The end of traditional war.

[sanson]

Well, there are definitely more ways than one to fight a war. You have drones, espionage, and economic agreements between countries to spite an enemy country and hurt their industry. Another weapon in the arsenal of economics is the economic sanction. Now, espionage and these economic agreements/sanctions (in the form of embargoes, for example) have nearly always existed in past conflicts, but now they are more sophisticated and complex. Espionage has turned into cyber espionage, followed by the development of highly advanced and technological weapons. I think there is such a thing as traditional war-it's a direct engagement with two opposing sides on a battlefield, all the spying and economic punishment just the addition to the actual war. Basically, not a full on conflict, but maybe the things leading up to that conflict. The war we fight today is mostly through economics, the overthrow of governments both illegally and legally (often under covert measures by unknown agents) and establishment of new ones, proxy wars and cyber espionage. War will never be fought the same way again, especially as our methods advance and expand to draw the conflict out. Most countries are guilty of these methods.

 

[003]

I don't really think that war could ever be over. Yes, it's officially over, but that doesn't mean that we don't have it. It's present in different forms. It may not have been voiced out, but in sentiments, it's known. And with our era, the war we used to know is already taking its new shape, a more complex one. Guns and tanks may soon not be part of war, but genocide through biological weapons will sure take the toll, which I think is more inhumane and immoral.

 

[tournique]

I doubt that Russia will get in war with anyone soon as they have all eyes set on them. Pretty much everyone is allied against Russia at the moment and they don't want to risk that much. They do not have enough allies to start a war without causing too many damage around them.

 

[joshua minaya]

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.

Honestly you have made a very interesting point here originally i did not think of it this way but now that you have brought it to light i guess it is worth brainstorming about.

 

[vegito12]

I think in the middle ages war was fought with rules, when to fight and when not too as the men had to be equal in might otherwise one side could have advantage easily. I think wars fought today happen without warning, and bombs go blasting killing innocents who are not part of the conflict and causes deaths. War should be last resort, not the first one as if it could be avoided than lives can be saved and conflict could end peacefully.

 

[drc65]

Great video. Personally I fear that the more technology is evolving, the more detached the soldiers will be from the act of killing (e.g. drone strikes) and there will be less ethical mechanisms in place to prevent a major war.

 

[skipper]

I'm thinking that war will definitely change, but it will never be eradicated. My vision is that we'll start seeing more cyber attacks and fewer kinetic conflicts, at least when it comes to conflict among different countries. As technology advances and we become more reliant on "the grid," we'll start to see countries trying to disrupt each other economically. Wiping out bank accounts, shutting off electricity, killing the internet - things of that nature. It can cause major disruption among the population - from inconvenience all the way to death - and sacrifices fewer soldiers. Drones and robots will likely take the places of human soldiers/pilots for kinetic actions if it comes to that. If that were the case, war could very easily become far more brutal than it really is. Think of the implications of a program deciding whether to kill - no human emotion or empathy involved, and any human judgment that is involved would likely come from someone behind a screen thousands of miles away. Interesting to think about....

 

[Onionman]

We are certainly in an era of asymmetric warfare, where the enemy isn't necessarily a standing army with a border to defend or using tanks and mortars. That's why Homeland Security budgets continue to increase. There's a different type of enemy now.

 

[mizrael]

It's hard to believe that there is less war today than there was in the past judging by the level of terrorism going on in the present. I'm not sure that I agree with this short film, I'm sure it's facts but as the world gets more populated and the lifespan of people gets longer, I think there will be a power struggle for landmass and resources, war will be inevitable, either that or we'll get more frequent civil wars amongst countries, people will die in great numbers either by civil war, a world war or a rise in criminal activity resulting in a high death rate. Something has to change to balance the world population.

 

[freeofcharge]

We're presently experiencing the most peaceful time in human history - or at least that's what I've been reading. We've been killing one another less than we ever have before but unfortunately the age of information makes us hear about it far more often. If everything you saw on the news is reporting on instances between individuals amongst a multi-billion person population on earth. Most of these things aren't happening in your backyard and are in fact happening less than they ever have before in human history.

 

[orangesunset]

When humans still lived in caves, someone would have been saying this is the end of traditional war. That caveman two caves down just invented a sling which throws rocks really far. Did you know he can hit a guy from 100 yards away ? 100 yards that is frightening, my spear only goes 20 yards. Oh how terrifying.

Flash forward 1000 years. Did you hear about that guy who invented a bow and arrow ? It can kill a man from over 200 - 300 yards away. Oh 300 yards that is so far, just the thought is terrifying.

Flash forward another 1000 years. Did you hear about the invention of this thing called a catapult ? It is terrifying, a weapon of mass distruction. It can hurl huge boulders 2000 yards away, that is terrifying.

And so on, and so on.

War is always changing.

 

[RingoBerry]

I can't completely disregard the fact that if ever another World War happens, the surviving people will all be looking at another Stone Age or something close to it. With all these weapons of war countries continue to improve and invent we might not even have a world to look forward to. f ever it happens in the future and the world does survive, I hope the remaining people learns from it. Wars did nothing for any body. It just proof how ignorant we still are despite of our technology.

 

[orangesunset]

I can't completely disregard the fact that if ever another World War happens, the surviving people will all be looking at another Stone Age or something close to it. With all these weapons of war countries continue to improve and invent we might not even have a world to look forward to. f ever it happens in the future and the world does survive, I hope the remaining people learns from it. Wars did nothing for any body. It just proof how ignorant we still are despite of our technology.

For every weapon there is a defense. After WW2 the causualties from bombing where much smaller then what was originally estimated. This is because fighter aircraft where invented to shoot down bombers.

Also it is assuming all the new equipment works as planned. It works under ideal conditons, but it is not battlefield tested.

 

[jdzla]

I don't really think that war could ever be over. Yes, it's officially over, but that doesn't mean that we don't have it. It's present in different forms.

I completely agree with you.

For every weapon there is a defense. After WW2 the causualties from bombing where much smaller then what was originally estimated. This is because fighter aircraft where invented to shoot down bombers.

Also it is assuming all the new equipment works as planned. It works under ideal conditons, but it is not battlefield tested.

This therefore raises this question: In this day and age, which has the edge, offense or defence?

Let me put that question into context. In World War I, defensive technologies outpaced offensive techniques, resulting to trench warfare. Upon the introduction of the tank and its wider application or mainstreaming in World War 2, war again became offensive. (Remember blitzkrieg?)

Today, with nuclear weapons and with information warfare, which is superior, therefore: the sword or the shield?

 

[orangesunset]

I completely agree with you.
This therefore raises this question: In this day and age, which has the edge, offense or defence?

Let me put that question into context. In World War I, defensive technologies outpaced offensive techniques, resulting to trench warfare. Upon the introduction of the tank and its wider application or mainstreaming in World War 2, war again became offensive. (Remember blitzkrieg?)

An important question. What appears to be an offensive weapon, might actually be a defensive weapon. Prior to WW1 the machinegun was used against primitive tribes in Africa and South America. Since the primitive tribes did not have machineguns of their own, most Generals assumed the machinegun was an offensive weapon. In WW1 both sides had machineguns they found out it was a defensive weapon. The tank was designed to break this impasse.

The tail end of WW2, cheap anti-tank weapons where invented, taking away the tanks advantage.

Information warfare is the wildcard. The biggest threat is groups like ISIS, things like the internet enable these groups to communicate with each other. On the other hand information technologies enable governments to monitor people more easier. Which will get the upper hand, I don't know.