The end of traditional war.

[DeltaForce103]

What do you think? Most of the ongoing military conflicts in the world consist of civil wars fought against rebel groups or terrorist organizations, border conflicts and so on. A full-fledged war between nation states with enormous resources has been practically non-existent.

Is globalisation the dove of peace here? We live in a time where even economic sanctions are hard to place on a major country due to the losses and possible death spiral that the increasingly interconnected economies of both parties would endure.

 

[krazyman]

Some great questions posed here.

Economic sanctions could never be posed against a major superpower because the cost to the countries that it was imposed by would be able to stand the repercussions. We live in a society that is completely interdependent, countries no longer live in isolation and everyone is connected through technology.

Will an actual war against two powers actually come to fruition over the course of the next few years? I think eventually it will happen, but if you look at what has been going on in the world over the past 100 years you have seen exactly what Delta Force points out - rebel groups fighting for a cause or terrorists looking to strike fear into a particular group.

My fear is a World War III on a nuclear scale - the technology now is so much more advanced than what it was during the first World Wars and the death tolls would be much larger in comparison. I think if we get into a war with Nation States and not factions or terrorist groups - that is what we could see. A technological war like nothing we have ever seen. That is scary!

 

[DeltaForce103]

My fear is a World War III on a nuclear scale - the technology now is so much more advanced than what it was during the first World Wars and the death tolls would be much larger in comparison. I think if we get into a war with Nation States and not factions or terrorist groups - that is what we could see. A technological war like nothing we have ever seen. That is scary!

There is a chance, although not any kind of guarantee, that nuclear weapons will never be used on a large scale between nuclear states due to the mutually assured destruction of both parties. This can even decrease the chance of conventional war, due to the fear of nuclear retaliation. It does appear as though the presence of nuclear weapons has played a role in maintaining peace between great powers.

The doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) assumes that each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side; and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate without fail with equal or greater force. The expected result is an immediate irreversible escalation of hostilities resulting in both combatants' mutual, total and assured destruction.

The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side will launch on warning (also called fail-deadly) or with secondary forces (a second strike), resulting in unacceptable losses for both parties. The payoff of the MAD doctrine is expected to be a tense but stable global peace

Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nuclear peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Aree Wongwanlee]

Is it really that difficult to start WWIII?

Mind you, I am not looking forward to WWIII but I can see at least one situation where WWIII can become a reality.

Let's say a madman (and there are many around) gets hold of a dirty bomb (you can even ask Uncle Google how to make one) and detonates it in, say, Israel. The repercussions will be global.

For a start, oil prices will go astronomical. It's not so much an immediate shortage that will trigger the rocketing oil prices. It's the uncertainty whether the dirty bomb would have contaminated all the oil wells in the region, rendering them unusable. When oil prices skyrocket, other prices follow suit.

Food prices will be the first to go up, not because of shortage but because of hoarding. The first country to fall would be the US because deprivation is not something the US citizens will accept without a fight. And US citizens are armed to the teeth. When people panic, they do not care anymore. They will just take what they want and kill anyone who stands in the way. The poor countries are the most likely to survive because the people there are used to living with scarce resources.

So what safeguards are in place to make sure no madman with any kind of dirty bomb ever detonates one?

 

[DeltaForce103]

Is it really that difficult to start WWIII?

Mind you, I am not looking forward to WWIII but I can see at least one situation where WWIII can become a reality.

Let's say a madman (and there are many around) gets hold of a dirty bomb (you can even ask Uncle Google how to make one) and detonates it in, say, Israel. The repercussions will be global.

For a start, oil prices will go astronomical. It's not so much an immediate shortage that will trigger the rocketing oil prices. It's the uncertainty whether the dirty bomb would have contaminated all the oil wells in the region, rendering them unusable. When oil prices skyrocket, other prices follow suit.

Food prices will be the first to go up, not because of shortage but because of hoarding. The first country to fall would be the US because deprivation is not something the US citizens will accept without a fight. And US citizens are armed to the teeth. When people panic, they do not care anymore. They will just take what they want and kill anyone who stands in the way. The poor countries are the most likely to survive because the people there are used to living with scarce resources.

So what safeguards are in place to make sure no madman with any kind of dirty bomb ever detonates one?

Since this madman isn't acting on behalf of a nation, that wouldn't actually be considered an act of war, it would be a terrorist attack. Secondly, this has already been attempted before in the US and UK without success. Unless the Israeli intelligence agencies are completely incompetent, they would most likely be prepared for such an attack considering the volatile state of the region, so it seems unlikely although not impossible that he would be able to transport radioactive material, build and detonate a dirty bomb inside Israel.

And even if this were to happen, a dirty bomb is not a weapon of mass destruction and less effective than a conventional bomb. It doesn't have the blast radius of a nuclear bomb.

Therefore, the chances of this sparking WW3 (against who?) when terrorist attacks on numerous countries have not, is unlikely. For this scenario to happen, all the agents involved have to be irrational and hysterical. I don't think the kind of wanton and misdirected military action or public panic required for this scenario is possible in the current age of intergovernmental organizations and much better access to information.

 

[weepforsweep]

The only way that a conventional war would happen is if the country becomes too economically desperate. I could see Russia getting into a war with somebody since there economy is in shambles.

 

[Gabriel]

Civil and border conflicts will continue throughout time, because people look historically at what was theirs and what was given away in a peace treaty. Each generation mounts its own campaign, however with increased technology and also ease of movement, these wars extend beyond the confines of the original issue and the ring leaders get hungry for more war and fight other causes.

Sanctions never work and are used as a threat and deterrent, all it does is create domestic unrest and resentment from the citizens. A war between nations is very unlikely given the various NGOs set up and treaties signed. War is now about power, rather than land and nations proving who has what resources. I am sure all countries have their own back up plans, because there really is no trust among politicians or governments.

 

[musicmonster]

If the prices of these weapons become free, then I think that becomes the end of traditional. It is all going to be digital. It is starting already with all these hacking going on.

 

[missbishi]

If the prices of these weapons become free, then I think that becomes the end of traditional. It is all going to be digital. It is starting already with all these hacking going on.

Attacks are certainly getting more sophisticated now. Maybe we'll see an end to good ole fashioned soldiering with the increase in attacks being carried out by individual terrorists.

 

[cyberpinoy]

I think the next major world war may not be fought above ground. The winners and prevailers of the next world war will be safely inside a deep bunker protected by anything and everything and able to sustain life for 15 to 20 years. the war will be fought by all remotes controlled and biological warfare. No manned ships, no manned tanks and no men at all. As we watch the games we play you may think it is all just a bunch of crap, But try the game command and conquer and tell me if a country had the ability to sit in front of a computer and send orders out that could destroy an enemy or a group of enemies, what worries would they have? If their location is so well hidden so far underground no one could ever find them, what do they have to fear. even if the whole world is destroyed by nuclear warfare and they have 15 years or more they can survive in their safe have, what would stop them from unleashing nuclear holy heck? NOTHING. Nothing would stop them. the problem is not what will happen during a nuclear war, but what is left behind after all the dust settles? Because its ll the innocent people who had nothing to do with the decisions, not choice in the matters, they are the ones who will die. the people responsible for starting, engaging in the war and ultimately destroying the earth. they will be what is left behind of the human race.

 

[kittyworker]

It really depends on what you mean by traditional war. War has always evolved as strategies employed by the commanders changed. Civil Wars aren't really anything new. During the medieval period you had lots of people in the HRE fighting with each other over this slice of land or that title. Back then though 'Traditional War' would have meant knights, archers, and footmen. When muskets were added, you pretty much lost sword and bow all together and 'Traditional War' changed again, instead of charging at each other now you stood back and fired volleys of bullets. Add in the 'guerrilla warfare' and ambushes and once again you have war changing from the pitched battles to one more resembling what you see today, excluding the trenches of WWI.

So yea, is this the end of Traditional War? No, I don't think so, I think its just another evolution of what war is.

 

[Nur]

What do you think? Most of the ongoing military conflicts in the world consist of civil wars fought against rebel groups or terrorist organizations, border conflicts and so on. A full-fledged war between nation states with enormous resources has been practically non-existent.

Is globalisation the dove of peace here? We live in a time where even economic sanctions are hard to place on a major country due to the losses and possible death spiral that the increasingly interconnected economies of both parties would endure.

I will have to agree with the video about the fact that the span of time after the last big war hasn't really been that long, so it really is impossible to say that the end of "war", in the traditional sense, has been achieved at this point in time. Especially considering that, while we're only seeing skirmishes and civil wars in different countries, a lot more countries have mounting tension with regards to territorial boundaries and it hasn't shown any signs of easing up.

75 years is a looong time after all. And I wonder if USA can retain their hegemony. I kind of think that having a single "superpower" (is this still the term? I feel like I'm outdated haha) limits the conflicts between the nations. The moment that hegemony is lost though -- if the world regains two superpowers again, for example -- I can see another cold war or worse, lines drawn and fighting between nations once more.

 

[Redheart]

There's not going to be a third world war any time soon, at least not in the traditional sense. You've watched Sci-fi movies where robots are used as soldiers. Do you think we'll see some of that action?

It's not improbable. Already some countries are thinking considering replacing some of their troops with robots while countries like N. Korea experiment with cloning to create super-soldiers. So when there is a war in future, it will be a tech-war.

 

[starburstlateral]

"I know not what weapons WWIII will be fought with,
but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Traditional warfare has evolved into something we see today, proxy battles to redraw borders and push for resources.
I don't think the future of war will be fought with robots or augmented humans. If by robots you mean the ones we can't see.... hackers, phreakers and nanobots could do much more damage if their control was centralized.

Watching too much sci-fi...

 

[xTinx]

You can say that globalization is the closest thing to being an instrument of peace. Look at Russia, it's waging a proxy war to avoid bigger economic sanctions, using Ukraine's own citizens to fight its own government. When you talk about insurgents, however, these kinds of people don't even care about economic cooperation and sanctions. There are borderless black markets they can tap on anyway. As long as these awful people exist, peace will remain elusive.