The Possibility of Large-Scale War in the Digital Age

[Pythagorean]

How probable is a large-scale war in the next 20 years? Are there any significant growing tensions between powerful countries? Would a violent war be constructive to anyone?

I remember this quote:
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

But I'm beginning to wonder if, in the information/digital age, that would be necessarily true anymore.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Another World War simply won't happen on the scale of conflict of WW1 and WW2 (with full use of every available weapon). Everyone on the planet knows that we (as humans) have the ability to Nuke ourselves back to the stone age, and as crazy as some people are, they do realize that in a Nuke war no one wins.

 

[Sorry!]

How probable is a large-scale war in the next 20 years? Are there any significant growing tensions between powerful countries? Would a violent war be constructive to anyone?

I remember this quote:
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

But I'm beginning to wonder if, in the information/digital age, that would be necessarily true anymore.

I wrote a paper once on this same topic a while back. I came to pretty much the same conclusion that you have.

If we read Clausewitz On War we understand that war as it was known prior to the 'information age' was an act of policy on another state to force them physically into abiding the attacking states will.
The victor of war will be the country who maximizes their use of force. You can see this take a crucial role in World War 1 and it comes into play in World War 2. This is known as 'total war' or some authors call it 'big war', so a state uses full possible force on another state in order to make them surrender to the original states will.

The last 'big war' we have seen from the powerful countries of the world was World War 2. After America dropped the A-bombs we discovered exactly how deadly and devasting 'big war' had become. As the continued testings of nuclear weapons showed great increases in power it became quite obvious that going through such a war would be pointless (MAD).

I agree with you that instead a new type of war will be fought using information and technology. Spreading of misinformation in another state can be extremely devastating (the same way propaganda is motivating). Of course Clausewitz never having seen modern military or technology could never have predicted what we would soon become. Another form of war that is being utilized to great success is guerilla warfare. It makes it pretty much impossible for a state to impose total war against attackers, or ever really engage in traditional war. This gives the attackers a huge advantage in most cases. (Looks to Cuba :tongue:)

I do not believe that violent wars in the sense of countries destroying each other would be constructive. It would defeat the purpose of war as a tool of policy since a modern day World War would guarantee the destruction of states and not simply forcefully making them follow your will. (Not only would the military be destroyed but the governments the societies, even majorities of civilians, so what's the point?)Since the state always strides to perserve itself it will never fight in wars that cause its self-destruction. This causes modern states to never attack full-force and is what is leading to a more technology/information run war (in my opinion of course).

I could write up a lot more but I haven't slept for 24 hours and my thoughts are all jumbled (you can probably tell reading this post) Maybe tomorrow night when I come on I'll fix up some ideas, if you have more questions then go ahead and shoot.:rofl:

 

[xxChrisxx]

That's a good point, why blow a country up when you can effectivly levy trade embargos and things like that on them.

The ultimate reason World Wars are won is the total collapse of a nations economy. Today this can be more effectively done without the use of weapons.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Would a violent war be constructive to anyone?

To the victor go the spoils of war, right?

That's a good point, why blow a country up when you can effectivly levy trade embargos and things like that on them.

Because you can only do such things because you can blow them up and if you don't they will think you are weak and go to war with you.

 

[Pythagorean]

I wrote a paper once on this same topic a while back. I came to pretty much the same conclusion that you have.

If we read Clausewitz On War we understand that war as it was known prior to the 'information age' was an act of policy on another state to force them physically into abiding the attacking states will.
The victor of war will be the country who maximizes their use of force. You can see this take a crucial role in World War 1 and it comes into play in World War 2. This is known as 'total war' or some authors call it 'big war', so a state uses full possible force on another state in order to make them surrender to the original states will.

The last 'big war' we have seen from the powerful countries of the world was World War 2. After America dropped the A-bombs we discovered exactly how deadly and devasting 'big war' had become. As the continued testings of nuclear weapons showed great increases in power it became quite obvious that going through such a war would be pointless (MAD).

I agree with you that instead a new type of war will be fought using information and technology. Spreading of misinformation in another state can be extremely devastating (the same way propaganda is motivating). Of course Clausewitz never having seen modern military or technology could never have predicted what we would soon become. Another form of war that is being utilized to great success is guerilla warfare. It makes it pretty much impossible for a state to impose total war against attackers, or ever really engage in traditional war. This gives the attackers a huge advantage in most cases. (Looks to Cuba :tongue:)

I do not believe that violent wars in the sense of countries destroying each other would be constructive. It would defeat the purpose of war as a tool of policy since a modern day World War would guarantee the destruction of states and not simply forcefully making them follow your will. (Not only would the military be destroyed but the governments the societies, even majorities of civilians, so what's the point?)


Since the state always strides to perserve itself it will never fight in wars that cause its self-destruction. This causes modern states to never attack full-force and is what is leading to a more technology/information run war (in my opinion of course).

I could write up a lot more but I haven't slept for 24 hours and my thoughts are all jumbled (you can probably tell reading this post) Maybe tomorrow night when I come on I'll fix up some ideas, if you have more questions then go ahead and shoot.:rofl:

Yeah, that's half of what I was thinking. The other half is that with the information age, we can influence policy on each other with smaller black-op missions, utilizing the information to pinpoint "weak" points. We have satelite data, logistics, we can figure out who's particularly responsible for bad policies (instead of blaming the whole country) and loads of other kinds of intel that we can send a team into confront.

What triggered this thought was the movie, Defiance, and the whole idea of WWII itself. I don't think anybody could get away with what Germany got away with back then.

 

[Jasongreat]

Would a violent war be constructive to anyone?
.

It would remove thousands maybe millions of peoples carbon footprint, some I'm sure would find that constructive.

 

[Proton Soup]

i guess it depends on which is more profitable to the bankers, war or peace

 

[Insanity]

Would a violent war be constructive to anyone?

War is not constructive, it is destructive.

 

[Sorry!]

The purpose of war is not to get more money Proton Soup. War is not a purpose to itself.

@Insanity, of course depending on which perspective you look at it from war can be constructive or destructive. What Pythagorean was asking is if a War fought to the max potential right now with use of physical force would be constructive to anyone. So I don't think your post is really relevant at all.

 

[russ_watters]

The purpose of war is not to get more money Proton Soup. War is not a purpose to itself.

What? Of course it is! A very large fraction of wars - probably most of them - are just grand, grand theft.

That isn't to say that Proton Soup's characterization is correct...

Regarding the topic on the OP, I think many of you are being far too creative here, including the OP. Too many Tom Clancy novels mabye. War is the most direct and effective way to make things happen in international politics. If something really needs to get done (where two countries disagree), war is the way it will get done. Spec ops and spies have limited capabilities.

Nuclear weapons are a double-edged sword. They are a big part of why we haven't had a major war between major global powers since WWII, but at the same time if it ever does happen that two nuclear powers have a serious war, it is highly likely that it would go nuclear. Such wars involve national survival and if your national survival is at stake, most of the downside to nuclear weapons goes away.

What triggered this thought was the movie, Defiance, and the whole idea of WWII itself. I don't think anybody could get away with what Germany got away with back then.

I'm not quite following - what does getting away with it have to do with the topic? Hitler didn't get away with it either, but WWII still happened. The last big war of theft was the 1991 Gulf War and Hussein didn't get away with it either. In both cases, they must have thought they could get away with it, but that may be more delusion than anything. Certainly, humans have not lost the capacity to be delusional.

The first Gulf War is an interesting case for this topic, though. Hussein had a huge international coalition against him, but his national survival was not at risk and he knew it. He was, perhaps, sane enough not to use WMDs because he knew that if he used them, his national survival might become at risk.

 

[rootX]

Wasn't there a long thread that has already discussed this possibility?

 

[russ_watters]

Wasn't there a long thread that has already discussed this possibility?

Once every six months to a year, yes.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm not quite following - what does getting away with it have to do with the topic? Hitler didn't get away with it either, but WWII still happened. The last big war of theft was the 1991 Gulf War and Hussein didn't get away with it either. In both cases, they must have thought they could get away with it, but that may be more delusion than anything.

Hitler did get away with it though. By it, I mean a very long genocide campaign. Perhaps "get away" is the wrong term. I simply meant that he was able to do it for a long time. I don't know if people didn't notice or didn't care or didn't want to sacrifice their own resources, but it took a while for other countries to get involved. My argument is that nowadays, the Jews could be twittering and facespacing everybody for help (of course, that wouldn't make as much of a difference if the reason for not getting involved is we didn't care or couldn't afford a rescue.)

So, to my original question, do you see any potential for a third world war? Any growing tensions between countries that are particularly unstable?

 

[Sorry!]

What? Of course it is! A very large fraction of wars - probably most of them - are just grand, grand theft.

That isn't to say that Proton Soup's characterization is correct...

Regarding the topic on the OP, I think many of you are being far too creative here, including the OP. Too many Tom Clancy novels mabye. War is the most direct and effective way to make things happen in international politics. If something really needs to get done (where two countries disagree), war is the way it will get done. Spec ops and spies have limited capabilities.

Nuclear weapons are a double-edged sword. They are a big part of why we haven't had a major war between major global powers since WWII, but at the same time if it ever does happen that two nuclear powers have a serious war, it is highly likely that it would go nuclear. Such wars involve national survival and if your national survival is at stake, most of the downside to nuclear weapons goes away. I'm not quite following - what does getting away with it have to do with the topic? Hitler didn't get away with it either, but WWII still happened. The last big war of theft was the 1991 Gulf War and Hussein didn't get away with it either. In both cases, they must have thought they could get away with it, but that may be more delusion than anything. Certainly, humans have not lost the capacity to be delusional.

The first Gulf War is an interesting case for this topic, though. Hussein had a huge international coalition against him, but his national survival was not at risk and he knew it. He was, perhaps, sane enough not to use WMDs because he knew that if he used them, his national survival might become at risk.

Well I'm going off the research I've done into War to write my paper before which included Tzu, Clausewitz, Mosely etc. What I'm trying to say in my post wasn't that wars don't generate money or bring income to a state I'm saying that the purpose of wars isn't to earn or lose money. It is just a political tool as you said to force your will physically over another state. I have never read Tom Clancy but I have read modern war philosophers and they all agree that 'total war' as defined by clausewitz will not be faught anymore. Guerilla warfare and information/technological warfare will take its place. (Of course though we can't say Clausewitz work is not important because he missed this aspect... it didn't really exist at his time, guerilla warfare wasn't really a big thing either then)

I guess the reason I said this all was because the OP had to do with 'large-scale' wars, which in my opinion will not take place through physical wars as it used to simply because it won't be worth it (to the attacking state)... Wars like Iraq and Afghanastan are not 'large-scale' wars. And obviously because they are not 'large-scale' wars countries like America do not need to maximize force in order to force their will onto the target. I do believe however that in order to accomplish this NATO forces will all have to use much much more force than they currently do but this is for another thread.

 

[Sorry!]

Hitler did get away with it though. By it, I mean a very long genocide campaign. Perhaps "get away" is the wrong term. I simply meant that he was able to do it for a long time. I don't know if people didn't notice or didn't care or didn't want to sacrifice their own resources, but it took a while for other countries to get involved. My argument is that nowadays, the Jews could be twittering and facespacing everybody for help (of course, that wouldn't make as much of a difference if the reason for not getting involved is we didn't care or couldn't afford a rescue.)

So, to my original question, do you see any potential for a third world war? Any growing tensions between countries that are particularly unstable?

It does still happen, just not in the 'first world' (IDK how else to put this). Darfur? Rwanda? South-Africa? No one has really gone to aid these situations anymore than they went to aid the Jews during the early phases of the Nazi regime. Research into Darfur I'm sure you will be surprised by what's going on there, even to this day...

I remember looking on google Earth satellite images of regions of Sudan... you can see villages completely destroyed and burnt down... No people around them at all... you can see the refugee camps THOUSANDS of little white tents you just see the tops of. When I saw these images it was the sadest thing I've ever seen really that is occurring right now during my life-time... and no one is doing anything really to put an end to anything.

 

[Pythagorean]

It does still happen, just not in the 'first world' (IDK how else to put this). Darfur? Rwanda? South-Africa? No one has really gone to aid these situations anymore than they went to aid the Jews during the early phases of the Nazi regime. Research into Darfur I'm sure you will be surprised by what's going on there, even to this day...

I remember looking on google Earth satellite images of regions of Sudan... you can see villages completely destroyed and burnt down... No people around them at all... you can see the refugee camps THOUSANDS of little white tents you just see the tops of. When I saw these images it was the sadest thing I've ever seen really that is occurring right now during my life-time... and no one is doing anything really to put an end to anything.

The research on Darfur has been interesting so far. But still, we're talking 6 million Jews in the genocide of WWII.

 

[Proton Soup]

Well I'm going off the research I've done into War to write my paper before which included Tzu, Clausewitz, Mosely etc. What I'm trying to say in my post wasn't that wars don't generate money or bring income to a state I'm saying that the purpose of wars isn't to earn or lose money. It is just a political tool as you said to force your will physically over another state. I have never read Tom Clancy but I have read modern war philosophers and they all agree that 'total war' as defined by clausewitz will not be faught anymore. Guerilla warfare and information/technological warfare will take its place. (Of course though we can't say Clausewitz work is not important because he missed this aspect... it didn't really exist at his time, guerilla warfare wasn't really a big thing either then)

I guess the reason I said this all was because the OP had to do with 'large-scale' wars, which in my opinion will not take place through physical wars as it used to simply because it won't be worth it (to the attacking state)... Wars like Iraq and Afghanastan are not 'large-scale' wars. And obviously because they are not 'large-scale' wars countries like America do not need to maximize force in order to force their will onto the target. I do believe however that in order to accomplish this NATO forces will all have to use much much more force than they currently do but this is for another thread.

well, whether or not you think people profit from wars (ladybird johnson, anyone? haliburton?), things often come to a head over resources. cutting off their oil got us into it with Japan. the Hutus attacked the Tutsis because of envy (the Tutsis were the upperclass ruling minority). Russia attacked Georgia because they don't like guys moving in on their turf (controlling the flow of petroleum out of the Caspian). Hitler made moves to acquire fuel and farmland. Khmer Rouge was not unlike the situation in Rwanda. all the wars against the Native Americans waged by the US government.

The research on Darfur has been interesting so far. But still, we're talking 6 million Jews in the genocide of WWII.

take a look at Samantha Power's book. the Rwandan genocide saw more people killed in a shorter time frame than any other in history, from a much smaller population.

 

[Sorry!]

The research on Darfur has been interesting so far. But still, we're talking 6 million Jews in the genocide of WWII.

This is true I don't want to send you on a massive search of different events in history but Proton Soup made mention of Rwandan Genocide.

The situation in Darfur isn't exactly 'comparable' to what Hitler did but they don't exactly have the technology or capabilities to perform such a large movement of people etc. etc. Mostly they ride into villages and kill everyone and destryo the village. I was just making reference to that situation because it is occurring right now. As well 6 million Jews I don't think were killed all within the beginning of the Nazi regimes influence... (I'm not saying Darfur will escalate to this type of situation only that other states didn't get involved with Nazi Germany at the beginning which in my opinion is quite comparable on different levels to Darfur at the moment)

 

[rcsstudent]

If there is any chance of a war, most of the situation will be tense negotiation and probably no need for actual troops as it would be much more cost-effective and just plain easier to nuke a country into oblivion. Also not many countries would be ready for such a war as only a few countries hold the majority of nuclear weaponry and at the same time have much better defense systems too.

 

[russ_watters]

Hitler did get away with it though. By it, I mean a very long genocide campaign. Perhaps "get away" is the wrong term. I simply meant that he was able to do it for a long time. I don't know if people didn't notice or didn't care or didn't want to sacrifice their own resources, but it took a while for other countries to get involved. My argument is that nowadays, the Jews could be twittering and facespacing everybody for help (of course, that wouldn't make as much of a difference if the reason for not getting involved is we didn't care or couldn't afford a rescue.)

We've allowed a number of genocides to happen right under our noses recently. The world has no more will to intervene now than it did then - perhaps even less.

So, to my original question, do you see any potential for a third world war? Any growing tensions between countries that are particularly unstable?

No. I gave a good reason already: one was the stabilizing influence of nuclear weapons. But also, for whatever reason, the large western countries that for hundreds (thousands?) of years had waged almost continuous war with each other decided to stop.

That may be due to people in the West seeming to have a lot less stomach for war than they used to.

 

[russ_watters]

Well I'm going off the research I've done into War to write my paper before which included Tzu, Clausewitz, Mosely etc. What I'm trying to say in my post wasn't that wars don't generate money or bring income to a state I'm saying that the purpose of wars isn't to earn or lose money.

Well often times it is exactly that.

It is just a political tool as you said to force your will physically over another state.

That doesn't necessarily disagree with me, does it? "Your will" can and often is just stealing the other country's money, oil wells, Lebensraum, etc.

Again, the first Gulf War and WWII are both clear-cut examples of this (WWII actually provides several examples).

I have never read Tom Clancy but I have read modern war philosophers...

I've never heard of any "modern warfare philosophers". Who are they?

...and they all agree that 'total war' as defined by clausewitz will not be faught anymore. Guerilla warfare and information/technological warfare will take its place. (Of course though we can't say Clausewitz work is not important because he missed this aspect... it didn't really exist at his time, guerilla warfare wasn't really a big thing either then)

I wouldn't be so quick to rule it out - I'm just saying it won't happen between major world powers or nuclear powers.

I guess the reason I said this all was because the OP had to do with 'large-scale' wars, which in my opinion will not take place through physical wars as it used to simply because it won't be worth it (to the attacking state)... Wars like Iraq and Afghanastan are not 'large-scale' wars. And obviously because they are not 'large-scale' wars countries like America do not need to maximize force in order to force their will onto the target. I do believe however that in order to accomplish this NATO forces will all have to use much much more force than they currently do but this is for another thread.

Point of clarification: "total war" doesn't specify that the war must be between major world powers, it is just about a country dedicating itself fully to the war. So, for example, the recent Gulf war was not a "total war" for the US or the allies, it most certainly was for Iraq.

Btw, there is even a wiki on the very subject of the OP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war#Postwar_era

 

[Sorry!]

Point of clarification: "total war" doesn't specify that the war must be between major world powers, it is just about a country dedicating itself fully to the war. So, for example, the recent Gulf war was not a "total war" for the US or the allies, it most certainly was for Iraq.

Btw, there is even a wiki on the very subject of the OP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war#Postwar_era

Total war is an unlimited battle. A state utilizes full force and ability against the other state in order to accomplish the objective. Which I guess means 'dedicating itself fully' but I'd rather define it more precisely... As well the reason I brought it up was because the OP talks about largescale wars between the super-powers of the world...(i never said that total war is only fought between superpowers) Iraq is far from a superpower so I do not know why Iraq fighting back matters to this discussion what matters here is America.

Yes this objective can be because they want such and such a resource but it is never fought for monetary gain (when I said this I was responding to Protons post about whatever profits the bank most; gaining new resources or land does not necessarily always mean more profit for anyone but the war will still be waged) This is because the war is about the will of the state...

EDIT: Just to clarify everything I've said in this post is about the OP not about 'total war' itself. So what I'm getting at is that yes, total war can still be fought by some states but they are not considered the 'powerful' states of the world; which is what the OP was about. In order for one 'powerful' state to go into a war as it is traditionally known they will definitely have to utilize total war or there is no point what-so-ever fighting. And since the state always strides for self-preservation it will never go into total war against another state that it knows will cause itself to be destroyed as well. (Even if they destroy the other state first the original states society government life-style everything would most likely get destroyed). It will cost too much for the state (not monetary value but a sort of 'life-value' of the state so to speak). This is why I bring up information/technology and guerilla warfare.

 

[russ_watters]

Total war is an unlimited battle. A state utilizes full force and ability against the other state in order to accomplish the objective. Which I guess means 'dedicating itself fully' but I'd rather define it more precisely... As well the reason I brought it up was because the OP talks about largescale wars between the super-powers of the world...(i never said that total war is only fought between superpowers) Iraq is far from a superpower so I do not know why Iraq fighting back matters to this discussion what matters here is America.

The OP was asking about WWIII, but was also asking about nuclear weapons. So it is important to the OP's question to clarify that a "total war" involving a nuclear power would by the definition of "total war" become a nuclear war.

At the same time, it is also probably worth pointing out that the first Gulf War had pretty much all of the signatures of WWII which makes it tough to distinguish from a "world war". The only real difference was that it was lopsided. But as far as Hussein was concerned, it stopped just short of a "total war" (that's a presumption that I'm not completely certain of - he could have tried to use WMDs unsuccessfully) and he committed almost all of his national resources to the fight.

Yes this objective can be because they want such and such a resource but it is never fought for monetary gain...

You keep saying that, but it is pretty obviously wrong. Besides the fact that resources and money are almost always the same thing*, the first Gulf War was, specifically about cash money. Hussein invaded Kuwait because he was in debt up to his eyeballs from the Iran-Iraq war and he was intending to steal Kuwait's oil for the money to bail him out.

*Btw, that's not a hair I'm intending to split. Many, many wars have been about land. Land is a resource that isn't always directly translateable into money, but it is still the same concept: war for theft. Ie, WWII was (simplisticly, yes) about land for Germany, oil for Japan.

So what I'm getting at is that yes, total war can still be fought by some states but they are not considered the 'powerful' states of the world; which is what the OP was about.

On that we are agreed.

In order for one 'powerful' state to go into a war as it is traditionally known they will definitely have to utilize total war or there is no point what-so-ever fighting.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The US has been involved in a number of wars since WWII and none have been "total wars" for us. All that is required for a war not to become a total war is for a country's national survival to not be at stake. It is even possible for superpowers to go to war against each other and keep it small. The "nice" thing about the proxy wars of the Cold War was that they allowed the US and the USSR to go to war against each other in locations and in ways that did not require total commitment.

It's been a while since I read Clausewitz, but I think his argument was simply that if a reason is worth going to war at all over, then it is worth making it a "total war". I'm not sure if this was ever really true, but it certainly hasn't been true in centuries.

And since the state always strides for self-preservation it will never go into total war against another state that it knows will cause itself to be destroyed as well. (Even if they destroy the other state first the original states society government life-style everything would most likely get destroyed). It will cost too much for the state (not monetary value but a sort of 'life-value' of the state so to speak). This is why I bring up information/technology and guerilla warfare.

Never knowingly. And that's a huge caveat that covers pretty much every agressor to ever lose a total war ever. People don't start wars they don't expect they can win.

 

[Pythagorean]

Thank you for your input everyone. My curiosity is sated.

 

[WhoWee]

It seems this discussion has been wrapped, but I've been away.

The nuclear super powers are like billionaires sitting at a $100 limit black jack table, where the Iran, North Korea, and all the other pathetic (I want a nuke) groups are playing with their last dollar on the table. The little guys can't possibly "win", but they're willing to bluff and do everything possible to stay at the table.

I think the threat from terrorist groups is limited, but very real - all out massive exchanges between the US and Russia now highly unlikely. China, on the other hand, may become very irrational if faced with significant economic loss.

If Obama continues on his current path of apologizing for US strength and accomplishment, treating terrorists as common criminals and spending money like a teenager - I give us a 60% chance of survival beyond the next 2 decades.