War, genocide, and all those other human niceties

[Mikeus Caesar]

I'm sure if most of you do a little prying into your family history, and that of your friends, you'll find they've all been affected by war and genocide. A distant great-great-uncle died somewhere in the trenches of WW1. My grandparents grew up in the blitz, my grandfather has regaled me with numerous stories about collecting shrapnel from bombs. My best friend is of Ukranian descent, with her grandparents first surviving the mass famine induced by the Soviet Union in the Ukraine, and then being deported to Germany for use as slave labour by Nazis. Another of my good friends is of Vietnamese descent, and is here for obvious reasons.

Basically, we are the among the first generations in Western countries to have grown up without being directly affected by war and genocide. We have been brought up safe and secure, not having to worry about where the next meal will come from, or when that bomb with your name on it will fall from the sky. But surely, this can't last forever, can it?

How long will it be before once again we relive the struggles of our grandparents, how long until war once again touches the West? How would recent generations, having been brought up in relative safety, cope with the next big war? Would they be able to cope?

You look around you in the news, and you see all these things. Oil shortages, food shortages, strife in far off countries. How long will it be before it's not on the news, but in our lives?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The trend has been towards less war.

[CountArach]

You look around you in the news, and you see all these things. Oil shortages, food shortages, strife in far off countries. How long will it be before it's not on the news, but in our lives?
Of course it will come back, but I don't believe it will occur the same way - instead something (likely the oil crisis) will lead to a huge push for resources and as these resources become more and more scarce then nations will begin to compete for them in more and more violent ways. I don't know where that leads us to, but I hope that we can find a way around resource dependency before this happens, rather than during it.

Of course, one could successfully argue that we are already at that stage and we are not finding a way around it.

[Mikeus Caesar]

The trend has been towards less war.

Less war, but it always seems more destructive than the last.

[PanzerJaeger]

The trend has been towards less war.

What timeframe are you using? Pax Romana lasted quite a while...

[Ironside]

What timeframe are you using? Pax Romana lasted quite a while...

No major conflicts doesn't equal peace.

[Adrian II]

I think major strategic wars are highly unlikely because of MAD-issues. Minor wars, wars by proxy (terrorism) and cut-throat economic competition will be the order of the day.

[Viking]

What timeframe are you using? Pax Romana lasted quite a while...

There's something with the attitudes that has changed also. I don't think that England and France are planning to invade each other in the near future. :knight:

[naut]

The threat that Nuclear weapons pose really rules out direct conflict. As Adrian II said, "Minor wars, wars by proxy (terrorism) and cut-throat economic competition" are much more prevalent, and far more likely.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I firmly believe that we will be at war with China within the next 30 years. It will probably be a horrible war on all shores. By that time I hope that the U.S. and E.U. pull their heads out of their butts so that they can work together.

As China's economy begins to eclipse that of the U.S. the western "Freedom" dynamic will be eclipsed as well. We had all hoped for free markets to equal free people, but China has turned the tables on that theory a bit. We should have severed the head of that dragon while we had the chance.

Terrorism is a sideshow.
We'll see what happens, but don't take your eyes off of China for a second.

[Kralizec]

I think major strategic wars are highly unlikely because of MAD-issues. Minor wars, wars by proxy (terrorism) and cut-throat economic competition will be the order of the day.

Personally I'm not sure that the concept of MAD as a deterrent factor is going to last forever. A lot of the sabre rattling that's happening around the easter European missile shield is just for the sake of sabre rattling, but it's possible that multiple parties start weilding missile shields in the future that offer a somewhat reliable protection even against agile missiles designed to evade such things. Some people think that the current global economy with its intertwined interests serve as a safeguard against conflicts, but they said the same about the international banking system before WW1.

[naut]

I firmly believe that we will be at war with China within the next 30 years. It will probably be a horrible war on all shores. By that time I hope that the U.S. and E.U. pull their heads out of their butts so that they can work together.

As China's economy begins to eclipse that of the U.S. the western "Freedom" dynamic will be eclipsed as well. We had all hoped for free markets to equal free people, but China has turned the tables on that theory a bit. We should have severed the head of that dragon while we had the chance.

Terrorism is a sideshow.
We'll see what happens, but don't take your eyes off of China for a second.
Reminds me something a friend of my dad told me. He grew up in Australia during the Cold War and his history teacher would tell them in class that war was coming with China and every Australian would have to kill 50,000 each to win the war. :book2:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Reminds me something a friend of my dad told me. He grew up in Australia during the Cold War and his history teacher would tell them in class that war was coming with China and every Australian would have to kill 50,000 each to win the war. :book2:

We should be prepared, hopefully it never happens.

[CountArach]

We should be prepared, hopefully it never happens.
And I truly hope Australia stays neutral, though I just know we will side with the USA and act as a missile magnet. We might as well just hang a sign on our door "Defenceless pro-Americans at short-range. All Nuclear Tests welcome!

[Adrian II]

I firmly believe that we will be at war with China within the next 30 years.Nah, you cannot afford it. Nor can the Chinese. Asia is going to continue financing and sustaining the West for decades to come. China will play a major role in that and Taiwan will no longer be a bone of contention but a diplomatic and financial bridge between the U.S. and China.

[Marshal Murat]

Nah, you cannot afford it. Nor can the Chinese. Asia is going to continue financing and sustaining the West for decades to come.

As soon as Obama changes this country around, gets us on the right track and all, we can slowly ween ourselves off China and onto India, or Africa. I wouldn't be surprised if any conflict between China and US is akin to a Peloponnesian war. The two nations cannot and shouldn't go to war, but if our friends are drawn into conflict, we would be forced to act. Not some Backwaterstania vs Frontwaterstania hogwash, but where the United States or China are forced to act to preserve national interests or national honor. That is why it is essential for the nations of the world to have a Republican Democracy, safe from demagogues and mob mentalities. The possibilities for explosive regional conflicts to become international are endless. China and half the other nations in Asia lay claim to any small little speck of land in between.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nah, you cannot afford it. Nor can the Chinese. Asia is going to continue financing and sustaining the West for decades to come. China will play a major role in that and Taiwan will no longer be a bone of contention but a diplomatic and financial bridge between the U.S. and China.

We should prepare for that as well, but it would be foolish to prepare for only one possibility. What nation could afford war when it came? Europe couldn't afford WWII but it came anyway.

[rory_20_uk]

Offensive wars aren't going anywhere, if for no other reason that it's almost impossible for China, Europe and the USA to fight directly.

Unlesss there's a sort of agreement that the Eu invades Northern Africa, the US western Africa and China Eastern africa and we all have a barny in the middle... no not a great idea.

I think that proxy wars are the way forward. For a fraction of the cost of a proper war you can massively impede what other countries can do: the USA and NATO are hamstrung due to Iraq and Afghanistan. If there's something doing on anywhere else in the work there's little that we'll do. For small change China can get most of Africa in its pocket whilst we carpet bomb the odd wedding.

~:smoking:

[KrooK]

Quite intelligent doctor of history of law told me once that there is nothing that man can't invent to hurt other man.

[Samurai Waki]

Quite intelligent doctor of history of law told me once that there is nothing that man can't invent to hurt other man.

It just so happens that this generation's poison happens to be of economic and social crisis rather than the direct bare knuckled brawls of the previous.

[lars573]

That is why it is essential for the nations of the world to have a Republican Democracy, safe from demagogues and mob mentalities.
What complete load of :daisy:! No system of government is safe form those things. Leaving aside that I dispise republics.

[Fragony]

You are all forgetting the most likely candidate, cyber-warfare. It's the digital cold war already.

[yesdachi]

The only war I see coming is the fast food war, ala Demolition Man. And I am putting my money on Taco Bell; there is already an army of Latinos making a run for the boarder. :laugh4:

I don’t see China as a major “war” threat, just an economic one (I say “just” like it is not a big deal but it definitely is). It is some of the Middle East countries that I can see lashing out at the western world or even closer countries that are prospering because of western practices. You know the ones, running water, electricity, silverware, etc.

Once you get a taste of what money gets you, you don’t care about war as much as you care about getting more money. It feels good to come home to an air-conditioned apartment and eat refrigerated food then take a bath in water that hasn’t already been “used”. A little of that helps forgive others differences.:shakehands:

[Kralizec]

Good to see you back, Yesdachi!


What complete load of :daisy:! No system of government is safe form those things. Leaving aside that I dispise republics.

I think that when USians use the word "republic" they generally mean "representative democracy". This is fairly obvious at least when reading some archaic texts from the founding fathers like Madison.

[Lord Winter]

Offensive wars aren't going anywhere, if for no other reason that it's almost impossible for China, Europe and the USA to fight directly.

Unlesss there's a sort of agreement that the Eu invades Northern Africa, the US western Africa and China Eastern africa and we all have a barny in the middle... no not a great idea.

I think that proxy wars are the way forward. For a fraction of the cost of a proper war you can massively impede what other countries can do: the USA and NATO are hamstrung due to Iraq and Afghanistan. If there's something doing on anywhere else in the work there's little that we'll do. For small change China can get most of Africa in its pocket whilst we carpet bomb the odd wedding.

~:smoking:

We fought a major war against Japan and Germany and there both thousands of miles away and we have allies that China could attack. The one question is if air power will make navies obsolete removing one giant U.S. advantage.

Proxy wars will defenitly still exisit but I don't think we are done with the World Wars especially in a ever shrinking world and with likely future resource competition.

[yesdachi]

Good to see you back, Yesdachi!

Thanks, I pop in from time to time to make sure everyone is still arguing about the same things they were months before ~D but this is the first time I have had a chance to post in a while.

[rory_20_uk]

The wars against Germany and Japan both used islands as bases. Taking a defended island required either invasion or plane attack. Now there's missiles including nukes.

Both examples you gave all countries were going full tilt for each other. Now there are many more toys that would mean the total damage done then would be merely a warm up act.


China has enough planes and missiles to mean America's fleet is vunerable probably hundreds of miles offshore; America's fleets are unlikely to be able to do significant damage against China without suffering severe losses.
China is increasing its numbers of subs. Not only does this allow sinking the navy, but also they can be relatively close to the USA raising the option of a first strike.

Hence North Korea. Allowed to exist as China has all but complete dontrol, but it is not China - so acts that North Korea performs can not be blamed on China.

Fighting for resources is going to happen. But the potential gains have to outweigh the costs of fighting. The strong will pick on the weak and there are enough weak to go round for some time. Shortages will also create solutions for the shortages, either in alternative materials or in improved utilisation of existing resources.

~:smoking: