How likely is another world war?

[MetalDog]

An article I stumbled across, giving reason and rationale for the pros and cons, comparing conditions before WWI and today. 


http://news.msn.com/world/just-how-likely-is-another-world-war-1

[Gusington]

There's an article right in my wheelhouse, thanks for posting. Will get a chance to actually read it later.

EDIT: great article, but I am still undecided how likely WWIII is. I am going to stick with 'not likely.' Smaller wars around the world will continue to smolder, though.

[MetalDog]

Any time I see WWI, it's you I think of.

[Gusington]

Thank you, Sir. Note too that I don't always game or read WWI, but when I do I typically shed tears.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

There's an article right in my wheelhouse, thanks for posting. Will get a chance to actually read it later.

EDIT: great article, but I am still undecided how likely WWIII is. I am going to stick with 'not likely.' Smaller wars around the world will continue to smolder, though.

The Gus has it.

I think the world powers will avoid it or turn off a big set piece war ASAP.
IMO the putin is playing a game of prisoner's dilemma where he thinks he can occasionally go for the big win. The punishment is expected to be less than the value of the win.

So the west has to make it clear the punishment is more expensive. That risks a retaliation as in a short war that could get out of hand. My bet, is like Gus, it will be controlled.

[Gusington]

Remember though, as the article states, politicians and generals felt similarly in 1914. Let's see what we all think 25 years from now. I know in 1989 I didn't think the world would look like this.

[SirAndrewD]

In the near term?  Unlikely.

In the long term? Inevitable.  6,000 years of human history can't be wrong.

Peace is a hypothetical state of affairs, the existence of which we deduce only because there have been intervals between wars.

[Gusington]

^Can't the opposite also be possible? Wars are only interruptions of peace?

[Staggerwing]

You're an Old World Romantic at heart, aren't you Gus?

[Gusington]

This may not be that popular to say on a wargaming site but I do not think war is a natural state. Well...it's not my normal state, anyway.

[Steelgrave]

This may not be that popular to say on a wargaming site but I do not think war is a natural state. Well...it's not my normal state, anyway.

Wargaming site or not, Gus....I don't see how you can look at thousands of years of human history and reach that conclusion.

[Gusington]

I'm not saying there's not a lot of war, I'm saying it's not a normal state of affairs.

[GDS_Starfury]

Can you name or point out a 6 month gap during the last 300 years whern there wasnt a war?

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

This may not be that popular to say on a wargaming site but I do not think war is a natural state. Well...it's not my normal state, anyway.

Wargaming site or not, Gus....I don't see how you can look at thousands of years of human history and reach that conclusion.

My understanding, which Gus can refine, is that up until Nappy's levee en masse, wars were not understood by the people as the whole country's resources being used for destroying an opponent. They tended to be limited to fighting men from one state against those of another. Nor was it expected that both winner and loser states would be totally trashed. Ghengis Khan killing everyone in cities that resisted was a bit different.

So I tend to think that modern war, with the current power of weapons will be seen as too high a price. I tend to think the stated NATO will not fight for Ukraine is a bit about getting Puta to show his spots. When modern war is about to go all out all sides will look for an out. Both sides will have to get a bit bloody to prove they are at that point.

The only way a real war between big powers will go forward now is if one side comes up with the tech to totally defeat ICBMs. Then it will be a case of 'make them pay for their past transgressions.' That tech will probably be scramjet >mach 10 from subs.

[LongBlade]

This may not be that popular to say on a wargaming site but I do not think war is a natural state. Well...it's not my normal state, anyway.

Wargaming site or not, Gus....I don't see how you can look at thousands of years of human history and reach that conclusion.

My understanding, which Gus can refine, is that up until Nappy's levee en masse, wars were not understood by the people as the whole country's resources being used for destroying an opponent. They tended to be limited to fighting men from one state against those of another. Nor was it expected that both winner and loser states would be totally trashed. Ghengis Khan killing everyone in cities that resisted was a bit different.

Wellll...sort of.

We probably need to clean up our definitions. Was it a "war" when one native American tribe attacked another and carried off a few squaws?

I'm not saying there is a definitive answer, but it does depend on the time, place, and definitions we use.

In war there have always been norms which could be used to advantage or disregarded at either (or both) side's discretion. There was a time when the hordes out of Asia would demand the surrender of a town, and if it failed, the town was put to the sword. Was that normal? If you were a European west of the Rhein, then yeah, at any moment they could come sweeping off the steppes. It wasn't done often, but when it happened...game over.

The optimists in us yearns for peace and enjoys our quiet times when all we have to worry about is our jobs, our families, and the weather. And that probably constitutes the majority of time.

To Star's point: there is always some form of conflict somewhere in the world. But...North America and Europe sleep soundly tonight knowing they are secure and have been for half a century. Yes, the threat of war loomed over the Cold War - but it never got hot. At least never got hot outside of the proxy states. The primary participants lived in security.

So it comes back to what definitions we use. *Somewhere* someone is shooting at someone else on a group level. Does that mean we, personally, are at war? No. At least not by my definition.

So IMHO peace is a natural state, but with the constant reminder that it could end - with or without warning.

Si vis pacem para bellum.