Is War Over? (2 Viewers)

[Iron]

War - once so fantastic, it could offer ordinary men the world and its souls. It was a religion which we worshiped and honoured with sacrifices.

But not anymore?
Do a combination of factors, like WWI (futile loss of a generation) Nuclear Weapons (victory is defeat) and globalization mark the end of great big serious wars against civilizations?
(never mind 3rd world squabbles or petty policing wars like Kosovo, Iraq)

In the words of Adolf Hitler, is "das krieg forlorn"?

 

[A High Way Man]

Some could misinterpret the meaning of 'fantastic' here...

the era of the large-scale conflict is pretty much over. thats good though

 

[flappinghippo]

I can't see World War III happening any time soon.

But then again nobody saw World War I coming. Or II.

At least if it did happen I could get the World War Trilogy boxset for $180 + postage & handling.

Or should I say Roubles..

 

[Stevo.]

Hope for war so there may be peace.

 

[jimmayyy]

But then again nobody saw World War I coming. Or II.

=\ the whole world saw them coming, they just didn't know how bad they'd be.

as for the question, i think since the Boer War, theres been no traditional "two armies meet in a field in the middle of no where, stop for tea, resume etc" type of war. changing technology, globalisation, bigger weapons, better medicine etc all leads any conflict to be like Vietnam or Iraq. I think if theres ever a World War 3 it will be over in however many seconds it takes US missles to hit whichever country is stupid enough to provoke them.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I voted yes, though mainly out of hope that war is over.

 

[Iron]

I think if theres ever a World War 3 it will be over in however many seconds it takes US missles to hit whichever country is stupid enough to provoke them.

But does that mean that war is rationally ruled out? That nuclear war (between serious players) is clearly unacceptable, and therefore so are the military moves which may provoke it?

 

[Graney]

I believe future war will be provoked by declining resources. Water and oil wars are innevitable.

I don't really see any serious reservation towards war in many countries. And it's hard to imagine tension between Israel and the Middle East ever resolving peacefully.

I think if theres ever a World War 3 it will be over in however many seconds it takes US missles to hit whichever country is stupid enough to provoke them.

You're assuming the US is and will remain the only superpower.

I'd like to believe in future global wars, there'll be enough perspective to not use nuclear weapons. It seems unlikely any state concerned for its future would launch a nuclear attack on the US. And given its history, the US will not launch a nuclear strike unprovoked.

 

[banco55]

War - once so fantastic, it could offer ordinary men the world and its souls. It was a religion which we worshiped and honoured with sacrifices.

But not anymore?
Do a combination of factors, like WWI (futile loss of a generation) Nuclear Weapons (victory is defeat) and globalization mark the end of great big serious wars against civilizations?
(never mind 3rd world squabbles or petty policing wars like Kosovo, Iraq)

In the words of Adolf Hitler, is "das krieg forlorn"?

Someone's got to trot out the old Plato quote. Incidentally "3rd world squabbles" was what "war" largely consisted of for centuries so we are just regressing somewhat.

 

[katie_tully]

I don't get the question.

No war isn't over.
Is the perception of war different? Definitely. Where as 60 years ago/80 years ago we were eager and more than willing to jump into war, we've become quite conservative in the way we approach conflict.

I also think the fact that conscription was scrapped is enough to show the perception of war has changed.

I am quite confident that we as humans will probably never see a 'war free' world. Ever.

 

[Iron]

I don't get the question.

No war isn't over.
Is the perception of war different? Definitely. Where as 60 years ago/80 years ago we were eager and more than willing to jump into war, we've become quite conservative in the way we approach conflict.

I also think the fact that conscription was scrapped is enough to show the perception of war has changed.

I am quite confident that we as humans will probably never see a 'war free' world. Ever.

Could war just be an idea? - like slavery, which was once thought natural and essential from Moses to Washington. Slavery ended for a variety of reasons. Maybe war has ended because of nuclear weapons? Maybe globalization is the new war - another way for men to conquer lands and gain glory?

 

[katie_tully]

Could war just be an idea? - like slavery, which was once thought natural and essential from Moses to Washington. Slavery ended for a variety of reasons. Maybe war has ended because of nuclear weapons? Maybe globalization is the new war - another way for men to conquor lands and gain glory?

Oh, I believe war is an idea. And the idea of war changes. Like I said, 60 years ago the idea of war was to go and protect mothercountry from foreign foe.
Now I think the idea of going to war is to stop war. Paradoxical, but think about it.
Essentially we went to 'war' in the Middle East to stop a perceived threat of 'war' on us.

As for whether it's over...I don't think so. The idea of war will always change; we'll go to war and it may not always be for the same reason as the last time, but in essence it'll still be war.

I don't know what the solution is. Abolish all military? Never happen, as there will always remain some perceived threat. Humans are suspicious creatures.

I am so tired, I have absolutely no idea whether that made sense.

 

[katie_tully]

Maybe globalization is the new war - another way for men to conquor lands and gain glory?

oh I get it. Interesting point.
So we're no longer talking of war in its traditional sense. I see.

 

[jimmayyy]

But does that mean that war is rationally ruled out? That nuclear war (between serious players) is clearly unacceptable, and therefore so are the military moves which may provoke it?

all it would take is something like another missile crisis. leaders have come to power in countries around the world (eg Iran, North Korea, Chile) who could put the world in a similar situation.

 

[jimmayyy]

I believe future war will be provoked by declining resources. Water and oil wars are innevitable.

I don't really see any serious reservation towards war in many countries. And it's hard to imagine tension between Israel and the Middle East ever resolving peacefully.



You're assuming the US is and will remain the only superpower.

I'd like to believe in future global wars, there'll be enough perspective to not use nuclear weapons. It seems unlikely any state concerned for its future would launch a nuclear attack on the US. And given its history, the US will not launch a nuclear strike unprovoked.

yeah you're right, i was just thinking in the next few years as America holds its current position. i read a really interesting article last month about the current polarisation leading to new super powers in the next decades ill try and dig it up.

 

[banco55]

Arguably one reason war's appeal has declined in the west and japan etc. is the size of the average family has shrunk. To put it bluntly families were more willing to supply sons for war when they had more kids to lose. For example both south korea and Israel have restrictions on drafting kids with no siblings but there are so many only children these days they are having real problems. Of course this is another reason why the muslim countries are more likely to be the source of conflict. They breed like rabbits and so they have more sons to sacrifice.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

oh I get it. Interesting point.
So we're no longer talking of war in its traditional sense. I see.

duuhhh

 

[_dhj_]

Arguably one reason war's appeal has declined in the west and japan etc. is the size of the average family has shrunk. To put it bluntly families were more willing to supply sons for war when they had more kids to lose. For example both south korea and Israel have restrictions on drafting kids with no siblings but there are so many only children these days they are having real problems. Of course this is another reason why the muslim countries are more likely to be the source of conflict. They breed like rabbits and so they have more sons to sacrifice.

This is generally true. The media will now report on the death of an individual soldier in a combat zone as if any actual harm to Western soldiers is unacceptable.

 

[Iron]

No doubt there will be 'rogue states' who will aquire the bomb and attempt to blackmail powerful nations with it, but the nuclear threat is only especially serious when the outcome will necessarily be the end of 'all plant and animal life' (to quote the Russian ambassador in Dr Strangelove): Some combination of America, China, the EU, Russia

How do we think these powers will react to the scarcity of resources from climate change and/or population explosion knowing that they each can potential end the world? Is war really on the table anymore? Is global economic competition the only real option available to safeguard powerful nations? Or can war still remain an important(if not the most important), practical tool in ensuring the survival of the nation-state?

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

This is generally true. The media will now report on the death of an individual soldier in a combat zone as if any actual harm to Western soldiers is unacceptable.

In a time when we have the technology and ability to prevent such losses, such harm IS unacceptable.