Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Warfare on the wane in the world?

  1. Oct 18, 2005 #1

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Warfare on the wane in the world?!?!

    I would certainly welcome that news, but is there really a reduction in war or military or paramilitary conflicts in the world?

    A welcome surprise: war waning globally
    By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 18, 2005 #2
    Naturally I wonder how warfare is defined in the report - if we're replacing organised conflict with other types of conflict, then the image of becoming a more peaceful society isn't really accurate.

    Global terror is up year after year since 9/11 http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0428/dailyUpdate.html

    I do believe wars are less deadly, but that's because the 1900's saw such atrocities (including nuclear bombs being used). With a baseline like that it would be hard to not see an improvement. We didn't even have antibiotics until the 1940's. so many deaths in war during the first half of the century were, likely, compounded by or directly due to infections.

    Hopefully we won't use any more horrific "shock and awe" approaches in the middle east. The stratcom report that I linked a few weeks ago makes me think that we just may. (I can't find a great link, but this one will get you some of the details if you missed it last time around - I doubt you did though!)

    http://proliberty.com/observer/20050822.htm
     
  4. Oct 18, 2005 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Since two keys to waging war are disinformation and the control of good information, I think the internet will change everything. The recent actions of the Chinese government in this regard are disappointing to say the least!

    One military leader of note [I don't recall who] once stated that one must constantly vilify the enemy or soldiers won't fight. That was easy to do until just about....now.
     
  5. Oct 18, 2005 #4

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well one must wonder exactly what the effects of the internet would be. You do get that freedom Ivan speaks about but theres also the bad side of it. A palestinian or Israeli extremist in say, Switzerland, normally wouldn't have much of an ability to voice his opinions. Now with the internet, he has a much broader, much more accessible audience. What you just hope for is that the correct information out-doing the disinformation.

    I'm happy this kinda report finally came out. I remember reading a list of the roughly 25 warzones on Earth right now and remember reading a list showing roughly 30-35 warzones back in the early 90's. Hoped it was showing a good sign but this helps clarify it.
     
  6. Oct 18, 2005 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It probably depends on what scale of conflict we're talking about (geograpically or in casualty count) or what section of the world. It is certainly true, for example, that the West was more peaceful in the second half of the century than the first, on the large scale (no world wars).

    The study is more about smaller conflicts before and since the Cold War - I can see that, considering the extent to which the Cold War affected regional and local conflicts. After it ended, there was a power vacuum, but those little local conflicts (especially in eastern Europe) seem to be burning themselves out.

    This is an interesting quote:
     
  7. Oct 19, 2005 #6
    Don't hold your breath.
    Give John Bolton time and he will fix that problem with diplomacy in the UN.
    How many democracies plan to adapt a policy of "preemptive war" I wonder?
     
  8. Oct 19, 2005 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Agreed, however this is a stronger position to be in than when one or a few people could control nearly all of the information. It seems to me that just as many of us worry about Big Brother in this age of information, Big Brother has more to worry about as well.
     
  9. Oct 19, 2005 #8
    I think 9/11 proved that just the opposite of that. If anything the west is going to (finally) become more violent again. I don't see the rest of the world becoming any less so either.

    As for this:
    Democracy IS recent history.

    (that, and recent recent history would suggest that democracy works the same as any other kind of government, big countries beat up little countries)
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2005
  10. Oct 19, 2005 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There was an interesting factoid that was apparently true for a time, and still is with one or two exceptions: No country with a McDonalds has seen war on its soil - war as in the sense of an organized miltary conflict. My theory is that everyone gets too fat to fight. :biggrin:
     
  11. Oct 19, 2005 #10
    What exactly do you mean by "organized military conflict"?

    Iraq has a McDonalds, it's bretty brutal right now.
     
  12. Oct 19, 2005 #11

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    haha oh man the possibilities!

    "Iran developes new defense system; first McDonalds established, US halts hostilities"
     
  13. Oct 19, 2005 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think not. Besides, I said
    Don't you read the post before responding? And how do you figure that McDonalds was in Iraq? :rofl:
     
  14. Oct 19, 2005 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Of course the idea being that the presence of McDonalds is an indication of stability and wealth. :biggrin:
     
  15. Oct 19, 2005 #14

    I disagree with your comments about the west. Just because the west didnt wage its own wars doesn't mean it didnt wage war through proxies, or didnt pursue imperialistic goals (the school of the americas is STILL around).
     
  16. Oct 19, 2005 #15

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Oh... i thought we were talking about how McDonalds controls all world governments....
     
  17. Oct 19, 2005 #16

    Lisa!

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I got the answer! :rolleyes: WW3 is going to happen in the early years of 21th and because of nuclear weapons, the war would end vey soon and no one (except ants of course) will stay alive to start another war. and about killing fewer people? well somehow you could say they just die because of NW and no one kill them in fact. :cry: :cry: :cry:

    Forgive me because of what I said!:blushing:
     
  18. Oct 19, 2005 #17

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :approve:

    Slowly, my ideas (or those of my biology teacher) are finding their way...
    :rofl:
     
  19. Oct 19, 2005 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    True enough, but such wars are significantly smaller than when 1st world nations start fighting against each other (I usually include that clarification, and forgot it this time).
     
  20. Oct 19, 2005 #19
    A war would require at least two countries with a political dispute than could not be solved peacefully and war is the continuation of politics with other means (Von Clausewitz Vom Kriege 1832). A dispute between ideologies not separated by physical boundaries is not defined as war.

    However for soldiers to raise the weapons with the objective to kill and start a war you have to motivate them as well as their kin that it's paramount to fight for the survival of the own society. This requires three more elements, strong and determined leadership, an ideology or cult to die for and a relentless indoctrination about enemy image building.

    Strong leadership means dictatorship. A democracy is not renowned for starting hostilities albeit that it's not shy to react to hostilities, but you could argue about that. However if there is need to vote for waging war or not, and how to do it, then don't do it. You'd miss the agility to win the war.

    It's probably not too hard to find ideologies worth dying for, like pleasing the god-emperor-dictator or defending ones cult or global warming or so. Finally, the indoctrination part requires a relentless misinformation about the terrible enemy who is eager to destroy us, the moment we're not paying attention.

    So which element is declining, causing the reduction in real wars between states? Most certainly not misinformation, propaganda for religions or global warming is stronger than ever before. Moreover there are plenty of things to die for. We see that daily in Baghdad and other places. Consequently the waning factor is leadership. There are too many democracies and not enough dictatorships to generate traditional international wars.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2005
  21. Oct 19, 2005 #20
    the invasion of iraq was officialy based on misinformation by the most informed nation on earth (exept maybe china, apparently they have good spys).
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Warfare on the wane in the world?
  1. Lawless world (Replies: 37)

  2. Syria Chemical Warfare (Replies: 43)

Loading...