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

[Patroklos]

OK, I didn't take it that you meant from 91 onwards, which is fair enough.

I could have been more clear, I always thought thats what the term refered to.

But what wars (conforming to the standards I've set out) do you think the US has prevented since then?

You are looking at it differently than me. I do not see it as all about America (and its allies) standing in the breach of major powers who would instantly throw themselves at each other in its absence. Its more like its presence in its current form and the current state of affairs brought about largely by its actions has prevented such rivalries from forming since the end of the last major set. There is no USSR in this time, let alone a Warsaw Pact.

When the USSR ended the rivalries and the camps defined by the US vs USSR dynamic were not replaced. What was left in its place was a world where the majority of the powerful countreis were allied with each other, and the majority of their formal rivals no wanted to be just like them.

Its not universal of course, there is still China and a now more assertive Russia out there but I don't think anyone would say the situation mirrors the Cold War or any of the systems of multi polar barely contained hostile relationships that existed from WWI and before.

Even places like Brazil and India, as they become powerful and modern aren't setting themselves up as military rivals to anyone in particular, but rather as buisness competitors.

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.

If you think the US was not a factor in two major powers with nuclear arms going to war you have to be kidding. If you think any major power from Russia to China didn't have its diplomats beating down embassy doors you have to be kidding.

In any case, your OP talked about "large scale stat v state" war. I don't consider Yugoslav states commanding at most a couple divisions each to qualify. The scale of a Russa vs China or India vs Pakistan for instance would be in the millions on each side. The only confiict that really qualifies as "large scale" would be Iraq 91, and everyone saw how that turned out.

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.

It didn't have to enforece it with just its military. The set up after the Cold War, based primarily on the actions of the US whether you like it or not, made most powerful nations allies. Led by the US.

Having large scale state on state warfare becomes far less possible when most of the poeple who can actually do such a thing are close buddies. Even less possible when those who are not are either isolated (China/NK), pre occupied (Russia), face the prospect of fighting not a peer but a peer + 20 other piers (anyone wanting to tangle with a NATO member), or just not interested in being the next military counterweight when there is money to be made (Brazil).

Additionally, if you really want to take on the worlds only power block (NATO) either by direct attack or threateng something it holds dear (ask Saddam circa 91 about that) as or right now you are going to do it alone. From China to Iran, nobody has a rival alliance of any power to assist in your challenge and that sort of challenge would be met primarily with US arms. That why I said conventional warfare is unattractive right now, the odds just aren't in anyone's favor to engage in it. And thats a good thing, because while that does drive people to make their challenges in unconventional ways via guerrilla warfare and terrorism which is messy and grabs headlines, the destruction caused by just one India vs Pakistan or Germany/France vs UK/Italy would dwarf dozens of those type conflicts combined.

 

[Kozmos]

I see a possibility in worldwide war if molecular manufacturing becomes a reality.

 

[Dachs]

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.

It's not comparable for other reasons - not because of how interconnected economies are.

 

[MobBoss]

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.

How bad they performed is relative. How well do you think they would have done vs someone else besides the USA?

There is something to be said about strength in numbers, and a lot of old soviet doctrine hinged on that.

These days, we just use more ammo.

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

Never forget what we are capable of.

And this reflects what I think. Just because it seems unlikely that such a war could occur today doesnt mean it still cant happen. Truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[Patroklos]

It's not comparable for other reasons - not because of how interconnected economies are.

No, it is not comparable for those other reasons and because of how interconneccted their economies are.

 

[Hygro]

Historically, Dachs is correct.

God what a nonstatement

But seriously, interconnectedness can deflect wars but we've learned economic profit might start wars, but it doesn't mean it's strong enough to stop them!

 

[Virote_Considon]

No, it is not comparable for those other reasons and because of how interconneccted their economies are.

Yeah, as I said, like with Britain and Germany in the 1910s.

 

[BasketCase]

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

Nope. I fully support our current involvement in Libya. That's not what I said. What I said was this:

(cue generic accusation of hypocrisy against the world community for going to war against Libya but not against Syria)

The boldface part is the part you either missed or left out. And leaving that out changes the meaning completely. A bunch of people demanded that we get involved in Libya because the Libyan government has been attacking civilians with deadly force. Guess what, Syria is doing the same thing. So did Saddam Hussein. And the Taliban. And North Korea.

Anybody who demands action against Libya but not Syria is a hypocrite. Likewise, any person who supports Obama's current actions in Libya and yet opposed George Bush's involvement in Iraq, is also a hypocrite.

I, on the other hand, supported our invasion of Iraq (both of them). I also support Obama's meddling in Libya. Conversely, a person who opposed George Bush's invasion of Iraq and opposes Obama's invasion of Libya? Such a person is not a hypocrite (I may disagree with him, but he's not a hypocrite)

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

Well, not quite that fast (teleportation is in the works, though!), but close. Fifty years ago, troops had to be moved almost entirely by ship, and airstrikes of the caliber possible today were not possible back then. Whereas today, the President of the U.S. can have bombs dropped anywhere on Earth within a few hours.

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

Yeah. Especially when an invading force cuts the cables. Common tactic in World War 2. And assuming the line is intact--fine and dandy, send a cable. Saying what? How did people half a century ago find out how big a war was? By having people all along the combat line SEE it, and then collating reports from all those people. That took a lot of work. There were no SR-71 spy planes or IMINT photography satellites in existence back then. There were spy planes, to be sure--which carried out intel by means of plain old basic windows in the sides of the planes, planes which were easy to detect and shoot down.

It's a lot harder to shoot down a spy satellite, and only a few countries today can do that. Today, the intel is a lot easier to get, and provides a genuine complete picture. You really can see a one-thousand mile battle front all at the same time.

I know what you mean. Back in "the day", it too Germany what? 15 days to conquer France?!

Conquer?? Wrong answer. France surrendered. No, really I mean it. This isn't one of those "France surrenders" jokes. France's surrender in World War 2 was the one real surrender that was the cause of all the "France surrenders" jokes you've heard ever since.

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?

Dude? I covered that one already. I already said it's pretty difficult to start a war unless you're small enough that developed nations don't care. The above war was one such war. Yes, a few other nations did jump in--other nations in Africa. The United States, so far as I know, did not get involved.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Anybody who demands action against Libya but not Syria is a hypocrite. Likewise, any person who supports Obama's current actions in Libya and yet opposed George Bush's involvement in Iraq, is also a hypocrite.

Anyone who questions the President during the time of war is a tratior and terrorist supporter. Oh wait.

 

[Tahuti]

I think state between state wars might actually happen again in the near future. Imagine there is such a thing as a missile shield that could make nukes obsolete: That pretty much would reduce the risks of war and make it more attractive once again.

However, due to technological advances, I don't it will be large scalle socially (with things like draft, strategic bombing etc.). Probably Commandos, EMP and information technology will play an important role.

World War I.

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

Today's NATO pretty much overwhelms any other alliance. Hell, the US alone is good for almost the world's military capability in terms of GDP.

 

[Dachs]

I think state between state wars might actually happen again in the near future. Imagine there is such a thing as a missile shield that could make nukes obsolete: That pretty much would reduce the risks of war and make it more attractive once again.

That assumes that the threat of nuclear weapon use reduces the willingness of world leaders to go to war. I'm not entirely sure that's the case. The nuclear peace is theoretical, not axiomatic.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, globalization brought about by international trade and technological advances may also play a role in reducing leaders willingsness to go to war. If that's the case, then it's much more likely that the days of state vs. state wars are over.

 

[Dachs]

Well, globalization brought about by international trade

Nobody listens to me.

and technological advances may also play a role in reducing leaders willingsness to go to war.

Which ones? You think the Hot Line has been made obsolete by Twitter?

 

[Tahuti]

Nobody listens to me.

I did, I just added a suggestion to take in the equation (which includes your suggestion that the possibility nuclear warfare might not be really as conducive to peace as believed to be).

Which ones? You think the Hot Line has been made obsolete by Twitter?

Ever heard of the Internet? I've heard Twitter is part thereof!

 

[Dachs]

I did, I just added a suggestion to take in the equation (which includes your suggestion that the possibility nuclear warfare might not be really as conducive to peace as believed to be).

No, you really didn't. The whole thread I've been saying that alleged economic interconnectedness isn't going to prevent a war - look how well it did at preventing the First World War - and Virote has spent significant more time doing it here because I've done it so many times and have got tired of it. Also, because he got here first.

Ever heard of the Internet? I've heard Twitter is part thereof!

Yes, the internet has clearly made war obsolete. Right on.

 

[BasketCase]

Nobody listens to me.

No, most people probably got your point. When they agree with you, they're not going to reply just to say "yeah, me too". Those who agree with you generally won't reply at all. So you do have a lot of listeners, they're just.....hiding......lurking in the shadows......waiting to pounce.......

 

[Uncle Anton]

Anyone who claims to be able to predict global political and strategic scenarios is either

a) a time-traveller
b) a Moron
c) Some on the Internet who's read too many editions of Jane's.
d) Both B and C.

My money is on D....

 

[Incodcito]

I hope so... but I doubt it. Pakistan and India are a hope, skip, and a badly worded statement away from full scale war.

 

[Aegis]

Likewise, any person who supports Obama's current actions in Libya and yet opposed George Bush's involvement in Iraq, is also a hypocrite.

Periodic airstrikes =\= toppling a government with a massive invasion of troops.

 

[aronnax]

Yeah, as I said, like with Britain and Germany in the 1910s.

I'm not questioning your logic. But rather, is there a book or a weblink that you can point me to so I can find the statistics on British-German trade in the 1900s-1910s?

Can't seem to find them anywhere.