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

[Jacco]

I was debating with a friend recently about this.

When I think of a "full scale war" I think of something like WWI or II where both sides are equally sized and organized and capable of significantly damaging each other. Troops and vehicles are being lost all the time. People dying is a common occurrence. The conflict depicted in Modern Warfare 2 would fall under my definition of "full scale war." I would not classify the happenings in Iraq/Afghanistan, or Libya as one.

My friend, however, absolutely would classify those conflicts as full scale wars because he sees it as a full mobility of the military. Despite the fact that the American military is huge and well organized and the Insurgency/Taliban is ragtag and small, he would say that they are full scale. Vehicles don't get destroyed all that often and people don't die all that often (at least in comparison to the conflicts mentioned above).

So what do you define as full scale war? Would you be more inclined to side with me or my friend? Or do you have another definition?

Please leave the politics out of this unless you think they have specific relevance to your point. I don't want this to devolve into a shouting match. =]

 

[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.

 

[Jacco]

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.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'd say both (ish). But, in a situation that fell under your definition, the likely response would be to follow your friend's definition.

However, your friend's definition doesn't hold true in those cases...the conflicts in Iraq/Afghanistan or Libya aren't taking up all of the respective powers military might. It's taking up a sizeable amount, but not all.

Personally, I'd add to your friend's definition economic and social might as well. A full scale war, IMHO, requires restructing the nation to devote it primarily to fighting that war. Peacetime activities are curtailed, or at least reduced significantly to give priority to military matters. The introduction of a war economy and rationing would be amongst the most obvious examples of this.

 

[DustyDrB]

It's life size.

Spoiler: Full-scale war

Spoiler: Not full-scale war

/sarcastic asshole comment

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's life size.

Spoiler: Full-scale war

Spoiler: Not full-scale war

/sarcastic asshole comment

Heh...when I opened the first photo, I expected the second the by the same thing, but shrunk down to half size or something.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Full Scale war refers to the stance of the nation fighting. Another term for it is "Total War", that means the nations near total focus is to fight the war. World War II was an example because the US focused on nothing but fighting the war. The current war on the other hand is not because the economy is not geared toward the war, its just a facet of the larger whole.

 

[Lionsfan]

I think of Full-Scale War as a country totally devoted to it. Like in WWII how EVERYTHING was all about rationing, and the soldiers, and the entire country was behind winning the War and sacrificing the necessary materials to winning the war, everything was put on the backburner for a while. Whereas in Modern Times life goes on regardless of what happens in the Middle East. We're not asked to give up food, or all work in the factories, and social issues are still being debated despite the war

 

[Sniper Team 4]

To me, Full-Scale war means all the chips are on the table. You are not fighting a faction, you're not fight an insurgent group. You are fighting the entire country with everything from your country (save nukes). You do not stop until you have either won, or you are destroyed.

War is simply fighting on a smaller scale.

 

[PurpLemons]

When I Think of full scale wars, I think of the countries focusing all or most of its resources to war time needs, be it materialistically or financially.

 

[cryogeist]

well i think of it as
"THROW EVERYTHING WE GOT AT EM!"
example WW1 and 2

 

[Bloodfeat]

I feel a combination of both of you and your friends points is the way to go.
if you go with the idea that the sides are equal a fight between 10 men a side would be classed as full scale war ,technically.
But if you go with the idea that each side deploys it full military might, you may end up with one side being severely out manned and out gunned which i would not define as "full scale war"
I feel you must also involve most of the planet as other wise it wouldn't be full scale.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

I think of Full-Scale War as a country totally devoted to it. Like in WWII how EVERYTHING was all about rationing, and the soldiers, and the entire country was behind winning the War and sacrificing the necessary materials to winning the war, everything was put on the backburner for a while. Whereas in Modern Times life goes on regardless of what happens in the Middle East. We're not asked to give up food, or all work in the factories, and social issues are still being debated despite the war

Bingo.

Whilst I live in Australia and we obviously have much less involvement, there is hardly much mention of the conflict unless it directly concerns a thousand or so more men being sent over or coming home, or when an Australian serviceman is killed, or something really big like the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Things like the military operations of other countries and roadside bombs killing dozens of people might get a brief mention on the news.
While there is, I guess, the massive fear and hatred of terrorism all over the place, it just doesn't directly affect us in any substantial way, aside from those at home who's relatives die over there.

-

Anyway,
Full-Scale War - Heart and soul of the countries involved and their people are poured into the war effort. Like you said before, rationing and the like as well as conscription are most likely in effect. Shitloads of munitions and materials are produced to further the war effort, which may result in the standard of living at home degrading due to the massive focus. Hundreds of thousands of casualities by it's end, at least.

Not FSW - Whatever the hell is going on now. I wouldn't see Vietnam as a FSW for the US, however it was most definitely one for Vietnam.

Total War - Kill everything that doesn't march under the same flag.

 

[Layz92]

Full scale war is every branch and element of 2 nation's military mobilising and committing to an almost "fight to the death" with each other. It is the mobilisation of everything against each other that makes it full-scale along with open conflict.

 

[Uncreation]

I'm sorry... but it has to be said:
'War. War never changes.'-narrator dude.

That's Ron Perlman, i believe.

 

[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.

 

[Jacco]

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.

 

[Jacco]

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.

 

[drifter92]

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.

 

[emeraldrafael]

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.