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

[HardkorSB]

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?

These days, wars occur in the field of economy.
You don't invade a country, you buy it out or have them owe you debt (or buy out their debt).

 

[Laughing Man]

No, a war on the scale of WW2 will never occur again. In fact the chances of a war even with nuclear weapons is rather slim. Any future wars will be fought through social political influence. Electronic warfare designed to disrupt and destroy a nations monetary and infrastructure systems. The economic downturn has shown that the devaluation of a countries monetary system can have a much greater effect on the country as a whole.

Destroying a countries buildings and killing it's people is no longer the way to win a war. In fact if you look at it in direct comparison to you'll find that the destruction and killing of people and buildings within the cities was seen as a winner by those involved during WW2. If you tried that concept today you would lose through the negative effect generated by the media to your actions.

 

[Meight08]

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?

These days, wars occur in the field of economy.
You don't invade a country, you buy it out or have them owe you debt (or buy out their debt).

Untill a country is so deep in debt to a specific country that invading said country is actually cheaper than paying off the debt.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

In terms of foreign policy, China is much less militaristic than the U.S.
How many full scale invasions has China mounted recently? none.
How many drone attacks has China conducted? none

If anything, looking at the sabre rattling American politicians do(and looking at some of the responses , it looks like their propaganda has gotten to several members of the Escapists) , the US is much more likely to invade China or Russia.
Their solution to every foreign affairs problems is war. Everywhere else the Arab Spring happened peacefully but as soon as America's enemies get involved, western politicians seize the chance to get votes by arming rebels they know nothing about forgetting everything they learned during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

 

[gh0ti]

A whole bunch of reasons.

Nukes are part of the answer - Mutually Assured Destruction is no joke. But even take those off the table and a global, total war seems hugely unlikely.

Even without nuclear weapons, early strikes by modern powers have the capacity to completely cripple infrastructure. You have to remember in WW2, air forces had to carpet bomb entire districts to have a chance of hitting a tank factory hard enough to put it out of business. These days, a cruise missile can be fired from a thousand miles away and pinpoint a specific room. There's no way industry could continue to function at a feasible level during a prolonged major conflict.

Another reason is that it's just too damn expensive to fight a global war. How much does a fully-loaded aircraft carrier cost these days? Billions. None of the world's great powers could afford to lose one in combat. It would break the economy (even further) trying to replace them. Even if you could make good your losses, there's no way war on this scale could ever be profitable, so why would we risk it?

 

[Scarim Coral]

Err would a World War count if it was against alien invader? Sure I would thing an alien encounter would be a peaceful one but there is an off chance that alien race may invade the planet.

 

[Carnagath]

Of course there will be, it's only a matter of time. We've been having a false sense of economic prosperity in the last 50 years, while most countries on the planet owe untold amounts of money to other countries, corporations and private interests. It's all gonna come crashing down, it has already obviously started. I don't see any way for the global economy to get better, only worse, since we are depending on resources that are becoming more scarce by the minute, while global wealth is concentrated in the hands of a select few who do not reinvest it, but instead use it to destroy even more regions in the world, control resources and basically buy entire countries for a loaf of bread. Yep, surely that can't go wrong. The moment when the US are forced to default, alienating investors worldwide, will in my opinion be the moment that will trigger worldwide destabilization and violence. We're extremely close to that point.

 

[sextus the crazy]

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.

I think that there's one aspect you all haven't noticed yet. The reason china won't ever attack the US is because destroying us would cripple their economy and then cause a world wide economic crash. The existence of a world-wide interconnected business network has made a major war between any two large powers a ridiculous notion. China's naval build-up is not to threaten the US, it's to threaten Southeast asia and India into compliance.

The only real large power wars are going to be resource and land wars between India, Pakistan, and China. Those wars will just really be small scale, like they've been in the past.

 

[Dimitriov]

I don't think it's likely... but it could happen. If it does then I suspect it will start with the small players and escalate. Certainly the U.S. isn't going to start a war with China (or vice versa) because it would basically be a double suicide pact.


But look at the Middle East.

Can I imagine the Syria situation leading to a war that involved countries like Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia? Sadly yes, it's plausible. And such a conflict would definitely draw in other world powers.

I would hope that even in such an eventuality there wouldn't be nuclear strikes... at the very least I think it is reasonable that they would have to be very short range, as any long range ballistic missiles could *probably* be knocked down before getting very far.

And any of the nations in that region that do have nukes should have fairly small stockpiles (ie. can't afford to waste any if they did, God forbid, decide to launch them).

Anyway, I don't think it's likely, but I do think it remains a possibility.

 

[Old Father Eternity]

"Far too civilized" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M
Some of our methods of solving conflicts/backstabbing/waging war may have become more civilized but we are still massive bastards.
But yeah, while it is not too far from the realm of reality it is unlikely, due to the economy factors and the quite guaranteed use of WMD's because if such a large scale war were to actually happen, to quote "Why do we even have wmd's if we can't get to use em."

 

[Judgment90]

With the way some countries' relations are with others (such as N.Korea and the U.S.), it is just a matter of time before someone fucks up and starts another war.


The only debate I see is WHEN it's gonna happen.

 

[The Funslinger]

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 think the only way it would work is if the nuclear threat from the other side kept one side from launching their nukes, and so the whole thing plays out with conventional warfare, as the atomic weapons are kept in stalemate with each other.

 

[Slayer_2]

I think nuclear weapons made all out war between two super powers impossible. Neither would do it since the other would be tempted to bomb them, starting nuclear war, destroying most of the world. Why did WW2 end? Because only the Allies had working nukes at that time, and they brought an abrupt end to the Japanese side of the war. Now that all major players have nukes, everyone is too scared to engage in standard warfare since it has the possibility to lead to nuclear war.

We also have other WMD's, drones that can strike a quarter-sized target accurately from thousands of miles away, much more advanced air and land vehicles, plus other technology that makes standard trench and infantry warfare unlikely.

In short: the third world war will be the last world war. "I know not what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones" -Albert Einstein.

 

[Lionsfan]

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?

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.

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?

That's what they said about WW1.

Meh, I know we have the power of hindsight, but when you look back at WWI, it's rather shocking how little was changed. The Treaty of Versailles wasn't anything more than, "Let's stop shooting each other, and it's all Germany's fault", and that basically set everything up for a sequel. Especially the fact that Germany was neither really defeated nor dearmed.

I think the biggest factor in the "We'll never see a war of that size again" has to be the Cold War. That the world made it through 40-50 years of a showdown, but with no large-scale war, makes it unlikely we'll see a World War anytime soon.

You also have to think about incentives. With WWII, it was pretty clear why Germany was attacking everybody, but now what's the incentive? Among the biggest powers, the US, Russia, and China, there's no incentive to attack any of the others.

 

[Ledan]

Yup.
Nukes could be countered with some sort of nuclear defense device (sorta like star wars program). We will eventually colonize other planets, and we will definitively have war there.
It will happen, but hopefully not soon.

 

[The Funslinger]

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 think the only way it would work is if the nuclear threat from the other side kept one side from launching their nukes, and so the whole thing plays out with conventional warfare, as the atomic weapons are kept in stalemate with each other.

This whole "mutually assured destruction" only works when everyone is acting rationally. Imagine if Hitler had complete work on nuclear weapons. With allied forces closing in on Germany from all sides don't you think he would have launched? Even if other states had nuclear capability and would strike back? We will never know, thank god.

True enough, I was just projecting a situation where it would be possible to have an all out ground war. Not that I think it's a sure thing, do ya kennit?

 

[Frission]

Einstein said this.

World War 3 will be fought with nuclear bombs. World War 4 will be fought with sticks.