Just fighters often view unhelpful wars as worthwhile simply because justice is on their side, ignoring the individuals wounded or sacrificed and disregarding that a much better solution would have avoided the war.
Multiculturalists, especially, don't care whether their side engages in aggression. They care about winning and that their allies get labeled as victims.
In war, hate and vengeance escalate on various sides, no matter which side is more just or less wrong. Unjust sides seldom suddenly decide they were wrong all along.
Wars among super powers likely will escalate into nuclear wars. Too many individuals are infatuated with Hollywood and military establishment notions of conventional warfare, paying little more than lip service to the dangers of nuclear and biological warfare.
The "world's only super power" phrase seems less common now.
The nation with the world's most powerful nuclear arsenal is a super power, unless many of Russia's nukes are defective.
For generations, the rulers of what is now called Russia have played by their own rules, violating most international treaties they signed, obeying the treaties when it was in their perceived interest to do so. The proper response to these violations is to be wiser, not agitate for war. Remember too, that Western leaders frequently violate ethical rules and constantly choose actions harmful to the people they rule over. Ethical violations are far more important than international agreements. International law consists largely of poorly reasoned pieces of paper signed by rulers with no business being in power.
Like many other nonwhite nations and some white nations, China prefers to pursue unfair trade. Humans are loss averse. Losing $400 from a pockets irks us far more than missing an opportunity to gain $400. Chinese leaders get outraged at anything Western nations do to decrease unfair trade. That's another point against so-called free trade. If the West avoided trade with China all along, China would not become nearly as outraged at never having lost something they now view as an absolute right. China will pursue mercantilism and espionage until almost every important industry is in their hands. If the West avoided Japan and Japan's mercantilism, nearly 30 million individuals would not have been murdered by Japan between 1931 and 1946.
China is now the world's largest industrial power. If China wanted, China could build umpteen thousand fusion bombs.
Many note that diversity plus proximity creates wars.
Another important factor is salience. It is better to lie in the bushes and be unnoticed than to be a hamfisted, multicultural empire. Distant, powerful rulers seldom rant about the leadership in Uruguay. Many can't find Uruguay on a map.
Multicultural writers like to blame nationalism for many, if not most, ills because it suits establishment agendas of psychological egoism and anti-white genocide. But states engaging in aggression tend to be multicultural empires with rampant bait-and-switch, divide-and-screw oligarchism, so empires, psychological egoism, misplaced altruism, and lack of self-determination are bigger issues. Almost every ruler pretends to be a nationalist in times of crises, even globalists seeking global conquest. Soviet leaders appealed to Mother Russia to save themselves.
Any nation state without ethical nationalism gets conquered by others devoted to genetic or psychological egoism or, most often, both, whether by military means, demographic methods or ideological tactics or all three. Non-aggressive, non-free riding nationalism is a good. Globalists and other multiculturalists support aggression and free riding by themselves and their allies. Not surprisingly, they fight any force that opposes their depredations. Without ethical nationalism, nothing would have stopped world conquest by Maoism or Stalinism or Hitlerism or Hirohitoism or various other horrors. Ethical nationalism is the most potent potential force to stop Islam, Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism.
Most of Christianity is now punked by various combinations of Islam, Randism, neoconservatism, and cultural Marxism. Pope Francis, the leader of the largest Christian denomination, has more thoughts in common with Saul Alinsky than with most white Westerners.
The major problem: letting those prone to psychological egoism take over groups. The bigger and more ethnoracially diverse an empire, the more likely it will be infected by egoism and glory seeking by rulers.
The current Western establishments devote great efforts to indoctrination, especially military, economic, and multicultural indoctrination, an indoctrination made more insidious because it is presented as the result of consumer choice or informed choices, not ruling group Machiavellianism.
Before and during any war, the question of what are we fighting for should immediately arise. Frank Capra made several documentaries devoted to that question during World War II. What would we be fighting for during a war with China or any other super power? A chunk of land that we are currently giving away to Somalis and other unethical peoples? Should we die to save a land from the Chinese when the ruling groups are working to give the country away to far worse peoples?
The people ruling the United States, having minds closed to ethical evidence, act as if they are engaged in a colonial occupation, despising the people they rule over, These rulers should not be trusted to do right for the people because they have track records of doing wrong to the people for several generations. The fact that they wrap themselves in flags representing people they oppose makes them more dangerous, not less.
Consider the fact that for generations our rulers seldom took civil defense seriously for the people. Establishment writers often claimed life wouldn't be worth living after a nuclear war, yet rulers themselves thought otherwise, building underground cities for themselves in the event of nuclear war. Even the Soviets, who murdered tens of millions, provided far more civil defense for their subjugated peoples.
Aggressive foreigners, explicit and de facto, dominate nearly all American mass media. Imagine if whites dominated nearly all the mass media in developing countries. Multiculturalists would scream bloody murder. Yet Americans accept foreign domination as part of the crypto-totalitarian new normalcy. Rupert Murdoch gets the most criticism of the foreign owners, partly because he is worse than most and partly because he ranks among the few whites with massive media power, making him fair game.
What is worth fighting for?
We need new, white religions or quasi-religions devoted to good works, that is, well-reasoned, hard working religions that avoid and punish both egoism and misplaced altruism while rewarding ethical altruism. The so-called universal religions are a catastrophe. Even the best among them eventually evolve in anti-white directions, making them anti-universal, supporting egoism and misplaced altruism.
Let's imagine that the new religions devoted to good works arise. If the existence of God(s) is fantasy, at least we have the good works. If it turns out that supernatural beings are evil and send good individuals to hells, those beings can go eff themselves. Better to be right and ticked off in hell than insipid in pseudo-paradise. Individuals with massive chips on their shoulders will find more purpose in their existences than even the most refined of pleasure seeking individuals.