The end of balanced, full scale wars?




 
--
 
June 26th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: The end of balanced, full scale wars?


Hmm, lets see what you guys think about this toppic. Some people claim that the age of full sacle wars between equal forces is over. They say that powerfull nations have to much to loose and will never risk a full on war with equal nations. Is the future of war in pure a-symetrical, gurrial warfare? Or will we see more large scale, armor and infantry matches such as WWII and the Arab-Israeli wars?
June 26th, 2004  
Spartan
 
I just can't see two armys of equal stature fighting one another now. The public has television, and now can see the horror of war. It is no longer a glorious and honorable thing, it is now something frowned upon by most people. Modern age countrys have far too much to lose.. Say a nuke was launched, and A city was wiped off the map. What then? Society and civillization can't risk wars, and when things start going badly, whose to say the loser won't use a tactical nuke to clear the battlefield and even the playing table? The thought of nuclear war, as well as sustaining huge amounts of casualties is not accepted by the General public. For better or for worse, most people aren't willing to fight and die for what they believe in. I do not see full scale war between two world powers happening any time soon. If anything, A cold war type setting.
June 26th, 2004  
1217
 
Well I would be surprised if a country would actually start a full scale war with an other country right now. It's just not smart because you'll probably get the UN against you for starting it. Gurillia warfare on the other hand isn't that easy to overcome simply by sending troops. There's no "homeland" to bomb, no gouvernment to nagotiate with. For those people that wan't to change the world (or just there backjard) with violence, that's the way to do it.
--
June 26th, 2004  
silent driller
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1217
Well I would be surprised if a country would actually start a full scale war with an other country right now. It's just not smart because you'll probably get the UN against you for starting it. Gurillia warfare on the other hand isn't that easy to overcome simply by sending troops. There's no "homeland" to , no gouvernment to nagotiate with. For those people that wan't to change the world (or just there backjard) with , that's the way to do it.
I believe this is why the Iraq War is being dragged out so far. And I believe I will stop at that(have more on the mind, but not really appropriate here)...

Anyway, I think full scale wars with invasions and armies slammin' each other ended after WWII and Korea. Wars now are fought with armies, navies, and now air forces combining for one quick and blow. Special Forces are now major players in sabotage and assassination.
June 27th, 2004  
FutureRANGER
 
 
I think this is a very interesting topic, I've been thinking about it lately. Not so much as if it could happen, but what would happen if it did? Can anyone recommend some literature on the subject?

I personally think it still can happen. A renegade nation like North Korea that doesn't have much to lose. Or maybe Argentina...

A better question would be if the US would still be commited, the way the people of this nation are and the media I don't know
June 27th, 2004  
Iraq n Baq
 
While I don't think that such wars will be as "common" as they have been historically, I believe we may have one or two more conventional wars on our hands within my lifetime (I'm 23).

When we're done mopping up the terrorists, we'll turn to North Korea and their renegade nuclear programs, and from there, we're in good position to go into China. I venture no guess as to how soon we may see conflict with China, but I wholeheartedly believe that it is indeed on the horizon.

Those two specific nations aside, I believe that we will continue to fight most of our battles against enemies without nations.
June 28th, 2004  
1217
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle_Sam
Well, let's look it from the other side.
Why does the President always keep his doomsday suitcase by him? (If we think it ain't gonna happen)
I think (maybe wishful) that that suitcase you're talking about is meanly there to show the world that the US would retaliate. It's a warning. I don't believe that the mighty US would actually need a suitcase as big as that one to tell the pentagon to fire away. That could be done with an encrypted cellphone and some voice recognition software.
June 28th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
Watched the intro movie of Red Alert 2? General Careville is doing the talking .
June 28th, 2004  
1217
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle_Sam
Watched the intro movie of Red Alert 2?
Haven't had the pleasure...
June 29th, 2004  
MosquitoMan
 
 
Large countries won't risk going into full-scale nuclear war, the most they would do was send Special Forces into the enemy countries.

Here's an excerpt from an article I was reading about a nuclear war. Blair was a former missilier. According to him, there is a plane flying above the United States this very minute that can launch every nuclear warhead in the United States' arsenal with the push of a button.

"Today, that war plan continues to follow the president -- the commander-in-chief -- wherever he goes. It is found inside a suitcase, better known as the nuclear football.

According to Blair, that suitcase contains several options that would call for massive retaliation.

'Well, the major options are called major attack options and there are basically four of them and any one of them would destroy Russia as a functioning state,' says Blair.

In the spring of 2000, a group of senators began to worry about just that. They went to Blair with a question: Why does the Pentagon feel it needs to keep so many nuclear warheads on combat alert? The answer, Blair told them, can be found by understanding the war plan options that he believes are inside the president's suitcase.

'MAO Four,' says Blair. 'Major Attack Option Number Four. If the president chooses this option, it would unleash at least 2,300 weapons immediately. It would just flatten Russia, [it] would be a radiating ruin for centuries. That's MAO Four. That's a Cold War option that we keep in the nuclear football -- the suitcase at the disposal of the president. And that's what drives our current nuclear operation."


For the full story: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/dem...kes/index.html

There are 5 pages, make sure you read them all.