Do you think there will ever be another war like WWII?
- Thread starter Jacco
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Pairing your avatar and post, I've now got this incredible image of a beer-swilling kangaroo discussing the potential future of global warfare in a thick Mid-Australian accent. And it's glorious.I_am_a_Spoon said:
OT: Not like WWII in terms of strategies and whatnot, but I have a feeling something big will go down once the 'population vs available resources' balance tips. It'll be... interesting, to say the least.
Oh Boy, Please tell me that people who cannot function in society without the governments assistance are any less of a person then you and that you have not used any government institutions ever. This includes public schools, government healthcare and money from the government.Hazzard said:
Some people are compared to you and me are idiots, they won't be able to get a job or live a normal life. Have a heart man. Also I get money for being a student because I don't have time to work. Am I less worthy?
There could be another world war, but it would be nothing like the previous ones. It would be like asking if WWI and WWII are really comparable. Although they were both fought by men with guns and various other technologies, the actual advances between them mean there's very little besides the title of 'World War' to compare them.
A modern war would be fought with nuclear weapons definitely, and each side would spend most of their time trying to deflect and destroy the enemy nukes while making sure their own land on target.
Any ground fighting would be done in smaller countries, like Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations. One side would send their army in and the other would respond with their own, but in the end both sides would resort to firing ICBMs at each other.
The trick is remembering what exactly the goal in the WWs was, and what it would be again if another war of the type happened. The Nazis wanted to conquer the world, and not knowing the true fallout of nuclear weapons, had they had them would have undoubtedly used them to speed up victory for the axis forces. So if another WW happened with, say, China wanting to remove America from equation entirely, what exactly would stop them from just long-range bombing America into the dirt?
Wars are fought mostly to the technology level of the day, and nowadays you don't even have to look your enemy in the eye to wipe him off the face of the planet.
A modern war would be fought with nuclear weapons definitely, and each side would spend most of their time trying to deflect and destroy the enemy nukes while making sure their own land on target.
Any ground fighting would be done in smaller countries, like Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations. One side would send their army in and the other would respond with their own, but in the end both sides would resort to firing ICBMs at each other.
The trick is remembering what exactly the goal in the WWs was, and what it would be again if another war of the type happened. The Nazis wanted to conquer the world, and not knowing the true fallout of nuclear weapons, had they had them would have undoubtedly used them to speed up victory for the axis forces. So if another WW happened with, say, China wanting to remove America from equation entirely, what exactly would stop them from just long-range bombing America into the dirt?
Wars are fought mostly to the technology level of the day, and nowadays you don't even have to look your enemy in the eye to wipe him off the face of the planet.
Meh, probably. Humans have already shown themselves capable of two world wars. Don't see why we can't have another one.
I'm with the Realist school of international relations on this one: Only between non-nuclear powers (of which there still are enough for it to be technically possible, but such a war would spare Europe and North America).
No, war is actually going backwards in terms of scale. Pre-Napoleon war was fought by small armies with high levels of professionalism that were supported by mercenaries. Wars were usually fought over religion and resources. Napoleon then revolutionized war with conscripted armies, whose sheer size overwhelmed most of the small professional ones. War was then fought for dominance and ideology.
Developing the A-bomb then cancelled out the advantage of armies that won through size, and globalization cancelled out the war over ideology. The be blunt we've become so good at mass warfare that we can't realistically do it anymore so we have to fight small proxy wars. Even at an absolute worse case scenario the fighting would probably be restricted to a single resource rich continent, so not North America, Europe, Australia or mainland China in any case.
Developing the A-bomb then cancelled out the advantage of armies that won through size, and globalization cancelled out the war over ideology. The be blunt we've become so good at mass warfare that we can't realistically do it anymore so we have to fight small proxy wars. Even at an absolute worse case scenario the fighting would probably be restricted to a single resource rich continent, so not North America, Europe, Australia or mainland China in any case.
"Where a great deal of nations around the third world spectrum go to war over...something... while the first world and large nations/groups are just sitting back and watching."
Fresh water most likely. Botswana and Namibia, Cambodia and Thailand, as well as Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay are all extremely tense because of heavy water pollution or over use that's draining the most important resource of all. In the next 50 years the big wars will probably be over water not oil.
Fresh water most likely. Botswana and Namibia, Cambodia and Thailand, as well as Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay are all extremely tense because of heavy water pollution or over use that's draining the most important resource of all. In the next 50 years the big wars will probably be over water not oil.
On that same scale? I'd like to think not, but it's possible I guess. I think that it will be held off for as long as possible though, because it could literally result in the destruction of the majority of humans with the current technology. I guess I think that it will happen, it's just a matter of when, not if because we are stupid, and willing to destroy the planet we live on over petty squabbles.
Ever since the earliest days of the Cold War (I'm old enough to remember the last decade or so of it clearly), it has been the stated position of the US that it will respond to the use of WMD's against US troops or territory will be met with the use of WMD's. Officially, the only ones that the US has are the nukes, and he wasn't quite crazy enough to test their mettle on that front.Shock and Awe said:
During the Cold War (and to this day presumably) large scale exercises and simulations were constantly run - often known as "war games". They always came to the same conclusion, regardless of how much the opening steps were varied or scenarios varied. Any conflict that broke out, localised or regional, that brought two nuclear armed powers into combat with each other would always end with the worst case scenario: Strategic Nuclear Exchange.
These were born from the anxiety surrounding various "proxy wars" (Viet Nam being the most well known of the Cold War era probably) where the possibility of escalation, while remote, was always possible when two nuclear armed super powers have dick-waving competitions.
The fact that most nuclear armed powers have no real desire to winding up being reduced to glass themselves means that for the moment the likelihood of a war on that sort of scale seems fairly remote. Should the Iranians turn out to have some in the near future, all bets are off though...
I'm honestly not saying students and people who need support from the state are less worthy, but you can find most barely controlled barbarians in counsel houses, I have been attacked by them before and my life was made hell for 3 hours every week for nearly a year at school. And I'm pretty sure the boys that did it qualified as "uncontrolled barbarians"Evil Smurf said:
I was referring to barbarians in the same sense you were, as mentioned above I have had rather bad experiences with people who I think meet your criteria for being a barbarian and eventually I had to be moved into another lesson he was so bad.FelixG said:
You do realize that was the same mentality people had coming out of WW1, or "The Great War" as they called it. They never wanted a war of that magnitude to happen again...and then they had one anyway.DugMachine said:
I do think though that nukes complicate things a bit. It's like if two people were locked in a fistfight for an hour, then someone hands both of them rocket launchers. They won't fire on each other, but they can't simply ignore their new firepower and return to fist fighting. Of course, the analogy falls apart when one of them is completely irrational or has a death wish, which some countries with nuclear power do at this point.
If you go back a few posts somebody told me the same thing and yeah I didn't quite think of that. Hence the "we're fucked"Glass Joe the Champ said:
There will probably be another large scale war but I doubt it will be for the same reasons or last as long when you consider all of Europe and America are allied and most forces wouldn't stand much of a chance...
No. Mutually assured destruction kind puts a stop world wars.
Although we did come pretty close to war during the Cuban Missile Crisis despite that fact.
Although we did come pretty close to war during the Cuban Missile Crisis despite that fact.
There's a good chance that there will be another World War. But in our lifetimes? Incredibly unlikely.
China? Yaaaaay.thaluikhain said:
The Chinese have to get through Russia and have a border with them, which makes them get far unscathed unlikely. Not to mention the nuclear capacity on submarines from a significant number of NATO countries like the UK or USA.
I don't think China would be dumb enough to march into that meat grinder.
OT: Nah, I don't think it will, I think we've reached a point where that kind of carnage has no place in warfare and diplomacy is become more and more prevalent, in rare cases military intervention in recent years has (mostly) been brief and effective, leaving countries to settle their own disputes while prioritizing the protection of civilian life.
Hence our intervention in Libya, though the lack of it in Syria perplexes me.
Also, no idea what;s going on with the Afghans, we really need to either end that noise or give up.
China would have to somehow deal with the Russians at some point, history teaches us that this is incredibly difficult and like pissing into the wind. More of you? Better equipped? Actually EQUIPPED? The russians don't care. They'll just burn everything and salt the ground out of spite.Skratt said: