Do you think there will ever be another war like WWII?

[Jacco]

I realize this has probably been a thread here numerous times, but so has every other thread ever.

Anyway, I'm currently watching Saving Private Ryan on television. But what keeps fascinating me is comparing the technology they are using and imagining how the battles in the film would play out with our modern technology- jets, drones, squad radios, helicopters, etc.

My opinion is that there will not be another conflict on that scale because of, of course, nukes, but more than that the level of computer technology we use makes the world so much tighter and integrated that it would be almost impossible to get to that point politically, but also that fighting such a war would entail missile strikes instead of mass troop movements.


I'm currently most of the way through a military history degree so this question is interesting to me. So the question is do you think there will ever be another conventional war on the scale WWII was? Why or why not?

 

[Spoonius]

From a political perspective, if it's happened before it can happen again as far as I'm concerned.

Militarily, a world war would probably be much more controlled. Targeted strikes on enemy leaders and key positions, electronic warfare, cyberwarfare (targeting key infrastructure and organisations), a much greater emphasis on aerial and naval actions and superiority, and possibly even ICBM strikes. I don't think we'd ever see nukes, the threat of MAD is just too much of a deterrent.

Of course I'm no expert, so I'm probably off the mark a bit. And a war between technologically superior/inferior opponents would be another story.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Nuclear weapons, as mentioned, change things too much.

Since WW2, we've had some 70 odd years in which major powers were afraid to directly attack each other, because it would have turned nuclear. This is historically rather unusual.

 

[Korolev]

No - a war like WW2 would require a fight between two major powers. Major powers have nuclear weapons, so no. Nuclear powers will not fight other nuclear powers, except by accident. And if there was an accident and a nuclear war got started.... well, they'd be a war alright... but it would NOT be like WW2.

How did Tom Lehrer put it?

"Remember mommie,
I'm off to get a commie
So send me some salami-e
And try to smile somehow!
I'll look for you when the war is over,
An hour and a half from now!"

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Nuclear weapons, as mentioned, change things too much.

Since WW2, we've had some 70 odd years in which major powers were afraid to directly attack each other, because it would have turned nuclear. This is historically rather unusual.

I don't really believe in mutually assured destruction because it only applies when all parties involved don't want to die/cause the apocalypse. You put those weapons in the hands of say, Religious Extremist, that don't care if they live or die and suddenly you have a real big problem.

OT: I actually do believe, in my life time, that if China continues to grow it will become imperialistic and attempt to invade the U.S.

They conceivably could win just based on the man power they have alone.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I don't really believe in mutually assured destruction because it only applies when all parties involved don't want to die/cause the apocalypse. You put those weapons in the hands of say, Religious Extremist, that don't care if they live or die and suddenly you have a real big problem.

That's true...but religious extremists don't seem to be able to get in charge on large, industrialised nations with nuclear arsenals to speak of. They might acquire the odd device, but all that means in the grand scheme of things is that the retaliation is horrific.

OT: I actually do believe, in my life time, that if China continues to grow it will become imperialistic and attempt to invade the U.S.

They conceivably could win just based on the man power they have alone.

Not a chance. Yes, they have lots of soldiers, but that is totally irrelevant. They have to get their troops from China across a rather large ocean to the US. The US has the world's mightiest navy, and China hasn't invested much in the way of one (they might be looking to change that, though).

The US also has the two mightiest air forces in the world (USAF and USN).

Once the Chinese get to the US, it's a long walk from the coast.

Oh, and the US has a mighty nuclear arsenal as well.

Your typical war of that scale would have at most about a week of conventional fighting and this is assuming of course the ICBM's did not start flying in the first few minutes. Even a conventional war would involve the use of tactical nukes, EMP and cyberweapons. Not to mention the potential use of Biological and chemical weapons as well.

EMP weapons don't really work, and you don't have a conventional war using nuclear weapons. The moment one gets used, so do the rest. Because of this, nobody lets themself get into a position where they might be used.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Its possible, but Nuclear Weapons will complicate things. I do not think they will stop war completely as countries with WMDs have been attacked and defeated without using their weapons even when they had the chance. It depends on the country. From a conventional stance the war would most likely be much faster and be far more mechanized then previous conflicts.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Its possible, but Nuclear Weapons will complicate things. I do not think they will stop war completely as countries with WMDs have been attacked and defeated without using their weapons even when they had the chance.

Hey? Which countries do you mean?

 

[Shock and Awe]

Its possible, but Nuclear Weapons will complicate things. I do not think they will stop war completely as countries with WMDs have been attacked and defeated without using their weapons even when they had the chance.

Hey? Which countries do you mean?

In the Gulf War Iraq had substantial Chemical Weapon stockpiles and had the ability to attack Coalition troops with them. He didn't do this due to what substantially boiled down to MAD, except only for him as the US would still be there to end his ass. I'll admit I cannot recall a direct conflict with Nuclear Powers who had ICBMs, but the Gulf War provides an example of countries holding back their full power for reasons of keeping the conflict from escalating.

 

[Imthatguy]

Nope, nukes a cheaper than conventional weapons from a cost/causality ratio. So if thing ever really get bad the world power will settle it with nukes not ICBMs.

...been attacked and defeated without using their weapons even when they had the chance...

Name one. Attacked is one thing; Defeat is another.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Nope, nukes a cheaper than conventional weapons from a cost/causality ratio. So if thing ever really get bad the world power will settle it with nukes not ICBMs.

...been attacked and defeated without using their weapons even when they had the chance...

Name one. Attacked is one thing; Defeat is another.

See above, Iraq in the Gulf War(and I believe the second) had Chemical Weapons, which are WMDs.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Actually as an EMP weapon i was thinking along the lines of an airburst nuclear weapon at high altitude. As for nuclear weapons not being part of a conventional war, well one of the base tactics for a conflict in europe was taking out choke points with nuclear weapons behind the front lines to cut off or delay reinforcements.

High altitude EMP doesn't work for a number of reasons (not powerful enough, and people have been hardening their equipment against similar things for decades).

It's true that nuclear weapons were planned to be used in Europe, but the conflict would not have stayed conventional.

In the Gulf War Iraq had substantial Chemical Weapon stockpiles and had the ability to attack Coalition troops with them. He didn't do this due to what substantially boiled down to MAD, except only for him as the US would still be there to end his ass. I'll admit I cannot recall a direct conflict with Nuclear Powers who had ICBMs, but the Gulf War provides an example of countries holding back their full power for reasons of keeping the conflict from escalating.

Not really MAD without the M.

I'd also question if Iraq was defeated, at least in the sense we tend to think of it.

 

[yuval152]

If there will be WW3 then we will live in the fallout universe.

 

[DugMachine]

I don't think a WW3 would happen. Yeah history repeats itself but WW2 was seriously fucked up and soooooo many people died. Why would the world want to make that mistake again?

Plus yeah as people said, nukes. But even then I don't think countries would use them on one another. Why destroy both your countries and leave nothing but millions of dead civilians and whole cities leveled to the ground? No one wins in that situation.

 

[Watcheroftrends]

I also watched Saving Private Ryan this past evening on television.

Mutually assured destructon changes the game quite a bit. At this stage in the development of the world, I think most people are more concerned with their own country playing the capitalism game well rather than trying to change the way things work on a large scale.

Anyone fueled by religious belief or some idealistic view of the world without capitalism is likely living in what I would refer to as a "shit hole". They don't have any options for a world war when their entire country is one step away from being turned into a crater.

The only way I see another war starting would be one over vital resources like water. This is assuming that science doesn't step in and fix the sustainability problem at some point. People would naturally join up with their countrymen and withold that which they have and take what they don't with force. The problem is that there will probably be enough countries with nuclear weapons at that point that one of them will end up on the short end of the stick.

Global nuclear launches would commence. Eventually enough people would die from the fighting that the world would have enough left to sustain who's left. People would likely fall back into more primitive lifestyles, giving the Earth a chance to recover. At that point, maybe we'd wise up and work together to find a solution to the resource problem.

 

[Evil Smurf]

no, we are far too civilised

 

[Corax_1990]

No. There is no money it in. Look t the world right now, dominated by the US military and it's allies. China is not a threat, they make too much money off the states, why would you attack one of your best customers?

 

[IamQ]

Once a counter measure to nukes is invented, we'll probably see a third world war. We're not more civilized right now, we're just really scared.