Luke! said:
Have you considered whether "petty policing wars like ... Iraq" could be manifestations of larger, less obvious power stuggles? Much like Vietnam was just a manifestation of the Cold War— a struggle between two opposing ideals.
Have you considered the possibility of future large-scale resource wars over oil/water, et cetera, as those resources become more scarce?
Remember, they called WW1 'the war to end all wars', then look at what happened just over a decade later. So, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of future large-scale military conflict.
Besides, the way I see human history... it isn't a history of peace with periods of war, it's a history of war with periods of peace... and I don't think that will ever change.
Luke.
At the risk of getting bogged down in the flanderesque mud of detail...
America's mistake in Vietnam was to identify Vietnamese Communism with Chinese and Soviet versions. They were really nationalists who believed they were fighting a colonial war. In reality, they had nothing but a temporary enemy in common with Russia, and much less with China.
But a frequent quote coming out of that struggle is that "we lost because we werent allowed to win" or "we were forced to fight with our hands tied behind our backs" because the superpowers were highly alert to movements which could spark nuclear war (bombing Chinese/Soviet supply ships docked in Hanoi for instance) - they had to limit that war (and therefore lose) because total war was totally unacceptable.
But still, what are you suggesting about Iraq? That it really IS democracy vs tyranny, oppression, hatred, extremism, unpleasantness, bad manners, awkward social situations, poor taste in clothing and music? If so, how interesting.
I take your point on resource wars. But im of the opinion that it could go either way. Man can unite or remain divided. The former is harder and less likely, but yeilds the best result for der human race... unless racism swings back into vogue and certain coalitions of nations are defined by their ability to represent and defend their particular race.
As for the rest of your post, you havent addressed nuclear weapons.
banco55 said:
Have a look at the projected casualties (on both sides) for an invasion of Japan and you might think differently.
Have a look at the cost of building the bomb and the conclusions that the war would have been over about a year earlier if the money was instead diverted into conventional weapons
Have a look at Japanese attempts to surrender in order to spare the mainland from invasion
Have a look at American political motives, especially the growing tensions with the USSR over post-war Europe
