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

[Dachs]

Virote makes me so proud

 

[Perfection]

The day we all think it's over is the day it won't be.

Never forget what we are capable of.

 

[Patroklos]

The world is so interconnected now (thanks to the pax Americana) that its nearly impossible for even evenly matched middling countries to fight without it eventually drawing in the likes of the US/NATO/combo of the two. Once they pick a side, conventional warfare is pointless.

The overwhelming might of the US military makes conventional warfare unattractive, especially since most of the top tier and middle tier are in some way allied to that military might anyway.

 

[Hygro]

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.

this is forever going to be the best post in the thread.

 

[GoodGame]

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.

No, but there's too much to lose in a major shooting war, with the economies so intertwined.

 

[Flying Pig]

The world is so interconnected now (thanks to the pax Americana) that its nearly impossible for even evenly matched middling countries to fight without it eventually drawing in the likes of the US/NATO/combo of the two. Once they pick a side, conventional warfare is pointless.

The overwhelming might of the US military makes conventional warfare unattractive, especially since most of the top tier and middle tier are in some way allied to that military might anyway.

That's a far more valid point. Of course it hinges on the axioms that a) American power is far greater than that of any other potential competitior and that b) foreign nations believe that the USA is prepared to use that power against them far from home to protect its own interests. These axioms appear to be slowly crumbling.

 

[Dachs]

this is forever going to be the best post in the thread.

It has many spiritual predecessors.

 

[RedRalph]

Patroklos has some good point but a Pax Americana does not exist, and it never has.

 

[Dachs]

Neither has a pax Britannica or a pax Romana or a pax Mongolica, rite

 

[RedRalph]

Once they pick a side, conventional warfare is pointless.

ORLY?

But I'm sure this is completely irrelevant...

 

[Hygro]

It has many spiritual predecessors.

I think we all like to take credit for being the first on this forum to make that point

 

[Patroklos]

ORLY?

But I'm sure this is completely irrelevant...

Why don't you pick something that didn't have a peer counterweight in the form of the USSR to stay the hand of the US (and visa versa for that matter).

I distinctly stated during and after the pax Americana, the simple fact is conventional warfare of any scale of note has been extrememly rare by any sane scale the last two decades and when it does happen it is a route.

Or in other words, exactly what I said before

 

[RedRalph]

Eh.... the USSR was on the same side as you in that one Patroklos, they were not 'staying your hand', they were egging Saddam on, just like your country.

 

[Patroklos]

The US and the USSR did not become directly involved, ending the conflict on infinitly better terms for either, because they were staying each others hand. It is a case study in staying each other's hands.

Based on my comments RRW, nothing prior to the collapse of the USSR has any relevance to what I said. I specifically stated the time frame I was talking about. Anything you bring up before that makes absolutely no sense.

 

[SG-17]

The world is so interconnected now (thanks to the pax Americana) that its nearly impossible for even evenly matched middling countries to fight without it eventually drawing in the likes of the US/NATO/combo of the two. Once they pick a side, conventional warfare is pointless.

The overwhelming might of the US military makes conventional warfare unattractive, especially since most of the top tier and middle tier are in some way allied to that military might anyway.

World War I.

The alliances were thought to be a great deterrent to war, but you know the history.

 

[Skwink]

Just wait, we're bound to have a large scale conflict sometime. It's human nature.

 

[RedRalph]

The US and the USSR did not become directly involved, ending the conflict on infinitly better terms for either, because they were staying each others hand. It is a case study in staying each other's hands.

Based on my comments RRW, nothing prior to the collapse of the USSR has any relevance to what I said. I specifically stated the time frame I was talking about. Anything you bring up before that makes absolutely no sense.

OK, I didn't take it that you meant from 91 onwards, which is fair enough. But what wars (conforming to the standards I've set out) do you think the US has prevented since then? I mean it didn't prevent the Yugoslavs going at it. It quite possibly did prevent a second Korean war. It didn't prevent India and Pakistan very nearly going to war, in fact the US wasn't even a factor there.

The US is undoubtedly the most powerful military force today, but I just don't see how it has enforced a Pax Americana since 91 in any way.

 

[Patroklos]

World War I.

The alliances were thought to be a great deterrent to war, but you know the history.

The economies of the worlds power players, to include China, are orders of magnitude more interconnected than then.

Of the top twenty economies of the world, how many can you say are truely rivals in anything but buisness terms? How many are actually allied to each other.

The situations, as it stands today, is not comparable.

 

[PeteAtoms]

How old are proxy wars? Is this what we're talking about here? Since the Cold War, the more common kinds of militaristic actions taken between large super powers are going to be through these proxies right? I can see that being the norm for a while longer.

 

[Hehehe]

It's been only about 65 years since a major war devastated the world. I wouldn't go preaching the end of history just yet.