Are the days of large-scale state v state war over?

[RedRalph]

I know there has been some state v state war the last decade, but none of it between any sort of middling to large powers that were reasonably well matched. It seems countries only attack other states when they are almost sure they can win easily. The last big state v state war that was any sort of an even match was Iraq attacking Iran. In the past, wars on this scale were reasonably regular occurances.

Are these days passed? If so, why? And don't put it all down to nukes, US power or economics, because those factors didn't prevent Iran v Iraq, and we were a hair's breath away from Pakistan and India going at it several times the last decade.

 

[Virote_Considon]

It's totally due to economics and stuff. Strong ties as such between countries just makes inter-power war completely unthinkable. It's like Britain and Germany in the 1910s. Completely unthinkable.

 

[Thedrin]

Nuclear weapons (and maybe some forms of chemical and biological weapons) have made open warfare between big countries (and many medium sized countries) too risky.

Imagine how Kursk would have gone down if either side had access to a nuclear weapon. Modern technology has obsoleted the traditional battlefield.

 

[Singularity]

I think advanced warning from intelligence is a key reason why we manage to diffuse a potentially dangerous situation with some form of diplomacy. Still, Russia managed to insert a large number of troops into Georgia without the global community knowing anything about it before it blew up. Now, that situation didn't pan out because there where just too many unknown paths the conflict could take had it escalated.

Which brings me to my next presumption. That the risk most of the time does not meet the reward of going to war. We're basically living in a much more interconnected environment between states, regions and coalitions of states in a more or less formal cooperation militarily and diplomatically. Trade is probably the most potent showstopper since most modern states today depend on exports and imports of critical goods, and a war will most likely put a heavy foot on those critical trade items for whoever is perceived as being the aggressor.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Nuclear weapons (and maybe some forms of chemical and biological weapons) have made open warfare between big countries (and many medium sized countries) too risky.

I and India and Pakistan completely agree.

 

[Flying Pig]

Not to mention the very idea of attacking a country with the world's third largest conventional army and believed to possess an arsenal of WMDs, under the direction of a lunatic who almost certainly had the will to use them - oh, hang on...

And I just feel obliged to quote the GOC Allied Forces during the 2003 invasion:

"Yesterday Saddam had the third largest army in the world. Today he has the second largest army in Iraq"

 

[Ajidica]

Just because Saddam's army was large didn't mean it was any good. Weren't most of its tanks old Soviet refits? Given how poorly the Republican Guards performed, we can safely ditch military size as a useful metric of comparison.

 

[Godwynn]

I hope so, but doubt it.

 

[RedRalph]

Not to mention the very idea of attacking a country with the world's third largest conventional army and believed to possess an arsenal of WMDs, under the direction of a lunatic who almost certainly had the will to use them - oh, hang on...

And I just feel obliged to quote the GOC Allied Forces during the 2003 invasion:

"Yesterday Saddam had the third largest army in the world. Today he has the second largest army in Iraq"

Come on, that was no sort of fight at all. they were completely dilpaidated and run down after decades of sanctions, many were bribed not to fight and even had they been at full strength they still wouldn't even vaguely match the US. that's not the sort of thing I'm talking about because the result was an utterly foregone conclusion, Iraq had literally no chance of winning.

Really the only countries that could concievably 'beat' the US are Russia and China and we aren't going to discuss that here. Like I said FP, I'm talking about wars like Iran v Iraq, where you had two fairly well-matched and large armies fighting it out to the end.

 

[BasketCase]

I know there has been some state v state war the last decade, but none of it between any sort of middling to large powers that were reasonably well matched.

It's all about travel speed.

In the past, troops and information were pokey. In the distant past, troops moved by foot or by horse; for most of the last century, it took trucks and ships to move a large amount of firepower. And until recently we didn't have the Internet or satellites, either.

When fisticuffs between two nations did break out: first off, other nations didn't even find out about it for a long time, because the Internet and satellites didn't exist. We couldn't just photograph Europe to find out Germany was at war against Poland. We had to wait for somebody to get out of Poland (or send a cable) and alert the rest of the world that there were shenanigans going on. And then we didn't have a complete picture of what was happening on a national scale--the guy who got out of Poland could only say "I saw shooting and bombs being dropped here." Without satellite photography it took a while for people to assemble a nationwide picture of what was happening. And once everybody else found out that Germany was in fact invading all of Europe, it took a long time for everybody else to get significant numbers of troops in there to fight back.

So in the past, when a war did happen somewhere, it was usually months or even years before anybody else could do anything about it. That's all changed. Today, five minutes after something happens, we see it happening. Courtesy of Google Earth. And troops can be moved much faster as well. Fifty years ago it took a couple of months to conquer a nation. Today, air power can cause severe infrastructure damage within a matter of hours (whereas half a century ago an entire nation's air force needed weeks or months to cripple another nation), and complete ground superiority can be established nationwide in a matter of days.


Today, the strongest nations of the Earth can blow up pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want. It's pretty difficult to start a war against somebody when all their allies can jump right in and shoot back five minutes after you pull the trigger. That's why all of today's wars are little ones: the only way to get a war started is to be small enough that the developed world doesn't give a crap. Which currently seems to be the case in Syria. (cue generic accusation of hypocrisy against the world community for going to war against Libya but not against Syria)

 

[Abaddon]

the only way to get a war started is to be small enough that the developed world doesn't give a crap. Which currently seems to be the case in Syria. (cue generic accusation of hypocrisy against the world community for going to war against Libya but not against Syria)

An most of Africa.. well the African bit...

 

[Singularity]

Libya's army was a joke. Gaddafi never dared to develop it past a point because he was constantly nervous about the potential for a military coup. The only developed part of his army is/was his son's(Khamis Gaddafi) brigade 10.000 man strong.

Syria is a hornets nest. A very strong military compared to it's size, and Hezbollah is everywhere in Syria. With a real and present danger of expanding the conflict to neighbouring countries of Lebanon, Jordan, Northern Iraq and the arabian peninsula.

One very potential root for future conflict is a war for water resources. A war of ideologies seems a bit far fetched at the moment in my opinion. The resent conflicts in northern Africa has been attributed to a large part to rising food prices and a rapidly growing portion of the populace living in constant poverty. Modern society is quite fragile to global recessions and climate change, and history has shown us over and over again that desperate people in bread lines who can't care for their basic needs have little or no qualms to take up arms to get it.

 

[Zelig]

It's all about travel speed.

In the past, troops and information were pokey. In the distant past, troops moved by foot or by horse; for most of the last century, it took trucks and ships to move a large amount of firepower. And until recently we didn't have the Internet or satellites, either.

When fisticuffs between two nations did break out: first off, other nations didn't even find out about it for a long time, because the Internet and satellites didn't exist. We couldn't just photograph Europe to find out Germany was at war against Poland. We had to wait for somebody to get out of Poland (or send a cable) and alert the rest of the world that there were shenanigans going on. And then we didn't have a complete picture of what was happening on a national scale--the guy who got out of Poland could only say "I saw shooting and bombs being dropped here." Without satellite photography it took a while for people to assemble a nationwide picture of what was happening. And once everybody else found out that Germany was in fact invading all of Europe, it took a long time for everybody else to get significant numbers of troops in there to fight back.

So in the past, when a war did happen somewhere, it was usually months or even years before anybody else could do anything about it. That's all changed. Today, five minutes after something happens, we see it happening. Courtesy of Google Earth. And troops can be moved much faster as well. Fifty years ago it took a couple of months to conquer a nation. Today, air power can cause severe infrastructure damage within a matter of hours (whereas half a century ago an entire nation's air force needed weeks or months to cripple another nation), and complete ground superiority can be established nationwide in a matter of days.


Today, the strongest nations of the Earth can blow up pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want. It's pretty difficult to start a war against somebody when all their allies can jump right in and shoot back five minutes after you pull the trigger. That's why all of today's wars are little ones: the only way to get a war started is to be small enough that the developed world doesn't give a crap. Which currently seems to be the case in Syria. (cue generic accusation of hypocrisy against the world community for going to war against Libya but not against Syria)

I'm pretty sure Google Earth doesn't provide realtime satellite images.

 

[BasketCase]

Libya's army was a joke.

Syria is a hornets nest.

So what? Syria's military is nowhere near strong enough to handle the entire world community.

Libyan government is killing civilians, Syrian government is killing civilians (and more of them). World community = hypocrites.

I'm pretty sure Google Earth doesn't provide realtime satellite images.

Whatever. Point is, when a war starts anywhere, governments can see it immediately, on a nationwide scale, so they do get a complete picture of what's happening. And civilians such as you and me find out shortly after. People today are much better-informed, and military power can be projected much, much faster.

 

[Ajidica]

Wait, weren't you criticizing us for getting involved in Libya?

 

[Singularity]

I'm pretty sure Google Earth doesn't provide realtime satellite images.

No, but organizations like National Geospatial Intelligence Agency does that job very well and within hours international media has pretty google earth maps of the points of interest.

Russia had a few hours worth of surprise when they invaded Georgia. But soon was outed by detailed images of their troops being well within Georgian sovereign territory(or disputed territory if you asked a russian).

 

[Virote_Considon]

In the distant past, troops moved by foot or by horse; for most of the last century, it took trucks and ships to move a large amount of firepower.

Yeah. It's a good thing we can just teleport them now.

When fisticuffs between two nations did break out: first off, other nations didn't even find out about it for a long time, because the Internet and satellites didn't exist. We couldn't just photograph Europe to find out Germany was at war against Poland. We had to wait for somebody to get out of Poland (or send a cable) and alert the rest of the world that there were shenanigans going on. And then we didn't have a complete picture of what was happening on a national scale--the guy who got out of Poland could only say "I saw shooting and bombs being dropped here." Without satellite photography it took a while for people to assemble a nationwide picture of what was happening. And once everybody else found out that Germany was in fact invading all of Europe, it took a long time for everybody else to get significant numbers of troops in there to fight back.

I know what you mean. If Hitler's invasion of Poland was on the 3rd of September and the Allies finally went all-out and declared war on the 5th of that month, it must have taken them eons to find out that there was actually an invasion afoot.

So in the past, when a war did happen somewhere, it was usually months or even years before anybody else could do anything about it. That's all changed. Today, five minutes after something happens, we see it happening. Courtesy of Google Earth.

Yeah! Screw you, cables, with your month-long gaps getting from place to place!

And troops can be moved much faster as well. Fifty years ago it took a couple of months to conquer a nation. Today, air power can cause severe infrastructure damage within a matter of hours (whereas half a century ago an entire nation's air force needed weeks or months to cripple another nation), and complete ground superiority can be established nationwide in a matter of days.

I know what you mean. Back in "the day", it too Germany what? 15 days to conquer France?! Talk about taking things cautiously! Luckily, it only took the US and allies a month and a half to take over Iraq using their forces stationed in adjacent countries. The marvels of modern technology!

Today, the strongest nations of the Earth can blow up pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want. It's pretty difficult to start a war against somebody when all their allies can jump right in and shoot back five minutes after you pull the trigger.

Honestly, what were Rwanda and Uganda thinking when they got involved in war against the DRC, knowing its all-mighty allies would jump in and save the day?

 

[Singularity]

So what? Syria's military is nowhere near strong enough to handle the entire world community.

Libyan government is killing civilians, Syrian government is killing civilians (and more of them). World community = hypocrites.

Syria is a perfect example of "damned if you do - damned if you don't". Just like North Korea and Iran. And it would require a much larger show of force compared to the few forces committed to the limited campaign in Libya. And people will die in much larger numbers on both sides of the conflict with an unknown scope of expanding to other sovereign states. The maths is quite simple if you ask me.

 

[SG-17]

One very potential root for future conflict is a war for water resources. A war of ideologies seems a bit far fetched at the moment in my opinion. The resent conflicts in northern Africa has been attributed to a large part to rising food prices and a rapidly growing portion of the populace living in constant poverty. Modern society is quite fragile to global recessions and climate change, and history has shown us over and over again that desperate people in bread lines who can't care for their basic needs have little or no qualms to take up arms to get it.

You won't see 1st world nations (or 2nd probably) going to war over water. For one the US and Canada have access to nearly (if not more than) a quarter of the world's fresh water supply (namely the Great Lakes) and they won't go to war with each other over the Lakes.

 

[Singularity]

You won't see 1st world nations (or 2nd probably) going to war over water. For one the US and Canada have access to nearly (if not more than) a quarter of the world's fresh water supply (namely the Great Lakes) and they won't go to war with each other over the Lakes.

Any nation who have most of their territory within the tropical or subtropical belt is in my opinion a candidate for being involved in a future war for control over water. India and China are the largest candidates with their problems of polluted/depleted fresh water reservoirs with an insanely large population and equally large damming projects of major water tributary's that will strangle the other country's supply of water.

It all depends on how bad the country's are managing their fresh water reservoirs and the growth of their population, and of course violent change in the regional climate.

A country like Saudi Arabia has almost depleted it's deep water reservoirs and we're seeing real impact on their agricultural output as the water is depleting.