Do you think there will ever be another war like WWII?
- Thread starter Jacco
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's doubtful looking back at both world wars it very apparent that even the "winners" suffered huge losses not just the lives but think of all the wasted money and materials, to wage war on such a scale requires a majority of a given nations resources I doubt many people would be willing to endure the conditions necessary to sustain such a war. Not to mention the radical shift to an interconnected global economy and the freedom of information via the net along with substantial governmental information networks makes knowing about a threat and dealing with it on a much smaller scale far more likely. With the advances in weapons technology we'd see something more akin to large scale air and sea warfare with very little use of ground troops until air superiority was established and at that point it's essentially mop up work, think along the lines of the first gulf war huge air bombardments followed buy ground troops doing some clean up operations.
As for wmd's I doubt they'd see much use due to fear of a like response, again look at the gulf war most nations wouldn't risk their existence on the use of such weapons. Nukes are even more unlikely than chemical or biological agents mainly due to the small number of nations that have them and again the concept of MAD. I'm not saying the use of nuclear weapons couldn't be used but what good is a phyric victory, the largest threat from nuclear weapons has always been either an accidental launch, or a rouge group or state acquiring them and being willing to use them due to religious extremism. But those are rather unlikely scenarios.
As for wmd's I doubt they'd see much use due to fear of a like response, again look at the gulf war most nations wouldn't risk their existence on the use of such weapons. Nukes are even more unlikely than chemical or biological agents mainly due to the small number of nations that have them and again the concept of MAD. I'm not saying the use of nuclear weapons couldn't be used but what good is a phyric victory, the largest threat from nuclear weapons has always been either an accidental launch, or a rouge group or state acquiring them and being willing to use them due to religious extremism. But those are rather unlikely scenarios.
If you take modern tech into account, NO, why? Nukes... When you have a Nation like the USA with something like 80% of its Nuclear arsenal on board submarines that can go anywhere there is an ocean or sea connected to an ocean there really is no way we could have actual first world nation states going to war on that scale in modern times.
Now, some may point to the USA's current war in Afghanistan (or that one that supposedly just finished in Iraq) And to that I point out that: A First world vs Third world, and B instead of our entire male populations age 18-35 going to war we have an enlisted military force set on the backs of the lower middle - poor in regards to social/economic status.
Add to that the recent innovations of planes being flown in Pakistan by people who are on a military base in Arizona. Or self driving cars, and yeah, we are making war SO SO much less personal in today's world that we are able to have them for a decade and still do things like worry about being late to the premiere of The Avengers in theaters.
I mean seriously folks we have become WAY too detached from the ugliest part of human existence. In the old days, when a country went to war the King was on the front lines. Worst thing Bush had to deal with? a pretzel, and a shoe. It is a different world we live in, one where countries can be erased with the turn of 2 keys, and we are reaching the point, more and more where warriors don't need to be on the battlefield.
But to the ones that are, I do support wholeheartedly, and thank you for your service.
Now, some may point to the USA's current war in Afghanistan (or that one that supposedly just finished in Iraq) And to that I point out that: A First world vs Third world, and B instead of our entire male populations age 18-35 going to war we have an enlisted military force set on the backs of the lower middle - poor in regards to social/economic status.
Add to that the recent innovations of planes being flown in Pakistan by people who are on a military base in Arizona. Or self driving cars, and yeah, we are making war SO SO much less personal in today's world that we are able to have them for a decade and still do things like worry about being late to the premiere of The Avengers in theaters.
I mean seriously folks we have become WAY too detached from the ugliest part of human existence. In the old days, when a country went to war the King was on the front lines. Worst thing Bush had to deal with? a pretzel, and a shoe. It is a different world we live in, one where countries can be erased with the turn of 2 keys, and we are reaching the point, more and more where warriors don't need to be on the battlefield.
But to the ones that are, I do support wholeheartedly, and thank you for your service.
Corax_1990 said:
There. You two deserve cookies. Money is the number one reason a third world war isn't likely. Who can make money out of warzones and wastelands?Lethos said:
Every Civilisation calls them something different, in the UK we call them CHAVs. If your struggling to think of yours then you need to think about what the "lower classes" who are cared for by the state are called and you have them. I am not saying they are all like that, but that is where you generally find them.FelixG said:
China's manpower is needed to make their economy work, they couldn't sustain Human wave tactics and make all of the things in the factories.SaneAmongInsane said:
Also, if China fought the USA, China would not be able to sell their stuff to any of the MEDC's (I hate the 3 World model, it was designed for the cold war, not now) because the USA would use its political power to have an Embargo placed on China, so only poor LEDC's could buy their stuff and there wouldn't be enough customers to buy all of China's exports.FelixG said:
I believe that China might eventually try to expand its borders to house all of its people, but it would either do this through alliances and diplomacy or threatening to nuke someone and get a country through appeasement, Hitler did it, only he threatened with Invasion, not WMD's.
Well, only about half, but the point is valid.MorganL4 said:
SLBMs, shorter ranged that ICBMs, but that's a quibble.FelixG said:
Asia or Europe would be beyond them, sending large forces beyond your own borders is no easy task at the best of times, even with land boundaries.FelixG said:
Pairing your avatar and post, I've now got this incredible image of a beer-swilling kangaroo discussing the potential future of global warfare in a thick Mid-Australian accent. And it's glorious.I_am_a_Spoon said:
OT: Not like WWII in terms of strategies and whatnot, but I have a feeling something big will go down once the 'population vs available resources' balance tips. It'll be... interesting, to say the least.
Oh Boy, Please tell me that people who cannot function in society without the governments assistance are any less of a person then you and that you have not used any government institutions ever. This includes public schools, government healthcare and money from the government.Hazzard said:
Some people are compared to you and me are idiots, they won't be able to get a job or live a normal life. Have a heart man. Also I get money for being a student because I don't have time to work. Am I less worthy?
There could be another world war, but it would be nothing like the previous ones. It would be like asking if WWI and WWII are really comparable. Although they were both fought by men with guns and various other technologies, the actual advances between them mean there's very little besides the title of 'World War' to compare them.
A modern war would be fought with nuclear weapons definitely, and each side would spend most of their time trying to deflect and destroy the enemy nukes while making sure their own land on target.
Any ground fighting would be done in smaller countries, like Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations. One side would send their army in and the other would respond with their own, but in the end both sides would resort to firing ICBMs at each other.
The trick is remembering what exactly the goal in the WWs was, and what it would be again if another war of the type happened. The Nazis wanted to conquer the world, and not knowing the true fallout of nuclear weapons, had they had them would have undoubtedly used them to speed up victory for the axis forces. So if another WW happened with, say, China wanting to remove America from equation entirely, what exactly would stop them from just long-range bombing America into the dirt?
Wars are fought mostly to the technology level of the day, and nowadays you don't even have to look your enemy in the eye to wipe him off the face of the planet.
A modern war would be fought with nuclear weapons definitely, and each side would spend most of their time trying to deflect and destroy the enemy nukes while making sure their own land on target.
Any ground fighting would be done in smaller countries, like Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations. One side would send their army in and the other would respond with their own, but in the end both sides would resort to firing ICBMs at each other.
The trick is remembering what exactly the goal in the WWs was, and what it would be again if another war of the type happened. The Nazis wanted to conquer the world, and not knowing the true fallout of nuclear weapons, had they had them would have undoubtedly used them to speed up victory for the axis forces. So if another WW happened with, say, China wanting to remove America from equation entirely, what exactly would stop them from just long-range bombing America into the dirt?
Wars are fought mostly to the technology level of the day, and nowadays you don't even have to look your enemy in the eye to wipe him off the face of the planet.
Meh, probably. Humans have already shown themselves capable of two world wars. Don't see why we can't have another one.
I'm with the Realist school of international relations on this one: Only between non-nuclear powers (of which there still are enough for it to be technically possible, but such a war would spare Europe and North America).
No, war is actually going backwards in terms of scale. Pre-Napoleon war was fought by small armies with high levels of professionalism that were supported by mercenaries. Wars were usually fought over religion and resources. Napoleon then revolutionized war with conscripted armies, whose sheer size overwhelmed most of the small professional ones. War was then fought for dominance and ideology.
Developing the A-bomb then cancelled out the advantage of armies that won through size, and globalization cancelled out the war over ideology. The be blunt we've become so good at mass warfare that we can't realistically do it anymore so we have to fight small proxy wars. Even at an absolute worse case scenario the fighting would probably be restricted to a single resource rich continent, so not North America, Europe, Australia or mainland China in any case.
Developing the A-bomb then cancelled out the advantage of armies that won through size, and globalization cancelled out the war over ideology. The be blunt we've become so good at mass warfare that we can't realistically do it anymore so we have to fight small proxy wars. Even at an absolute worse case scenario the fighting would probably be restricted to a single resource rich continent, so not North America, Europe, Australia or mainland China in any case.
"Where a great deal of nations around the third world spectrum go to war over...something... while the first world and large nations/groups are just sitting back and watching."
Fresh water most likely. Botswana and Namibia, Cambodia and Thailand, as well as Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay are all extremely tense because of heavy water pollution or over use that's draining the most important resource of all. In the next 50 years the big wars will probably be over water not oil.
Fresh water most likely. Botswana and Namibia, Cambodia and Thailand, as well as Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay are all extremely tense because of heavy water pollution or over use that's draining the most important resource of all. In the next 50 years the big wars will probably be over water not oil.
On that same scale? I'd like to think not, but it's possible I guess. I think that it will be held off for as long as possible though, because it could literally result in the destruction of the majority of humans with the current technology. I guess I think that it will happen, it's just a matter of when, not if because we are stupid, and willing to destroy the planet we live on over petty squabbles.