Do you think there will ever be another war like WWII?

[Jacco]

This is a list of ongoing wars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_wars

We are living in the most peaceful era of human history.

I've been saying this for years! Thank you!

 

[Kitten DeLux]

I think there is to much I'll Nuke you first to let anyone start a global war.
Sometimes I day dream and think WWIII would be awesome, but then I remember it is fucked up.

 

[Emperor Nat]

I think there could be another world war, but I doubt it would ever come to the point of trench warfare. We have too much sophisticated technology now - bombs, missiles, tanks and planes are all too well-armoured and powerful for infantry to be any use in the same theatre.

 

[Kolby Jack]

There's no doubt rougher terrain on Earth, sure, but I'm also referring to population density. Most Canadians live near the border, so a lot of their icy terrain doesn't help them much.

Ah, ok, fair enough.

And last I checked the US has the 2nd largest military in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops

Well, depends if you take reservists and so on into account.

As for the nukes thing, I see where your coming from, but I'm not certain just having nukes is enough to prevent an invasion. You'd still have to have serious crazies to use them even as your country is taken over.

When the choice is between defeat and conquest, or using nuclear devices, surely they'd get used?

What's the point of having them if they won't be used? As a deterrent, perhaps, but if you won't use them, they aren't much of a deterrent.

I believe the US has quite a lot of reservists, but I don't know the exact numbers so I'll concede that, including reserves, other countries may beat us out.

As for the nukes, here's how I see it. If you are being successfully invaded, and the invaders aren't hellbent on exterminating your entire population but rather in just taking over, I don't think most countries would resort to nukes. Nukes are basically a suicide attack, so if there's a chance your country could rally and repel the invaders at a later date, or hell, even if the invaders just impose their rules but don't oppress your people much, most somewhat sane people would still not want to resort to nuclear weapons.

What is preferable? To be conquered but alive, or to destroy your enemies and yourself? Of course, if the invaders DO intend to wipe your people off the face of the Earth, nukes would probably be considered, but that rarely happens. The only modern country I can think of that even somewhat resembles such a situation is Israel, but their enemies are fairly outmatched by them.

 

[Spinozaad]

No.

War is not in the interest of the great powers, and The Bomb made conventional warfare except for wars against/between minor powers obsolete.

Not saying it's impossible politically, although very unlikely (even the Cold War did not grow 'hot'), but WWIII would be very short.

 

[Mr Binary]

As long as humans exist there is always the chance of war. As long as countries are divided, there's always a chance at a world war. That's the way I personally see it.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

God, I hope not.
I'd like to think we as a collective species have realised how utterly shite a conflict like WW2 was, and therefore will ensure something like it never happens again, but you never know.

 

[Angie7F]

I don't think a WW3 would happen. Yeah history repeats itself but WW2 was seriously fucked up and soooooo many people died. Why would the world want to make that mistake again?

That's what they said about WW1.

This.

 

[TheOneBearded]

Nuclear weapons, as mentioned, change things too much.

Since WW2, we've had some 70 odd years in which major powers were afraid to directly attack each other, because it would have turned nuclear. This is historically rather unusual.

I don't really believe in mutually assured destruction because it only applies when all parties involved don't want to die/cause the apocalypse. You put those weapons in the hands of say, Religious Extremist, that don't care if they live or die and suddenly you have a real big problem.

OT: I actually do believe, in my life time, that if China continues to grow it will become imperialistic and attempt to invade the U.S.

They conceivably could win just based on the man power they have alone.

So what do you think about the Iran situation? Just a phase or the first step to emulating the Fallout universe?

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Nuclear weapons, as mentioned, change things too much.

Since WW2, we've had some 70 odd years in which major powers were afraid to directly attack each other, because it would have turned nuclear. This is historically rather unusual.

I don't really believe in mutually assured destruction because it only applies when all parties involved don't want to die/cause the apocalypse. You put those weapons in the hands of say, Religious Extremist, that don't care if they live or die and suddenly you have a real big problem.

OT: I actually do believe, in my life time, that if China continues to grow it will become imperialistic and attempt to invade the U.S.

They conceivably could win just based on the man power they have alone.

So what do you think about the Iran situation? Just a phase or the first step to emulating the Fallout universe?

I don't see them as a very serious threat. Enough to cause trouble, sure, but I think it terms of man-power and technology we have him beat.

 

[Username Redacted]

I don't think a WW3 would happen. Yeah history repeats itself but WW2 was seriously fucked up and soooooo many people died. Why would the world want to make that mistake again?

That's what they said about WW1.

This.

Yeah, until WWII happened WWI was simply called the Great War because no one thought it would happen again. In response to OP the answer is no, technically there will never be another war similar to WWII. That said the possibility of a global conflict certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility. I used to joke the some day the tag line for Fallout 3 will be "Brilliant and Prophetic". War over oil or water will occur eventually. Once that occurs all you really need is someone on the losing side that's desperate enough to launch a nuke. On the plus side WWIII will likely take a lot less time than WWII.

 

[Kinguendo]

There was another war like World War II... it was called World War I.

 

[Spade Lead]

I realize this has probably been a thread here numerous times, but so has every other thread ever.

Anyway, I'm currently watching Saving Private Ryan on television. But what keeps fascinating me is comparing the technology they are using and imagining how the battles in the film would play out with our modern technology- jets, drones, squad radios, helicopters, etc.

That is just what made World Wars 1 and 2 so horrible. We had all this new technology and no experience using it. If we ever get colonies established in other star systems, then maybe, but as it stands now, no, we are very familiar with our tech and the most effective tactics to use them. Now, if you mean war on a grand scale like that, the term you are looking for is actually "World War 3," and God alone knows when or if we have one of those left in us. To Quote Albert Einstein:

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

 

[That_Sneaky_Camper]

The war would largely be fought by machines and computers. America has the capacity in its Military to end a war very quickly if it truly wanted to.

I think it is possible, at some point a large scale war will occur for some reason or another, we shouldn't act like politics will prevent it.

 

[Spade Lead]

China would have to somehow deal with the Russians at some point, history teaches us that this is incredibly difficult and like pissing into the wind. More of you? Better equipped? Actually EQUIPPED? The russians don't care. They'll just burn everything and salt the ground out of spite.

I actually wonder how much of that history was an important reason that we never kicked off World War Three pre-Soviet collapse. Shit, we had no way to beach-head into Russia, unless you count Kamchatka, and who the FUCK would be stupid enough to invade SIBERIA at any time of year? Even if you were successful, the winter would tear you up before the end of the first year. If you invaded in the spring, you would maybe get four good months of offensive, and then Russian winters would kick in and send you packing like every other invader since the Khanate left. (I took Russian History in my last College semester.)

 

[Overusedname]

There are very few truly isolated cultures anymore, and of the ones with any military power or intent, most of them are mutually hated across the globe.

A few countries in the Middle east and North Korea are the only places I can think of that would truly pose a threat of any kind and have a real motive. And even then, they aren't a large scale threat of any kind. People like to assume China is gonna go evil(er) and invade, but they literally have no reason to do so. They rely on the global economy, as does every other modernized/developing country.

I can't think of a reason something on the scale of WW2 would happen anytime soon. Less and less people are following religion each year (slowly but surely), so I don't get that claim of religious extremists doing it. People are also becoming less homogenized, with lots of different philosophies in any given country, thus a militant movement feels less likely to unify in one big violent group.

There's still a lot of violence in our culture and entertainment, but maybe that's to satiate the lack of a 'good war'. If anything, that lets us get our aggression out. I honestly can't imagine what the hell could happen that would pin two or more nations against eachother with those stakes. In the 'first world', we wage war with money, culture, art, sales, influence and science now. It's kind of how we've operated for several decades now.

Something I find interesting however, is that the only culture I can think of that puts a lot of pacifist themes in a decent amount of it's mainstream entertainment is Japan. Yes I know plenty of violent crap still comes from japan, no doubt, but think about the anti-war subtext so many jrgps have, and the themes of Trigun, Ruroni Kenshin and such. That kind of anti-violence work never get's made elsewhere in a large scale.

No one has followed that trend at all. That's...interesting to say the least.

 

[Spade Lead]

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.

The latest series of David Weber's Honorverse deals with that. The Solarian League is used to being the biggest badass in the universe, then The People's Republic of Haven and the Kingdom of Manticore end up going from Cold War to Real War. Their tech gets insanely powerful, and then something happens at the end of that war to trigger a war between the "Super badass" Solarian League and poor, backwards Manticore... Only Manticore is about twenty years of war more advanced than the Solarian league. (Check out all of them to see what i mean, but Basically, in "On Basilisk Station" the Solarians are feared for their massive tech advantage, then at the end of the new series, they are getting their shit kicked in by the Manticoran Navy.)

 

[Pandalisk]

Their manpower and equipment would only be useful in land battles, they could make a good run of taking asia and europe, but they would have serious problems moving any of it to the Americas.

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.

Not to mention that India and Russia would easily stalemate the Chinese military, even if they managed to defeat those 2 their army would be in ruins.

Nuclear weapons, as mentioned, change things too much.

Since WW2, we've had some 70 odd years in which major powers were afraid to directly attack each other, because it would have turned nuclear. This is historically rather unusual.

I don't really believe in mutually assured destruction because it only applies when all parties involved don't want to die/cause the apocalypse. You put those weapons in the hands of say, Religious Extremist, that don't care if they live or die and suddenly you have a real big problem.

OT: I actually do believe, in my life time, that if China continues to grow it will become imperialistic and attempt to invade the U.S.

They conceivably could win just based on the man power they have alone.

China cannot invade. MAD still applies. If they sent a land army half the size of our population, we'd nuke them. It would be the only way to stop the swarm.

China would have to somehow deal with the Russians at some point, history teaches us that this is incredibly difficult and like pissing into the wind. More of you? Better equipped? Actually EQUIPPED? The russians don't care. They'll just burn everything and salt the ground out of spite.

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).

You know, that would actually be a REALLY interesting setting for a game/book/movie

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.

I'm going to be contrary and say that the Russians honestly don't stand a chance in their current state if the numerous books and insider claims are anything to go by on Putins so called "Rebirth" of the Army. The Russian Army is in such disarray right now its actually laughable, whenever i research it for my Case studies or read books about it (Putin's Russia as a quick example) I immediately draw parallels to The Red Army of 1937. Its a disillusioned army where entire companies desert, the officer core is corrupt and the High staff is complacent about all of it. It, at the moment, is not in any state to fight a professional war, just fighting Chechnyans fighters.

But there are a lot of other factors. Man power alone has never decided a war, Industry has, of which China has a lot. It depends on what kind of what-if scenario were thinking of. How many fronts is China fighting on? Will the Russian people Rally Ala Soviet Union? or collapse on them selves and rebel Ala Red October 1917?. Depends on the spin doctors i suppose, anyway, thoughts?

This is a list of ongoing wars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_wars

We are living in the most peaceful era of human history.

I've been saying this for years! Thank you!

It is quite peaceful, we Europeans have actually gone a couple decades without blowing each others brains out. Its quite..Different.

 

[The White Hunter]

SNIP

That is true Russia's entire government is just a complete sham these days, but I think the prospect of a global superpower getting ambitious on their doorstep might rally up some kind of national pride. Hopefully we'll never find out but you never know.

China would have to fight on numerous fronts, dealing with Russia and India, for example, as well as other neighbouring countries and eventually NATO as a whole, and I think NATO would be the true stumbling block, war is no longer decided by manpower after all, it's decided by technology and efficiency.

I'm sure they could deal with one country, but every other country except maybe Iran and North Korea? Unlikely.

As I said elsewhere, why would they bother? They make plenty of money as is.

 

[The White Hunter]

China would have to somehow deal with the Russians at some point, history teaches us that this is incredibly difficult and like pissing into the wind. More of you? Better equipped? Actually EQUIPPED? The russians don't care. They'll just burn everything and salt the ground out of spite.

I actually wonder how much of that history was an important reason that we never kicked off World War Three pre-Soviet collapse. Shit, we had no way to beach-head into Russia, unless you count Kamchatka, and who the FUCK would be stupid enough to invade SIBERIA at any time of year? Even if you were successful, the winter would tear you up before the end of the first year. If you invaded in the spring, you would maybe get four good months of offensive, and then Russian winters would kick in and send you packing like every other invader since the Khanate left. (I took Russian History in my last College semester.)

Yeah pretty much, that and the whole mutually assured destruction thing being a pretty big issue.

If I recally the primary reason for failure of invading forces is that they push too far and find the winter blocking off their supply chains, it happened to Napoleon and it happened to Hitler, they became fixated on the fall of Moscow, pushed too far too fast, and found themselves unable to feed their army or keep their army alive long enough in the cold to even fight.