I'm not in either study, but it seemed kind of weird to me. I don't understand why sensei added that stuff, but I assume it will be important in upcoming chapters. Manga takes a lot of liberties, especially yaoi. I think a strange political situation is very mild compared to other things, so I don't mind.
The knowledge I do have comes from a political science class I took and my knowledge of history. To talk about what you mentioned specifically, I think you're focusing on the wrong things. War starts when the benefits of going to war outweigh the costs (casualty costs, financial costs, public opinion costs, etc.).
First, the US has only gone to war with the reason of protecting itself and the excuse of protecting people of other countries. Also, China has been communist and has had poor civil rights for decades, but the US has not gone to war with them. The US's economic relationship alone is reason against war. Other than war with China being unlikely, India is still a developing nation. India has not been involved in any major wars so far. There's absolutely no reason to go to war with them and its unlikely there will be within the next 30-40 years. Even if there was a war, it would last more than one year.
Second, even a liberal China would have no reason to support India nor Pakistan in a war. So soon after ridding of communism, they'd be focusing on their own country. It is also unlikely that 31 countries all have the funds to go to war. It's unlikely they'd even have reason to go to war.
Third, there is and likely will never be a reason for nuclear weapons to be deployed in South Africa. Whether than means sending weapons into South Africa (unlikely because it poses no threat to any other countries, plus killing off a huge population of Africans would spell disaster for many reasons) or South Africa sending them out (South Africa has and will not have within the next century a reason to possess WoMD).
Now on what you said, “Pacific War” is reasonable if the war takes place in the Pacific. The problem isn't with the US (there's a Pacific side, not to mention Hawai'i) but India is not in the pacific, like you said; so unless it sent ships there (unlikely because India does not have a strong navy), there's be no reason to call it the Pacific war. Any time there is war, refugees from heavily impacted countries will flee to less impacted countries. So that's not an issue.
Everything you said I agree with. In fact, I think perhaps when you say "you're focusing on the wrong things," you mean that perhaps I did not delve far enough into what you think are the chief rational inconsistencies? But everything I have said thus far aligns with and (in the case of the "Pacific War" being an already-coined terminology for the East and South Asian conflicts of WWII, that you skimmed over in your reply) expounds upon your statements thus far.
I problematized those things which I find fault with conceptually, from a broad perspective. I have known the objective logistics of war initiation, and although I appreciate the refresher on it, I do not think that I am "focusing on the wrong things" but rather that my initial posts problematizes some aspects, while yours takes issue with others.
I agree again that your reply concerns the "details." Countries in this manga seem to be arbitrarily chosen, despite their blatantly inapplicable circumstances in real-life representation, which make them unfit for the roles they have fictionally. I did say that my main issue with the world war existed with India. The issue of China is very complex, but China personally has a 100 year plan to take over the US (this is widely known), so the prospect of a future war, un-instigated by the US, is plausible. However as I said and you elaborated, India makes no sense in the conflict because it is a developing country. The issue with South Africa is also valid. I appreciate your critiques as well, but again, I do not think they make my problems any less focused or valid of conceptual issues. As far as refugees, by the way, if the world loses a third of its population, those places which are more affluent than others should be specified, because at that point, places of refuge are few and far between. The casualty rate in this story is comparable to the effects of the black plague across Europe. In the event of such a catastrophe, my question wa to which countries and from which countries do refugees flee, as this is an instrument piece of information in understanding the exact dynamic with which the war took, logically. ^^
Sorry, I accidentally hit annoying. It was a mistake. I wasn't trying to look down on you either. Sorry if it came across that way.
http://www.mangago.zone/read-manga/500_nen_no_itonami/mf/v01/c001/37/
The staging for this work was very complex and arduously articulated, so I thought I would give it the serious consideration and critique that the efforts of its creation deserves.
The overall idea of the timeline makes sense, but as far as the diplomatic aspects, I don't think the leading countries or the time frame between wars is very plausible.
For example, I don't think India would be in on the 3rd Pacific war. And time-wise, I don't believe the 4th world war would occur only ten years after the third, with as many casualties as it had, assuming social justice in 1st world countries continued to be as blatantly anti-drafting as it is today in 2015, among others things.
My questions: "Influx of refugees" from where, to where? Global warming is still an issue, intense enough to effect food production, but not enough to warrant serious health problems to humans yet (because of, well, the lack of plants surviving, some of the most robust lifeforms around)? How did the citizenry of different nations overcome the immediate xenophobia of two consecutive world wars to "rebel" by the eventual obliteration of most patriotic sentiments, it seems anthropologically unsound. How did Japan become one of these only 3 remaining federations, when, at the time this manga was written, Japan had not even remilitarized yet (2010), and was not indicated to have done so before the advent of the 3rd pacific war.
Semantically: "pacific war" is only referring to the world war II happenstances within South and East Asia, so I'm not sure when chronologically pacific war II happened (bringing rise to the III mentioned here), and then how pacific wars differ from the eventual world wars after that. America being involved in a Pacific war also makes the reusage of the title rather inapplicable, since America is not an Asian country, though it boarders the pacific. Of course, if that is the meaning of the name, then India would not be applicable to the title because it does not boarder the pacific)
Overall, I liked how the advancement of the future was grounded conceptually. However, is there anyone else out there in some form of global or international studies that finds themselves just as skeptical about the details as I am?