funguy2121 said:
NicholasSchaffer said:
There is not going to be a WW3.
You see, most nations don't have the military capacity to go toe-to-toe with NATO's armed forces, as the NATO countries generally have the best military on the face of this earth. And the nation most likely to start a war (N. Korea) will get it's ass kicked quicker then the fucking gulf war.
Actually, the Gulf War is a perfect example of what any traditional war in a modern era would be like. NATO storms in, clearly being the superior military, and just kicks everyone's ass. The only way to fight "effectively" against NATO countries is guerrilla warfare, which only works about half of the time.
I used to think this, but every nation uses guerrilla warfare now, and the last 10 years disproves your statement. We're still losing people in Iraq and Afghanistan on a regular basis. Going into hostile territory and removing an enemy from power is almost never as simple as it sounds, in spite of the fact that some of our enemies are as sophisticated as a tribal culture compared to our technology and infrastructure. Also bear in mind that North Korea, China and Russia are far more sophisticated than Iraq was.
True enough but these war continue only because of support within the country of none combatants for the combatants. There are only 2 ways to win a war where a segment of the population will support and hide the guerrilla's.
1:Time. People get tired of fighting. Slowly more and more children grow up with the new way of things until eventually there simply are not enough people left willing to die for a cause barely remembered. N. Ireland is a key example here. Even during some of the more dangerous parts of the fighting it was a few members of the population, supported by a minority of the population, that was ultimately funded by American Irish 3000 miles away. Even that finding dried up after 9/11 when suddenly those funding the terrorism suddenly had the reality of what they were funding come crashing down on them.
2:Total zero tolerance. The unification of Britain and the conquering of Scotland is a prime example here. I believe it was also practised in some areas in Afria in the Empire days though I have no source. You are chasing 3 men who performed an act of terrorism. They run round a corner and vanish on a street that is busy but shouldnt be able to hide 3 people from view after 30 seconds never mind 5. You grab the nearest 10 people, men, women or children. Line them up against a wall and shoot them one by one until the terrorists come forward, are surrendered or you kill all 10. Any time you are chasing terrorists and they vanish like this or you storm a building they should be in and they arnt, repeat this process. At first it will stir a deep profound hate that overrides everything. But over time people will begin to fear. The potential loss becomes to great, as ultimately its not the terrorists who are dying, or even their supporters, but random people. This threat of loss causes people to give up any information they might have to save a friend in the line. People who housed them decide the risk is to great, they lose their refuges and over time are run to ground. Its brutal, but history tells us it works. It is fortunate all round they we are beyond this. I have no doubt the wars in the middle east would progress some what different if this brutal practice were still enforced.
If it came down to World War practice. Where losing is not just over a spit of land in the middle of nowhere. This would no doubt become common again.
At least "most" people would be horrified at the thought of this becoming common practice even if ultimately it saved 1000's of people. And that "some" of the middle-eastern wars at least (Such as Afghanistan) are being perused for ultimately good reasons in messy ways. Lets face it the "war" in N.Ireland was brutal stuff. Not so far from these current middle-eastern wars yet most people would agree it was a justified defence.
