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

[Sean951]

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?

I think globalization effectivly ended any threat of global war. The economies of the world are all too intertwined by this point. What effects one country effects all countries.

There. You two deserve cookies. Money is the number one reason a third world war isn't likely. Who can make money out of warzones and wastelands?

a lot of guys

Weapons manufacturers can make a short term profit, but if the war went nuclear then you have a long ways to go before that area is profitable. Even if it didn't, the area is a black hole for money, and while that does employ people, it takes away from investment in other areas.

 

[RESURRECTION21]

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.

amen dude amen

 

[RESURRECTION21]

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?

I think globalization effectivly ended any threat of global war. The economies of the world are all too intertwined by this point. What effects one country effects all countries.

There. You two deserve cookies. Money is the number one reason a third world war isn't likely. Who can make money out of warzones and wastelands?

a lot of guys

Weapons manufacturers can make a short term profit, but if the war went nuclear then you have a long ways to go before that area is profitable. Even if it didn't, the area is a black hole for money, and while that does employ people, it takes away from investment in other areas.

true but someone will still get rich off it sadley

 

[Kolby Jack]

Never forget that world alliances can change in an instant as well. Just before world war two the United states had plans in place for going to war with Canada as part of a wider war with the British Empire

lolwut?

Moving on. There's only one country in the world that is virtually unconquerable, and that's America. It's not a patriotic thing either, we just hold pretty much all the best cards. We have the most technologically powerful and second most numerous military force in the world, we have the second biggest nuclear arsenal, and we have a massive terrain advantage. After Russia, the continental United States is probably the hardest land to conquer, and the fact that many citizens own guns and have a hell of a fighting spirit doesn't improve those chances. I'm not even including the large number of significant military and political allies we have. If it sounds like I'm bragging, I challenge you to prove any of those points wrong. It doesn't mean the US can't be beaten in a war, we just can't be invaded successfully. Not at this stage in history at least.

What does any of that have to do with a new world war? Well, when one nation holds the best cards, no other nation will want to take things to that scale. Sure, there will be wars, but they'll be local and whichever side the US doesn't like will try their damnedest to keep us out of it. There's a lot the US can't do, and a lot they can screw up, but we're still big enough to keep any sort of world war from happening. Also, MAD.

 

[Sean951]

3rd Gulf War: Saddam Hussein and Regime removed for it's 22 violations of UN Sanctions including genocide on the Kurds.

Wars should be listed in their geographical location and consistency with the politics following each.

We could trade blows on when we think this war in Iraq started and ended. I think Iraq was destabilized by the US invasion, and that it remains destabilized because of bad management by US occupying forces and post-modern guerrilla and terrorist tactics on the part of the insurgent forces.

The idea that the war was about getting revenge on Saddam Hussein for his treatment of kurds is utterly ridiculous. I don't even think it was about that in full when they first attacked. He did a lot more than merely attack the kurds. Anyway that all went by the wayside after a few months in country.

I think that until conflict has ended, palpably, until there are as many cases of suicide bombings in Iraq as there are in more stable nations in that region - no more - this will still be considered a war that the US started, the US failed to see through and the US merely handed down to future generations of Iraqis.

We're an occupational presence in Iraq in the same way our 50,000 troops in Germany still linger years after WWII and the Cold War.

You're comparing Iraq to a World War? Really Mr. Statmaster?

Coalition totals for casualties in Iraq come out to about 5,000 (and that's rounding up generously). In five weeks in Okinawa, the US lost 55,000 Marines in World War Two. We lost 13,000 in Iwujima.

The total body count including civilians in Iraq is nearly 120,000.

World War Two claimed 60,000,000 lives. World War One, 20,000,000. And you're bringing up multicultural diversity?

You have no idea what kind of chaos a world war descends from. We all try to rationalize why we make it, because it's insane -- War is legalized murder, after all; but most wars have ridiculous origins coming out of fear or pride, not misunderstandings. People launch an assault because they believe they can win.

The Iraq War is over. We've overthrown the regime and have established a less corrupted, more nationally stable government that won't be attacking Israel, or it's neighbors like their previous dictator. Not only that, as a result of our invasion years ago, Gadaffi gave up his own WMD's, thereby setting into motion the Famous Arab Spring.

Insurgents are not soldiers. They are terrorists. Terrorism is a form of combat, it isn't a group of people. And these insurgents have been fighting any and everyone who do not submit to their beliefs for hundreds of years. They are religious extremists.

Oh no, attack of the militARAY history stats buff.

Are you trying to say that it couldn't possibly be WWIII just because the scale of the effects of Bush's war in Iraq does not match up to the scale of WWI or WWII? Fewer deaths? At no point in my post did I assert that; I was basing my designation of the conflict as - and I quote:

the descendant to the Second World War

If we're gonna juggle around words like Total War et al, one could argue that it was a 'Total War', certainly for Iraqi and Afgan civilians (though the idea that these are humans might seem a bit alien to the kind of people who believed W. when he said 'Mishun Accomplished')

Sure not every country on earth gave a crap, but it was a multinational conflict on both sides and, previously rather unknown in US-led wars, it played host to nation'less forces, insurgents and such (perhaps the Viet got help, but they hardly got help from a multinational force of insurgents on the same scale to what happened in the Iraq War). New weapons, tactics and technologies.

Look, I have no interest in numbers. I'm no armchair historian, I've lived in many countries, never for less than three years, and I have a better understanding of cultures than any homeboy would have gleaned from websites and textbooks. I went to all of those museums multiple times, instead of during a few summers between semesters. So I am never going to be intimidated by a war buff's insolence and indignant.

EDIT:

As for your thing about US troops in Germany, how about some local knowledge for you?

The US keep troops in Germany, they live in giant basis like Gateau in Brandenburg just outside Berlin, or doing outside Frankfurt am Main. I've been to those bases. I played golf at Gateau every weekend, and I went to the base at Frankfurt when I wanted to get American junk food, invited by friends. The chairs were very plush in the executive suite of hotel in Frankfurt. I can still remember the taste of skittles and Bailey's Irish Cream.

There are also many thousands of US troops in Brussels, where I lived aswell, because of it's being the center of NATO.

The US troops are not in Germany for some brave defensive reason, they're just there because America owns the land and they like having bases closer to hot spots in the world - like Iraq and similar.

I wouldn't count it as WWIII because it was focused on a single country. There was no cross-continental fighting, no major powers were on the Iraqi side, and the War was over in a matter of weeks. Once Iraq surrendered, it became an occupation. An extremely difficult occupation, but that is all it was.

 

[Phisi]

I think it is possible but not with major (read nuclear) powers on each side. If say, half of Africa got united and invaded the other half and a UN intervention was called then I think so. If the opponent isn't launching nukes I don't think you can justify their use on the civilian population. It would be more along the lines of a large scale Vietnam war fought in difficult terrain where armour can't get to and the opposing force have enough AA guns and rockets to hold off aircraft trying to assist or drop off troops.

 

[Sean951]

I think it is possible but not with major (read nuclear) powers on each side. If say, half of Africa got united and invaded the other half and a UN intervention was called then I think so. If the opponent isn't launching nukes I don't think you can justify their use on the civilian population. It would be more along the lines of a large scale Vietnam war fought in difficult terrain where armour can't get to and the opposing force have enough AA guns and rockets to hold off aircraft trying to assist or drop off troops.

AA is pretty ineffective against missiles, and once the RADAR is gone, it's pretty hard to use AA on B-2s or F-22s.

 

[Poindexter92]

Human nature dictates violence. Mix that in with religious and economic factors, and you have yourself a high chance of another endgame level war.

 

[Sean951]

I wouldn't count it as WWIII because it was focused on a single country. There was no cross-continental fighting, no major powers were on the Iraqi side, and the War was over in a matter of weeks. Once Iraq surrendered, it became an occupation. An extremely difficult occupation, but that is all it was.

But the point is the world is changing. Did Iraq need to have Iran on it's side, or Pakistan on it's side, to render it WWIII? The world is an utterly different, far more deterrent-ridden place than it was in the first half of last century.

All those pre-requisites for a war to be a World War are only valid if one is applying the 'World War' title to the wars, instead of filing the wars under a 'World War' title. Do we define the title, or define the war? Does it *have* to have those things, or does it simply have to be a large scale, game-changing, era defining conflict?

I think the Iraq war defined the turn of the century, defined the emergence of terrorism as a global threat, defined the changing face of tactics. I bet the US military buffs and kind butt hurt that they can no longer say the Vietnamese won the Vietnam war because they could hide in jungles - no jungles for the Insurgents of Iraq.

Oh, it was a fairly important war. Doesn't make it a world war. If we are going to qualify wars like that, Vietnam would also be a world war. It changed US foreign policy and military strategy quite a bit.

To me, a world war requires multiple theaters with large alliances on opposing sides.

 

[Sean951]

To me, a world war requires multiple theaters with large alliances on opposing sides.

Fair enough. At least you're not saying it requires so many millions of deaths.

No, by that count the Taiping Rebellion counts more than WWI at 20-40 million deaths.

It's also been argued that what we in America know as the French-Indian Wars should actually have been WWI, given that it was in fact fought on multiple continents and featured large alliances.

 

[Sean951]

Crusades could be argued, but that was less of any particular nation going to war and more of specific religions going to war, and even then, it was focused almost entirely on the Levant. There were examples of the Crusaders sacking Byzantine cities, but those were rare. So it meets the "large coalitions of opposing parties" condition, kind of, but fails on the geographic condition.

 

[m72_ar]

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.

It's also true from the opposing perspective,China can't invade US and win but US also does not have the capability to decisively invade and conquer mainland China or Russia without the use of Nukes.

Next gen war will be following the current model of Insurgency funded,armed and trained by foreign Special Forces or war by proxy performed by armies of mercenaries

 

[Sean951]

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.

It's also true from the opposing perspective,China can't invade US and win but US also does not have the capability to decisively invade and conquer mainland China or Russia without the use of Nukes.

Next gen war will be following the current model of Insurgency funded,armed and trained by foreign Special Forces or war by proxy performed by armies of mercenaries

The key difference being America would actually be able to get troops on the ground, and once you captured the coast of China, you have all of China the really matters. There are a few large cities inland (large being relative to China), but most of the important once are along the coast. This is all assuming nukes aren't used.

 

[Bifford]

This is a list of ongoing wars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_wars

We are living in the most peaceful era of human history. Right now there are relatively few wars going on in the world compared to, say, the 19th or 18th centuries. Most of these wars aren't even classic wars between sovereign nations, but more like civil wars. Some of them are even laughably described as "police actions".

There is the argument that the spread of democracy and the strengthening of trade ties (ie the ebilness that is globalisation) make wars less likely. There is the idea that the superpowers suppress function as cops, suppressing wars through pressures both military and economical.

But whatever reason you care to debate, you can't really argue with the statistics. The world has been getting nicer and nicer, not just since WW2 but since the Dark Ages. There was a time when violence was the most common cause of death and every abled-bodied male was supposed to be a warrior, whatever his primary occupation was supposed to be. There was a time when carrying a weapon was a necessity and not a gun nutThere was a time when children would have witnessed first hand extreme violence such as mutilations and murders.

We're often described as animals for our brutality, but in fact we are the LEAST violent of the primates other than bonobos.

There's this really great lecture by the Canadian psychologist Steven Pinker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk