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

[Tahuti]

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.

I didn't said economic interdependence itself could make war less likely, only that it could lead to more globalization, and globalization may decrease the likelihood and/or attractivity of going to war.

The reasoning behind this is, that in a globalized society, you're less likely to attempt (aggresive) war if the "victim" doesn't appear like a country far far away no matter the geographical location and for that reason, the "victim" doesn't appear like the hellhole you want people to believe. Compared to today, the World on the eve WWII was pretty nationalistic, in the sense people generally didn't look much further than their own country.

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

Like I said, it's not directly internet, but the globalization that results from it.

 

[MobBoss]

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

Thats merely an argument of scale, not of the actual policy. Just because we may do it an easier way in Libya (which still remains to be seen) doesnt mean that the two mission objectives (i.e. regime change) arent the same.

Basketcase has a valid point. Your comment does nothing to counter it.

 

[Patroklos]

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!

Please explain how the interconnectedness pf twp nations in 1910 (which is nothing compared to China and the US today anyway) is relevant when compared to that of the entire world today.

Again, orders of magnitude in diference here.

 

[GoodGame]

Economic interconnectedness obviously forestalls wars since it makes vastly complicated political webs.
Not in response to Patroklos (because that answer is obvious).

With ideologies you can turn the world in stark constrasts with a few shades in between, and wage war on command.

With a global economy, your long term allies might balk at aiding you war against one of their major supplier of crucial energy supplies, or one of their major export markets, though. And economy leverage also boosts the power of diplomacy when dealing with other nations.

 

[Dachs]

I didn't said economic interdependence itself could make war less likely, only that it could lead to more globalization, and globalization may decrease the likelihood and/or attractivity of going to war.

The reasoning behind this is, that in a globalized society, you're less likely to attempt (aggresive) war if the "victim" doesn't appear like a country far far away no matter the geographical location and for that reason, the "victim" doesn't appear like the hellhole you want people to believe. Compared to today, the World on the eve WWII was pretty nationalistic, in the sense people generally didn't look much further than their own country.


Like I said, it's not directly internet, but the globalization that results from it.

That reasoning is bunk. How do you think civil wars happen? Portrayal of the inhabitants of Country X as "the other" are only intermittently and dubiously relevant to the conduct of war; they were never relevant before a few centuries ago. Alternatively, but on a similar note, are you aware that a high proportion of murders are committed by someone who already knows the victim?

Please explain how the interconnectedness pf twp nations in 1910 (which is nothing compared to China and the US today anyway) is relevant when compared to that of the entire world today.

Again, orders of magnitude in diference here.

Of course there's more "interconnectedness" in the world now than there was then. So what's the cutoff point? Is there some magic number of foreign borrowing or expatriates or some other crap that makes war impossible?

An argument that financial reasons would compel a given state to cease fighting is unconvincing. Lack of money has never forced any state to back out of a war. It's not even clear that international financial institutions would cease to run in the event of a modern Great Power war.

One thing that I enjoy bringing up is the fact that Russia's nuclear weapons are currently maintained by facilities constructed by Americans, but does that really mean that those Americans can stop nuclear weapons from being used? (No.) It's an indicator of how improbable something is, but never an impossibility.

 

[Flying Pig]

An argument that financial reasons would compel a given state to cease fighting is unconvincing. Lack of money has never forced any state to back out of a war. It's not even clear that international financial institutions would cease to run in the event of a modern Great Power war.

If we ignore the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - actually, make that pretty much the entire Cold War.

 

[Leoreth]

In both cases (if you really want to label the Cold War a "war"), war has ended because it was decided there was less to gain than what they were willing to invest. This does not need to be the case.

 

[Camikaze]

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

It's hard to give a definitive answer, because even an exception to the rule would provide evidence to the contrary, but I'd say 'yes'. The world is less caught up in myopic realism, and 'large states' are decreasingly central. The internet for one does contribute to this by allowing for the individual to hold more importance, but it's not only that. Non-state actors hold great importance. The US is up against Al-Qaeda, not Pakistan. The Taliban, not Afghanistan. A shift towards co-operation (or international organisation) and multilateralism (if not in practice, then clearly in representation, which is surely itself indicative of how unilateralism is viewed) also very much reduces the threat of conflict in such a way. Maybe it replaces it with other types of conflict, but straight state v state warfare is evidently not the norm anymore.

 

[King of Anshan]

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

Who knows? For the moment there is not truly a war like WO1 and WO2, but it can come. Perhaps one day all of mankind will unite in a global nation and colonise the stars, fighting other races, but I suppose that is not state vs. state. Perhaps our civilization collpases and we go back to the middle ages and fight wars like we fought in that time.

The following years will probably see lots of Malthusian friction, and that is one reason for war. So I say large-scale state v state war is not over, purely because the chance it is is so miniscule.

 

[Cutlass]

If we ignore the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - actually, make that pretty much the entire Cold War.

I don't think that losing a war because your economy, and then empire, collapsed is the same thing as withdrawing from a war because you don't want to disrupt your financing further.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@OP question
No, but things really need to get going to produce the right conditions again. So for the foreseeable future - it seems so. Forever? That would be an incredible naive and presumptuous statement.

 

[Squarg]

The 3 things needed for lasting peace according to Immanuel Kant are:
1. Free trade in order to economically link countries and disincentivize conflict.
2. International institutions to act as bargaining tables so that disputes would not need to be settled with force as well as a place to create said free trade.
3. Democracy, because of rational self interest democracies will not go to war unless their people support it and because of the leaders desire to be reelcted. This in turn leads to less war (and less war that has a chance of loosing in addition) but also people will be less likely to support a conflict that hampers their economic interests which due to free trade would be increasingly interconnected.

We basically have this situation now. Due to free trade, major international institutions and the spread of liberal democracy we are less likely to engage in large state vs state war unless the state in question is morally bankrupt(see Iraq/Lybia/Syria/Iran) or economically isolated (Afghanistan/North Korea)

 

[Flying Pig]

The 3 things needed for lasting peace according to Immanuel Kant are:
1. Free trade in order to economically link countries and disincentivize conflict.
2. International institutions to act as bargaining tables so that disputes would not need to be settled with force as well as a place to create said free trade.
3. Democracy, because of rational self interest democracies will not go to war unless their people support it and because of the leaders desire to be reelcted. This in turn leads to less war (and less war that has a chance of loosing in addition) but also people will be less likely to support a conflict that hampers their economic interests which due to free trade would be increasingly interconnected.

Kant may have been a great academic, but I wouldn't trust him much as a soldier or politician being almost the epitome of the 'ivory tower professor'

 

[Squarg]

Kant may have been a great academic, but I wouldn't trust him much as a soldier or politician being almost the epitome of the 'ivory tower professor'

Soldiers do not declare war. Politicians in liberal democracies are responsible to the people. The fact remains that democracies still do not fight each other. That combined with the current interconnection of economies creates a possibility for real lasting peace until these conditions change.

 

[RedRalph]

Democracies do fight each other.

 

[Dachs]

If we ignore the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - actually, make that pretty much the entire Cold War.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Cold War did not end because the Soviet Union had financial difficulties. Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Flying Pig]

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Cold War did not end because the Soviet Union had financial difficulties. Don't be ridiculous.

That's pretty much how I heard it - the Space Race, wars and generally trying to outspend the much richer USA bankrupted the USSR to such an extent that popular discontent became too much and the government was toppled.

 

[Dachs]

That's pretty much how I heard it - the Space Race, wars and generally trying to outspend the much richer USA bankrupted the USSR to such an extent that popular discontent became too much and the government was toppled.

The link that you are missing there is the connection between "bankrupted the USSR" and "popular discontent". Also, I'm pretty sure the USSR wasn't "bankrupted".

 

[MobBoss]

Democracies do fight each other.

Examples pls.

 

[Dachs]

Examples pls.

Sure. The First World War, for one. Pretty much the entire litany of classical Greek history, for another. Athens and Rome both fought Social Wars against democratic allies; Rome's Social War (kind of) included fighting against (democratic) Athens itself.

Alternatively, Finland being on the side of the Nazis for three years during the Second World War.