To be honest, I think any future global conflicts will be fought as a series of smaller 'proxy' wars, a la the Cold War.
Do you think there will ever be another war like WWII?
- Thread starter Jacco
- Start date
If you believe in the multiverse theory or in the statistical possibilities of other like-life existing in parallel with us(which chances support
then there is almost certainly a war almost exactly like WW2 going on at this exact moment.
If you mean another war in such a manner on Earth, then you also have to factor in the possibility of a societal collapse by war or disease(so on and so forth) resulting in a partial reset of technology. Which could easily result in another such scenario(See A Canticle for Leibowitz[Book] or Fallout: New Vegas[VG] for reference.)
If you mean on our current technological track, still following its continued progress without any such reset. Then the answer is a distinctive maybe. Political winds being what they are, we might even see one in the next 50 years. Theoretically though its never been tested in the field for obvious reasons, carriers are supposed to be impervious to any missiles that they have detected by essentially firing a wall of lead into the air with phalanx CIWS or phalanx like systems. You can see this in theory in the movie The Sum of All Fears(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ewFe_JoNNr4#t=79s) though in their representation it does not work. There are electronically fired systems being developed with firing rates thousands of times faster than Phalanx CIWS. There is a push to develope infantry armor like in Starship Troopers capable of surviving nuclear attacks as long as they aren't in the direct blast. The point though is that defensive technology can overcome a lot.
then there is almost certainly a war almost exactly like WW2 going on at this exact moment.If you mean another war in such a manner on Earth, then you also have to factor in the possibility of a societal collapse by war or disease(so on and so forth) resulting in a partial reset of technology. Which could easily result in another such scenario(See A Canticle for Leibowitz[Book] or Fallout: New Vegas[VG] for reference.)
If you mean on our current technological track, still following its continued progress without any such reset. Then the answer is a distinctive maybe. Political winds being what they are, we might even see one in the next 50 years. Theoretically though its never been tested in the field for obvious reasons, carriers are supposed to be impervious to any missiles that they have detected by essentially firing a wall of lead into the air with phalanx CIWS or phalanx like systems. You can see this in theory in the movie The Sum of All Fears(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ewFe_JoNNr4#t=79s) though in their representation it does not work. There are electronically fired systems being developed with firing rates thousands of times faster than Phalanx CIWS. There is a push to develope infantry armor like in Starship Troopers capable of surviving nuclear attacks as long as they aren't in the direct blast. The point though is that defensive technology can overcome a lot.
I don't see a Third World War ever being fought. And I even don't see a large scale resource war being fought either. If technology continues to accelerate, a cheap abundance of energy and fully editable and economic synthetic foods are a within our life times. With an abundance of electricity at a low cost, we could desalinize all the water we want. Or extract all the tar-sands we want.
Now I do think there will be a War of the Worlds... at some point in human history, hundreds or thousands of years from now, between ourselves or an alien race.
Now I do think there will be a War of the Worlds... at some point in human history, hundreds or thousands of years from now, between ourselves or an alien race.
Nadia Castle said:
Considering the fact that wars of that scale apparently boost technology by several decades, propellings their victors (and sometimes losers, in the long run) to the top of the food chain, that would make for a really interesting scenario indeed. Didn't even think about it like that... Intriguing.FelixG said:
No, unless some sort of technology renders nuclear missiles obsolete. That was the premise behind the game Tom Clancy's End War, were space technology meant that nuclear ICBM's could be shot down with good reliability- hence allowing major, unrestricted warfare between superpowers once more.
So essentially i don't see total warfare happening again like it did in WW2 unless you can somehow make nuclear missiles obsolete.
So essentially i don't see total warfare happening again like it did in WW2 unless you can somehow make nuclear missiles obsolete.
I don't think another country would ever get the head start Germany was allowed in WWII. One of the reasons the "cowardly" French let Germany take over was that they were still decimated from WWI. Also, as we've seen recently, any country (except the US it seems) that invades another country promptly gets a cease and desist notice, backed by varying levels of force, from the rest of the world.
Nah, nukes changed things to much. Why fight on the ground when you can glass the opposition?
"I know not with what weapon WWIII will be fought with, but whatever it is, WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-Some guy whose name I forget.
"I know not with what weapon WWIII will be fought with, but whatever it is, WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-Some guy whose name I forget.
Shock and Awe said:
Iraq only had tactical systems of poor reliability versus modern strategic systems. Iraq was armed with an slightly updated version of the V2 most of which failed of on re entry as its best weapon. Crossing the wmd threshold would have been stupid because Iraq had no way to destroy British, French and US strategic systems. There is a significant difference between a scud armed with 1/2 a ton of VX and a SS-18 armed with up to 9 500kt warheads. Iraqi use of wmd would have had only one outcome, the complete destruction of Iraqs armed forces in the space of few hours.
I don't think it's impossible.
All it takes is for a Muslim country to attack Israel and the US is guaranteed to jump in. If that happens, it will be the crusades all over again, but with guns.
Another issue can be a Pakistan vs India conflict. The US would most likely be on India's side while China could end up supporting Pakistan.
In the worst case scenario it would end up being a US vs China war.
A US x China war can also happen if North Korea does something stupid and gets the ire of the US. China would most likely support N. Korea.
All it takes is for a Muslim country to attack Israel and the US is guaranteed to jump in. If that happens, it will be the crusades all over again, but with guns.
Another issue can be a Pakistan vs India conflict. The US would most likely be on India's side while China could end up supporting Pakistan.
In the worst case scenario it would end up being a US vs China war.
A US x China war can also happen if North Korea does something stupid and gets the ire of the US. China would most likely support N. Korea.
China's economy is so entwined with ours, they wouldn't dare risk parting ways without a major recession of their own. N. Korea will be silent for years now that their little dictator is gone.Maxtro said:
Bush's war is actually the 3rd Gulf War. The Iraq War has been over for years, and the new nation is just tearing itself apart because Arabic Muslims will never grasp democracy.denseWorm said:
We're an occupational presence in Iraq in the same way our 50,000 troops in Germany still linger years after WWII and the Cold War.denseWorm said:
You're comparing Iraq to a World War? Really Mr. Statmaster?
Coalition totals for casualties in Iraq come out to about 5,000 (and that's rounding up generously). In five weeks in Okinawa, the US lost 55,000 Marines in World War Two. We lost 13,000 in Iwujima.
The total body count including civilians in Iraq is nearly 120,000.
World War Two claimed 60,000,000 lives. World War One, 20,000,000. And you're bringing up multicultural diversity?
You have no idea what kind of chaos a world war descends from. We all try to rationalize why we make it, because it's insane -- War is legalized murder, after all; but most wars have ridiculous origins coming out of fear or pride, not misunderstandings. People launch an assault because they believe they can win.
The Iraq War is over. We've overthrown the regime and have established a less corrupted, more nationally stable government that won't be attacking Israel, or it's neighbors like their previous dictator. Not only that, as a result of our invasion years ago, Gadaffi gave up his own WMD's, thereby setting into motion the Famous Arab Spring.
Insurgents are not soldiers. They are terrorists. Terrorism is a form of combat, it isn't a group of people. And these insurgents have been fighting any and everyone who do not submit to their beliefs for hundreds of years. They are religious extremists.
1st Gulf War: Russia invades Persian Gulf-Arabian Peninsula, Afghanistan.denseWorm said:
2nd Gulf War: Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait, and the US intervenes to save Kuwait.
3rd Gulf War: Saddam Hussein and Regime removed for it's 22 violations of UN Sanctions including genocide on the Kurds.
Wars should be listed in their geographical location and consistency with the politics following each.
Well...no. Not only for the fact that any war on that political scale would probably jusst turn into nuking, but looking at things I feel like the conflicts of the 20th century have sort of taught all the major powers a lesson. On top of that, let's say that tomorrow England declared war on America, so both countries went into World War II mode and started calling on people to sign up to fight. If you're from either one of those nations, would you [i[really[/i] want to go off and shoot at people from the other? We're just too connected for that kind of thing now.
That's not necessarily true. Iran is working on a nuclear project, which we all know is just code for "We want nukes now, so fuck off rest of the world." However, I was most worried about Pakistan. A while ago they were under threat of losing their leadership in favor or Muslim extremists. Pakistan is already a nuclear country that is very close to the largest democracy in the world as well as massive amounts of oil. There is no way the US would strike against that unless they fire first and we lose half of California and every Blue state in the US.thaluikhain said:
No, the mere threat of MAD is enough to deter any nation from declaring war. China will never invade the US mainly because of their lack of a powerful Navy. It'll take them decades to build up a navy large enough to face the USN, and even then they would need food to support an invasion force, food which they don't actually have to spare.
It's the economy, stupid. I can't think of a single country with the economy capable of sustaining a prolonged war against a super power. MAYBE the US, but despite the saber rattling we see in the political sphere, America is pretty much done with major conflicts, at least for a few decades. There just isn't the public support, barring an attack on America by a foreign country.
We could see some pretty scary regional conflicts, though. Africa and East Asia come to mind.
EDIT: What will happen will be less World Wars and more War of the Worlds. I imagine that, once humanity spreads to many planets, there will be factions that pop up here and there among the colonies and declare war on each other or Earth. That seems entirely possible.
We could see some pretty scary regional conflicts, though. Africa and East Asia come to mind.
EDIT: What will happen will be less World Wars and more War of the Worlds. I imagine that, once humanity spreads to many planets, there will be factions that pop up here and there among the colonies and declare war on each other or Earth. That seems entirely possible.