent in conflicting situations that military conflict is now entering economic infrastructural warfare.

When we talk of geopolitical conflicts now, we're talking of; semi conductors, trade routes, data and energy.

The next world powers may not be those with the most formidable army, they are those who control; A.I, chips and energy infrastructure.

I think those with Formidable armies still have the best advantages over other countries without formidable armies, to be honest those countries who have the biggest formidable armies are so much economically stable than others who does have formidable armies.
To be frank countries with formable armies could detect what other countries can produce and also even influence the country, for example they could infiltrate weaker countries and there by extort them directly or indirectly.

[ColdLava40]

It is increasingly prominent in conflicting situations that military conflict is now entering economic infrastructural warfare.

When we talk of geopolitical conflicts now, we're talking of; semi conductors, trade routes, data and energy.

The next world powers may not be those with the most formidable army, they are those who control; A.I, chips and energy infrastructure.

What exactly do you think major world leaders fights for? Power of course.

Every country wants to dominate over the other and when the other disagrees it becomes conflict. They fight for power, they fight for technology.

The war between Iran and the us was never about territory. It was about Iran's nuclear power and Trump will not see them have one.

Iran to me is too far a country to have such power in their control. I'm not saying the US is better. But we've seen how the was has disrupted the economy of not only their individual countries but also that of those around them.

[DYOR+BTC]

Its a very nice idea itemising the possible requirement for the future world power because of the constant diversification we experience in our modern world today which i believe is a necessity if any nation wishes to become one.

 The diversification of conflict from terrorism to economics system is seen as the deficiency in most leadership qualities, most economy now are runned not with transparency but constant introduction of greed and selfishness which is why many raise to question the authenticity of there decision. From the way things are meant to be i don't see why poverty rate keeps increasing while the leaders keeps getting richer on daily basis

[Bluedrem]

It is increasingly prominent in conflicting situations that military conflict is now entering economic infrastructural warfare.

When we talk of geopolitical conflicts now, we're talking of; semi conductors, trade routes, data and energy.

The next world powers may not be those with the most formidable army, they are those who control; A.I, chips and energy infrastructure.

Earlier, wars were fought on the battlefield and now wars are fought in the virtual world. Yes, you are partially right that in the future, those who will be ahead in technology and those who will be ahead in terms of resources due to physical resources will rule the world. This issue comes to the fore when we compare the previous conflicts and the current war. If we review the Iran-Israel-America war, you will see that Iran has suppressed America and Israel only by occupying the Melon Strait. I do not think that Iran will be protected from Israel and America in a war militarily. Just look at how Iran defeated Israel and America due to geographical advantage. From here, it is understood how geographical location, physical resources and technological progress can protect a country.

[Doan9269]

Is it not everyone of us that are paying the price now, two countries are having war together and the entire world is filling the impact seriously, this is where we have to be more independent of each other when it comes to economic development because those country that are yet to develop will suffer the cost the most, overdependency is not too good when a country economy is not moving forward and they only have to rely on other countries for economic supply.

[Oluwa-btc]

Let me add the blockade of Cuba by the US, which restricts foreign oil shipments to Cuba. It has an economic war to force a change of government.

Economic wars have existed for a long time. But the style and products used change over time.

Two days ago they announced that they have runned out of Petrol and Diesel and without this they'll see a whole lot of children die from not getting surgical treatments.

The blockade should end now, there's no way Donald Trump will go about screaming and moaning for the strait of hormuz to be opened but not ending the blockade of Cuba. This is hypocrisy at the highest. This is yet another Genocide from the  Epstein empire. It saddens me truthfully.

[Cryptomultiplier]

Let me add the blockade of Cuba by the US, which restricts foreign oil shipments to Cuba. It has an economic war to force a change of government.

Economic wars have existed for a long time. But the style and products used change over time.

Two days ago they announced that they have runned out of Petrol and Diesel and without this they'll see a whole lot of children die from not getting surgical treatments.

The blockade should end now, there's no way Donald Trump will go about screaming and moaning for the strait of hormuz to be opened but not ending the blockade of Cuba. This is hypocrisy at the highest. This is yet another Genocide from the  Epstein empire. It saddens me truthfully.

The Cuba situation serves as a blueprint for the exact paradigm of structural and economic siege that is same case with Iran vs U.S/ Israel war.
In Cuba we see how the system wants to be starved from inside out by the U.S, without care for the lives of Cuba citizens.
While we see Iran using the strait of Hormuz as a choke point of economic warfare to oppose the U.S and force them into giving into their terms or agenda.

An economic choke point by restriction of data, energy, currency conversion and trade corridors is simply capitalizing on the interconnectedness that all countries share and of whom thought that, this is the path to peace.
As economic warfare becomes the order of the day instead of warheads flying everywhere and troops on the ground, it has become more of a strategy of warfare that is also as deadly and costly, because an attack on the economy at large by sanctions or new policies or blockage of passage and more that may be the case to exploit, is simply extending from territories into the economy at the least level.

[aioc]

The next world powers may not be those with the most formidable army, they are those who control; A.I, chips and energy infrastructure.

It's always been this way. Look at where the richest country is located; it's located where the oil is rich, where they have the infrastructure and the resources.
If you have these resources, you have the funds to buy weapons and control other countries' economies.
We have seen it happen in the Strait of Hormuz, the third world country that relies on oil is the real victim of the war.

[CageMabok]

It is increasingly prominent in conflicting situations that military conflict is now entering economic infrastructural warfare.

When we talk of geopolitical conflicts now, we're talking of; semi conductors, trade routes, data and energy.

The next world powers may not be those with the most formidable army, they are those who control; A.I, chips and energy infrastructure.

I believe that the future power of war will be determined by the development and progress of each nation through its control of data and energy, and by leveraging what they've already witnessed: drones can become deadly weapons, and unmanned boats at sea can also pose a serious threat. This means that nations not currently engaged in war must prepare themselves to be stronger than those currently at war.

I also believe that future wars will likely not rely entirely on direct human power, but will shift more to previously developed machines or robots, although the role of humans will not be completely eliminated. Because apart from the sophistication, the tactics and ways of controlling all the tools that have been created are also by humans themselves, so I will not be surprised or amazed if I have to witness a war that will be filled with robots rather than humans like in previous wars.

[Crypto_Timothy]

Economy wars are not exactly new I mean, spices and control of trade route has always been the cause of wars amongst humans all over the world. What could be changing now is the type of route and also type of economic products but the concept of war doesn't really change, most of the time it just all about control, "I want to be the one setting the tone for everyone else to follow" that's a very backwards thinking of you ask me and that's what fuels most wars you see.

[slapper]

I believe we're fooling ourselves if we believe economic warfare is a new phenomenon.

What changed is the infrastructure got so concentrated that you don't need to mobilize anything physical anymore. If you put one export ban on ASML lithography machines, you've effectively knocked down a whole nation's technology. This level of leverage was not present previously. Production has never been so channeled, so constrained, so few points. And TSMC is producing, for example, about 90% of the world's cutting-edge chips. One company. On an island in the heart of the world's most volatile geopolitical flash point.

Everyone wants to speak about semiconductors, since it sounds futuristic and important. However, agricultural supply lines and access to fresh water will fracture countries quicker than the next chip shortage. These aren't sexy topics, and therefore don't receive the same attention. However, when people are hungry, the complexity of your AI system becomes pretty insignificant pretty quickly.

[Rubuchi]

And countries that excel in computing today can dominate the digital economy, surveillance, and industrial automation (AI) sectors simultaneously. This remains relevant in today's economic development, where many countries are competing. On the other hand, it will be a deadly weapon for countries that achieve superiority first without firing a single shot.

I am surprised why some countries and individuals are underrating the influence and importance of computer in general and the digital world in particular. They don’t know that the more they distance themselves from it the more they will regret it later. The world is fast moving towards technology and technological advancements an example which can be made by the Artificial Intelligence sector which is growing very rapidly. AI has come up with a new approach with high levels of innovation, automation and intelligence play which will be unmatched for a long time. So the more a nation limits itself from the use of technology the more backward they become and powerless.

[X-ray]

It's obvious, economic war is the most effective war. Every country have armies but not every country have strong economy and when the economy is crippled, things will get rough.

Can you imagine if a country don't have access to semiconductors and AI for this modern war, they'd have zero chance fighting against countries that can deploy millions of drones into the war.

Even a disturbance in Hormuz could cause economically weak country to suffer greatly.

[Kelward]

It is increasingly prominent in conflicting situations that military conflict is now entering economic infrastructural warfare.

When we talk of geopolitical conflicts now, we're talking of; semi conductors, trade routes, data and energy.

The next world powers may not be those with the most formidable army, they are those who control; A.I, chips and energy infrastructure.

This US Iran, war have opened our eyes to the possibilities of an opponent with a lesser military power to capitalized on economic powers to make their own demands and the strategy is working out for Iran. As much as I don't promote wars but I believe that in the future warfares will go beyond using physical weapons to make statements, economic necessities like oil and technological chips can make a difference, if what you have is a necessity for global economy you can use it against your enemies and their allies.

Unless a stronger country is able to invade a weaker country and totally colonize all their infrastructures and power that is the only way that physical warfare can totally conquer another country despite them having economic powers to stay relevant.

[Fortify]

It is increasingly prominent in conflicting situations that military conflict is now entering economic infrastructural warfare.

When we talk of geopolitical conflicts now, we're talking of; semi conductors, trade routes, data and energy.

The next world powers may not be those with the most formidable army, they are those who control; A.I, chips and energy infrastructure.

This has always been the case. Russia is possibly the biggest and primary example at the moment, it has had to focus it's whole economy around the war it starred because it was not able to defeat Ukraine. Frankly it is embarrassing how weak they have become and they only occasionally get a stroke of good luck, like profiting from increased oil prices, which allows them to survive. However Ukraine is quick to punch back by knocking out their refineries. This is what happens when you underestimate your enemy and overestimate your own forces. It has shown that all military equipment it produces is substandard and that was another major export. It has also broken trade, due to sanctions, with some of the richest countries on the planet. The worst part is it was all self inflicted and could have been entirely avoided.

[NeuroticFish]

The next world powers may not be those with the most formidable army, they are those who control; A.I, chips and energy infrastructure.

This is not entirely correct.

The invasion in Ukraine was prepare pretty good via energy infrastructure. Europe was captive to Russia's influence as the almost sole provider of gas and oil for quite some influent countries. This should have been the political backup after the blitzkrieg type of invasion. Interestingly neither worked out and, even more, Europe turning down Russia's energy (although a very slow, costly and far from perfect) forced Putin think on alternatives that are not as good as he'd like.
Even more, the world has seen that diversification is a must.

So "those who control" are in the process of being multiple entities and countries, at least for energy and chips. AI is incipient and it needs a process of "bubble burst"/crystallization/consolidation before we start properly talking about it as a reliable asset and then probably about some sort of diversification.

[fuguebtc]

It is increasingly prominent in conflicting situations that military conflict is now entering economic infrastructural warfare.

When we talk of geopolitical conflicts now, we're talking of; semi conductors, trade routes, data and energy.

The next world powers may not be those with the most formidable army, they are those who control; A.I, chips and energy infrastructure.

I think those with Formidable armies still have the best advantages over other countries without formidable armies, to be honest those countries who have the biggest formidable armies are so much economically stable than others who does have formidable armies.
To be frank countries with formable armies could detect what other countries can produce and also even influence the country, for example they could infiltrate weaker countries and there by extort them directly or indirectly.

Of course, to become a world superpower, possessing a powerful military force is essential. However, you will not be considered a superpower if you only possess a powerful military force without a strong economy and advanced technology. And the most important factor is being something the world cannot easily replace

That is why Russia possesses one of the most powerful military forces in the world, yet the United States has never considered them an adversary. Instead, they view China as their most formidable rival. Because China possesses all those element and can replace the United States.