Poll: How do you define the term "full scale war?"

[Jacco]

Your definition of a full-scale war is wrong. What happened in Modern Warfail 2 is highly implasible to happen (the scene with the fight outside the White House comes to mind). Wars are no longer fought like that, so if you expect war to look like it did during WW2, or like in MW2, then you're looking the wrong way. Wars are no longer fought as much with humans as they are with technology.

If I could give you an example of what a modern war would look like, then I'd proably point at ARMA2 or its OA expansion. It's nowehere near the mad blitzes, or massive airborne / landing operations of WW2. So even if there would be a war at a global scale, I doubt it would be fought the same way. Wars today are fought with precision. The sledgehammer approach is not effective.

Also, what's happening in the Middle East due to US involvement is not what I'd define as full-scale, maximalist combined-arms war, but rather a police action. Though technically the Iraq War was an invasion. The last "full-scale" war was probably the First Gulf War. Though even that can't be called full-scale if we're to guide ourselves after your definition.

I'd say your friend's definition is much more...how should I put it...down-to-earth and relevant in the modern world.

I wasn't saying that MW2 was plausible (its about the most implausible situation imaginable). I was just meaning that in terms of the scale which is shown: thousands of paratroopers dropping, tanks destroying buildings and in turn getting destroyed, helicopters being shot down left and right, etc.

I agree that a modern war would likely not look anything like WWII. With the ability to drop a tactical smart bomb and only destroy a single house massive operations become moot (except in the extreme case of MW2. In that situation I could see violence and destruction on that level easily).

I am merely talking about in general definitions, would you consider one like what is shown in MW2 or what is happening now in Iraq?

 

[JB1528]

hence why i said I see the two as the same. Because I believe that all war should be total war. there's no reason to hold back or be humane.

While I agree that if you enter a war, you should have every intention of winning it, I think there are always reasons to be humane. Using weapons like mustard gas shouldn't be (and isnt) acceptable. It's one thing to kill the enemy in horrible ways. Its a completely different one to torture them.

Watching your buddy get blown in half is just as demoralizing as watching him literally melt because of mustard gas. The only difference is the time it takes for him to die.

because its just so HUMANE to have a man go onto a battlefield, torn from his friends and family, to fight another man he most likely has never met and has no hard feelings towards, and telling that man that he has to kill the other, leaving that on his conscientious. Yes, its so humane.

I dont have a problem with war. I dont like it, I dont think its necessary, but I dont have a problem with it in the world. I understand why its there. But I dont like that there's this ideal that some countries have to be "humane" and "show the rest of the world how 'civilized' countries act". War should be treated exactly as it is. Horrible, dirty, bloody, life changing events that are used to resolve usually pointless dick measuring contests. And it should be fought as such too.

But then again, thats just my opinion.

A famous Confederate General once said "It is good that war is so terrible, or we would get too fond of it"

I think if everyone decided to fight war in the way that you said it, people would be more reluctant to wage it. So maybe your brutal resolution would ironically reduce wars in the long run if it was put into practice. Or maybe it would do the exact opposite and send us spiraling into a cycle of self destruction through constant warfare....who knows.

 

[drifter92]

I am merely talking about in general definitions, would you consider one like what is shown in MW2 or what is happening now in Iraq?

What's happening now in Iraq, under no circumstances. As I said, the last war I'd call full-scale was the First Gulf War in '91.

 

[BrotherSurplice]

I think that the OP's description is the closest to what I think is a full scale war. I think a full scale war is one in which two sovereign nations are at war and have both enacted a war economy and fully mobilised their militaries.

 

[Jegsimmons]

full scale war is when any two factions (mostly but always nations)engage in declared* armed conflict. it doesn't really matter the amount of casualties or damage it causes, war is in fact war.

this could range from the world wars to the Mogadishu raid in 1993
even whats happening in Libya is a full scale war.

*revolutions and civil wars arent always declared but you get the point

 

[prince_xedar]

I think that the OP's description is the closest to what I think is a full scale war. I think a full scale war is one in which two sovereign nations are at war and have both enacted a war economy and fully mobilised their militaries.

This is pretty much what i think, thought i would personally say it more like:
Full Scale war is a war which causes the Nations involved to fully mobilise and use their entire nations armed forces, and which dominates their political mind as well

 

[Kryzantine]

I wouldn't see Vietnam as a FSW for the US, however it was most definitely one for Vietnam.

Interesting idea that a war can be full scale for one country but not another. I'd never considered that.

In poker, whenever a player goes all-in, he's much more committed to the play than the player who calls him with a higher chip stack. Individual stakes are at play.

Take the recent conflicts in Libya and the Ivory Coast. In Libya, you have 3 sides - the Libyan gov't, the rebels and NATO. Guess which one hasn't put all their chips into the pot? Likewise with the Ivory Coast, with the Outtara forces putting in all their chips against Gbagdo forces, who put in all their chips once France decided to send a few tanks in there. In both cases, you have 2 contenders with far lower chip stacks than the big man at the table. Obviously, the poker analogy doesn't represent the situation fluidly, but it represents my point.

So a full-scale war is an issue of perspective here. It depends on who you're asking and where they're living. A war is going to affect people no matter what. Tell the Libyan people that their war isn't a full scale one when they're the ones being shelled with artillery and sniped on the streets.

 

[Platypus540]

"Full scale war" is when two countries have declared war on each other and at least one has staged/will stage aggressive operations using the full strength of their military, with the exception of nuclear weapons, and no real problems with attacking civilian targets, such as bombing the enemy's cities. Basically, total war. The size of the two nations/alliances is irrelevant. If America were to declare war on Afghanistan and we started carpet bombing cities, it would still be "full scale war" even though America would be so much more powerful.

The war in Afghanistan is not full-scale because we have not declared war on any countries and are not using our full military power to avoid killing civilians.

The war in Libya (which is a war, NATO and the UN are kidding themselves by calling it anything else) is full scale because full military strength is being used on both sides (the Libyan rebels and NATO air power equal full strength). While NATO avoids killing civilians (and I assume the rebels do too but I could be wrong) the Libyan government does not and as such that requirement for full scale war is filled as well.

 

[Jacco]

"Full scale war" is when two countries have declared war on each other and at least one has staged/will stage aggressive operations using the full strength of their military, with the exception of nuclear weapons, and no real problems with attacking civilian targets, such as bombing the enemy's cities. Basically, total war. The size of the two nations/alliances is irrelevant. If America were to declare war on Afghanistan and we started carpet bombing cities, it would still be "full scale war" even though America would be so much more powerful.

The war in Afghanistan is not full-scale because we have not declared war on any countries and are not using our full military power to avoid killing civilians.

The war in Libya (which is a war, NATO and the UN are kidding themselves by calling it anything else) is full scale because full military strength is being used on both sides (the Libyan rebels and NATO air power equal full strength). While NATO avoids killing civilians (and I assume the rebels do too but I could be wrong) the Libyan government does not and as such that requirement for full scale war is filled as well.

The more I think about the previous comment about one faction being engaged in full scale warfare and another not, the more I see it makes sense. It just had never occured to me.

Under that, the Libyans are engaged in full scale war with each but NATO is not. My original definition in the first post stated that I consider a full scale war to be one where both sides are relatively equally matched, can do about the same amount of damage to each other, incflict the same casualties, etc. The Libyans are doing just that. NATO, under my definition which I need to refine to take into account the "one side is, one side isnt" stance, would not be engaged in a a FSW because the Libyans are almost powerless against them.

If NATO and Warsaw were to go at it, then NATO would then be involved in a "full scale war."

 

[JoJo]

I think of full scale war the saem as I see total war. Where you dont give two shits how you look, and you just kill everyone and everything that stands against you. Kill the soldiers, kill the citizens, sew salts into the land, contaminate the water, destroy every structure.

basically, if theres life left or a place for organization to spring up again, you're not doing your job right, and you're not in full scale war.

I think that would more closely resemble the concept of total war.

hence why i said I see the two as the same. Because I believe that all war should be total war. there's no reason to hold back or be humane.

That's absolutely disgusting, do what you must on the battlefield but what gives you the right to kill innocent civilians including children who pose no direct threat to you or your country and may not even support the war? I very much hope you don't really believe that.

 

[SyphonX]

Couldn't say.

I live in the United States, and we've been at war forever. There was a moment in my life where there was no publicized war, and that was a strange time.

Now there are people being born in this world that will never know anything but constant war. The Middle-East conflicts will not end for a long, long time. Then there's the whole thing about giving up liberties and rights for the war and safety, etc. So once again, there are people coming into this world without knowing what it was like before the "Patriot Act" days or global counter-terrorism.

Yes, this is full-scale war, imo. The amount of propaganda that is spewed out even today, and the amount of liberties sacrificed, it's really a higher cost than WW2 "rationing" or working in factories. You can grow more food, and get a different job later on, but you can't get your liberties back.

Off-topic.. ? Not really.

Conventional war today would be the end of mankind as we know it. Full-scale doesn't exist as we are used to it. We deal in thermonuclear detonations and mass-terror now. If world powers field their armies against each other... well that's all folks.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I think of full scale war the saem as I see total war. Where you dont give two shits how you look, and you just kill everyone and everything that stands against you. Kill the soldiers, kill the citizens, sew salts into the land, contaminate the water, destroy every structure.

basically, if theres life left or a place for organization to spring up again, you're not doing your job right, and you're not in full scale war.

I think that would more closely resemble the concept of total war.

hence why i said I see the two as the same. Because I believe that all war should be total war. there's no reason to hold back or be humane.

That's absolutely disgusting, do what you must on the battlefield but what gives you the right to kill innocent civilians including children who pose no direct threat to you or your country and may not even support the war? I very much hope you don't really believe that.

<url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.301161-Poll-How-do-you-define-the-term-full-scale-war#12044462>I very well do

War is war. You want to go full scale, you go total. it ends war, and if you can manage the land you just destroyed, stops it from coming back. you can argue about humanity, but you cant argue results.

EDIT: and actually, thinking about it, its better to kill a woman or child, especially in mass numbers. you can kill a fellow soldier and the man will conitnue, with resolve. you kill the woman or child, especially theirs, show them you can get that close, show them you have no worries in destroying all they know, and the continual building will break the man.

It also stops the population. kill a man, a woman will mother a child, teach them to hate for killing the man. kill the child, or the woman, you just robbed someone of a future child that would hate you. man can do many things, but he cant not make more of him without his woman counterpart, and even he must die eventually.

 

[Jacco]

That's absolutely disgusting, do what you must on the battlefield but what gives you the right to kill innocent civilians including children who pose no direct threat to you or your country and may not even support the war? I very much hope you don't really believe that.

He has a point in that you fight to win. If you are fighting someone on the street, you do as much damage as you can so that they wont get back up again. That being said, civilians should absolutely be off limits no matter what the campaign calls for, end of story. The moment you start arbitrarily targeting civilians, you become no better than the terrorists you hunt.

 

[EdwardOrchard]

By "Full Scale War," I'm assuming you mean the concept of Total War, which is, the mobilization of all available resources, including the population, towards a common military effort.

What separates a Total War as its own class of warfare, apart from every other type of military action, is that in Total War, it isn't the military that is being mobilized... its EVERYTHING else. Every man, woman and child, every resource, every industry is put towards the war effort.

Voted for option 3 in the poll.

 

[EdwardOrchard]

I think of full scale war the saem as I see total war. Where you dont give two shits how you look, and you just kill everyone and everything that stands against you. Kill the soldiers, kill the citizens, sew salts into the land, contaminate the water, destroy every structure.

basically, if theres life left or a place for organization to spring up again, you're not doing your job right, and you're not in full scale war.

I think that would more closely resemble the concept of total war.

hence why i said I see the two as the same. Because I believe that all war should be total war. there's no reason to hold back or be humane.

That's absolutely disgusting, do what you must on the battlefield but what gives you the right to kill innocent civilians including children who pose no direct threat to you or your country and may not even support the war? I very much hope you don't really believe that.

While I don't completely agree with Emeraldrafael's definition of Total War, I do agree with him. Total War isn't about indiscriminately killing everybody and destroying everything... Its simply that in Total War, the distinction between soldier and civilian is blurred. In a true Total War, there are no innocent civilians.

I agree with him that all war should be Total War. If the goal of the war isn't something that every man, woman and child in a nation are willing to fight and die for, then there is no point to it. It isn't a war that should be fought.

 

[JoJo]

I think of full scale war the saem as I see total war. Where you dont give two shits how you look, and you just kill everyone and everything that stands against you. Kill the soldiers, kill the citizens, sew salts into the land, contaminate the water, destroy every structure.

basically, if theres life left or a place for organization to spring up again, you're not doing your job right, and you're not in full scale war.

I think that would more closely resemble the concept of total war.

hence why i said I see the two as the same. Because I believe that all war should be total war. there's no reason to hold back or be humane.

That's absolutely disgusting, do what you must on the battlefield but what gives you the right to kill innocent civilians including children who pose no direct threat to you or your country and may not even support the war? I very much hope you don't really believe that.

<url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.301161-Poll-How-do-you-define-the-term-full-scale-war#12044462>I very well do

War is war. You want to go full scale, you go total. it ends war, and if you can manage the land you just destroyed, stops it from coming back. you can argue about humanity, but you cant argue results.

EDIT: and actually, thinking about it, its better to kill a woman or child, especially in mass numbers. you can kill a fellow soldier and the man will conitnue, with resolve. you kill the woman or child, especially theirs, show them you can get that close, show them you have no worries in destroying all they know, and the continual building will break the man.

It also stops the population. kill a man, a woman will mother a child, teach them to hate for killing the man. kill the child, or the woman, you just robbed someone of a future child that would hate you. man can do many things, but he cant not make more of him without his woman counterpart, and even he must die eventually.

Sorry but I'd rather keep my humanity, there is no worse single crime in existence than killing a child and I would rather die than do that. Frankly, it's justifications like that which are the reason we still live in a world with genocide and hatred.

Also, think about it:

US vs UK : Not for around 200 years
France vs UK : Not for almost 200 years
France/UK/US vs Germany/Japan : Not for over 65 years

These wars and many others between countries ended without having to kill the entire countries population, indeed now all the countries listed above are allies which rely completely on each other. There's no need for genocide, it's easy to use economic and political measures once you win a war to ensure that a country remains your ally permanently.

 

[Sir Boss]

By "Full Scale War," I'm assuming you mean the concept of Total War, which is, the mobilization of all available resources, including the population, towards a common military effort.

What separates a Total War as its own class of warfare, apart from every other type of military action, is that in Total War, it isn't the military that is being mobilized... its EVERYTHING else. Every man, woman and child, every resource, every industry is put towards the war effort.

Voted for option 3 in the poll.

This. this is my definition of full scale war. war isn't full scale until you get the "your county needs you" posters out

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I would define full scale war as a scenario in which two or more parties are engaged in direct, conventional conflict using combined arms. The aim of such a conflict must be to destroy the capacity of the opposition to continue fighting a war, an aim accomplished by the destruction of their standing forces, disruption of supply lines, attacks aimed at command and control elements and an attempt to destroy enemy manufacturing and import capability (i.e. attempted destruction of major roadways, ports and airfields).