The number of war deaths has declined since 1953, but even if the amount of wars has declined, the amount of armed conflicts and violence have increased. Interstate wars have declined, the year 2020 will include an interstate war (Azerbaijan-Armenia), but the trend indicate a decline of interstate wars. Intrastate wars and armed conflicts are rising, and yet the amount of war related deaths are declining since the Korean War. One answer to why the amount of war related deaths are declining is; it hasn't been a major war between great powers since the end of the Korean War. The end of the Cold War reduced the amount of intrastate wars, but now we have a several low intensity conflicts with terrorist groups and these type of armed conflicts aren't wars, they are just armed conflicts.

What do you think about it?

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

The number of war deaths has declined since 1953, but even if the amount of wars has declined, the amount of armed conflicts and violence have increased. Interstate wars have declined, the year 2020 will include an interstate war (Azerbaijan-Armenia), but the trend indicate a decline of interstate wars. Intrastate wars and armed conflicts are rising, and yet the amount of war related deaths are declining since the Korean War. One answer to why the amount of war related deaths are declining is; it hasn't been a major war between great powers since the end of the Korean War. The end of the Cold War reduced the amount of intrastate wars, but now we have a several low intensity conflicts with terrorist groups and these type of armed conflicts aren't wars, they are just armed conflicts.

What do you think about it?

I think it is a largely misleading idea to think that the number of wars declined during the 20th century or even during the latter half of the 20th century if anything they increased post WW2, what changed was how we were sold those wars.


Korea, Vietnam, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Various civil wars were sold as police actions primarily because by playing with semantics politicians can sell a policing action to the public far easier than they can a war.


Certainly the direct casualty rate from armed conflict has decreased but it has beed replaced by a much more insideous indirect method of killing as seen by the blockades of Yemen, Gaza etc. but deaths of civilians in large numbers is easier to sell to the public worldwide if you simply starve them or prevent even the basic medical supplies get through after all you can blame the other side for that.


Anyway, I have started rambling and sort of lost the plot but I found this and thought it rather interesting...


https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/883231...ties-600-years

Originally Posted by MontyB

I think it is a largely misleading idea to think that the number of wars declined during the 20th century or even during the latter half of the 20th century if anything they increased post WW2, what changed was how we were sold those wars.


Korea, Vietnam, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Various civil wars were sold as police actions primarily because by playing with semantics politicians can sell a policing action to the public far easier than they can a war.


Certainly the direct casualty rate from armed conflict has decreased but it has beed replaced by a much more insideous indirect method of killing as seen by the blockades of Yemen, Gaza etc. but deaths of civilians in large numbers is easier to sell to the public worldwide if you simply starve them or prevent even the basic medical supplies get through after all you can blame the other side for that.


Anyway, I have started rambling and sort of lost the plot but I found this and thought it rather interesting...


https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/883231...ties-600-years

There is one major problem how the count battle related deaths. To be an armed conflicts the amount of battle related deaths are between 25-1000/year. For being a war the amount of battle related deaths must be +1000/year. 25 battle related deaths are too low. There is a problem with indirect fatalities, as you said during conflicts and wars. A lot of people die because of starvation, disease, lack of clean water, health care, exposed to the climate etc. Are those counted in the data, they weren't when I took conflict studies. It is also difficult to get the correct number of battle related deaths and the deaths of indirect reasons.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

There is one major problem how the count battle related deaths. To be an armed conflicts the amount of battle related deaths are between 25-1000/year. For being a war the amount of battle related deaths must be +1000/year. 25 battle related deaths are too low. There is a problem with indirect fatalities, as you said during conflicts and wars. A lot of people die because of starvation, disease, lack of clean water, health care, exposed to the climate etc. Are those counted in the data, they weren't when I took conflict studies. It is also difficult to get the correct number of battle related deaths and the deaths of indirect reasons.

While that is undoubtedly true I think it was only accurate until the end of the Korean conflict, since then we have gone away from what was seen as traditional warfare (massed armies, front lines etc.) and moved to indirect forms of warfare.


My view is that as the method of battle is now effectively a siege scenario and given that depriving the opposition for the basics of life (food, water and basic medical care) are the tactics employed all casualties within the siege area should be considered battle casualties.