Is some form of world war still possible in this day and age?

[ngatimozart]

The questions you raised could be classified as psy ops, maybe. I'd love a section on this forum of that, as I think it would be interesting to bounce ideas off each other.

For now, I think we should digress back to the thread topic =p

All of you have made some very valid points but I think one of the threats to security at the moment rests within the US and Europe. That is the lack of willingness or inability to deal to current economic crises. The EU is on the face of it attempting to deal with the sovereign debt issue that has arisen around Greece and possibly Italy. But on the other hand the US is not doing anything about its debt issue and there is uncertainty about US defence budgets and how deep will defence be cut. Some commentators have made the point that US lawmakers are only concerned about where to put the line in the US deficit around the US$14.7 - US$15 trillion mark. What is not happening is US politicians and government actually addressing the deficit itself and the fundamental issues that are driving said deficit higher. There is no silver bullet, one quick solution to the problem and as long as it remains unaddressed IMHO it is an increasing national security issue for the US.

The US has a large military with expensive equipment and very large overheads. At the moment some doubt whether it is up to fighting 2 wars as is its doctrine. They are having to reduce both personnel and equipment. Replacement programs for old equipment have been cut. There have been reports of civilian spouses of in theatre combat personnel having to go on the food stamps because the pay is not good. All of this saps the morale of your service personnel, and it also impinges upon recruits for an all volunteer force. In times of economic hardship the forces are seen as a good option when work is hard to find, but its not a good look when your people back home like wife & kids for example are having to take welfare to survive whilst your dodging bullets.

So if there is a major conflagration involving the US or more pointedly say the invocation of ANZUS, for example, the question has to be asked; given the current level of US debt and the apparent lack of substantive political will to address the fundamental issues pertaining to said debt, will the US have the cash to fight a war in the Pacific and another say in Europe or the Middle East at the same time as per current doctrine?

Now at the present point in time I would argue this would equally apply to Europe as well. Yes they fielded a force in Libya, but most, if not all, of the EU nations and NATO members are having financial difficulties and are cutting militaries. So same question, do they have the cash to field a reasonable force?

Just something else to throw into the mix.

 

[rip]

All of you have made some very valid points but I think one of the threats to security at the moment rests within the US and Europe. That is the lack of willingness or inability to deal to current economic crises. The EU is on the face of it attempting to deal with the sovereign debt issue that has arisen around Greece and possibly Italy. But on the other hand the US is not doing anything about its debt issue and there is uncertainty about US defence budgets and how deep will defence be cut. Some commentators have made the point that US lawmakers are only concerned about where to put the line in the US deficit around the US$14.7 - US$15 trillion mark. What is not happening is US politicians and government actually addressing the deficit itself and the fundamental issues that are driving said deficit higher. There is no silver bullet, one quick solution to the problem and as long as it remains unaddressed IMHO it is an increasing national security issue for the US.

The US has a large military with expensive equipment and very large overheads. At the moment some doubt whether it is up to fighting 2 wars as is its doctrine. They are having to reduce both personnel and equipment. Replacement programs for old equipment have been cut. There have been reports of civilian spouses of in theatre combat personnel having to go on the food stamps because the pay is not good. All of this saps the morale of your service personnel, and it also impinges upon recruits for an all volunteer force. In times of economic hardship the forces are seen as a good option when work is hard to find, but its not a good look when your people back home like wife & kids for example are having to take welfare to survive whilst your dodging bullets.

So if there is a major conflagration involving the US or more pointedly say the invocation of ANZUS, for example, the question has to be asked; given the current level of US debt and the apparent lack of substantive political will to address the fundamental issues pertaining to said debt, will the US have the cash to fight a war in the Pacific and another say in Europe or the Middle East at the same time as per current doctrine?

Now at the present point in time I would argue this would equally apply to Europe as well. Yes they fielded a force in Libya, but most, if not all, of the EU nations and NATO members are having financial difficulties and are cutting militaries. So same question, do they have the cash to field a reasonable force?

Just something else to throw into the mix.

Though everything you say is true I have seen many crises come and go where no one at the time anyone could see a solution and yet the world is still here. People will be hurt, people are being hurt, progress slowed, dreams deferred if not abandoned but do not confuse a loss of comfort be it physical or mental with survival.

What effects will it they will have upon national security? As far as it concerns nation to nation security it can be summed up as that it diminishes everyone to some degree and is not likely to be a deciding factor. The Great World Wide Depression of the 1930’s didn’t stop WW II from happening. But its effect on the internal dynamic of countries could be, is some cases, dramatic. Would Hitler have come to power without the economic collapse of Germany?

The difference between a normal economy and a war-time economy is the consumption part of the demand verses supply equation. The demand for war materials is unlimited while the consumption of normal goods by people is very limited by war time demands. During the war there is a shortage of labor and everyone has a job. There is very little to spend their money on so it is saved for a later day. After the war there is great pent-up demand for consumer goods which is fueled by savings and not credit. And so the economy then booms for a while. A time where the danger then becomes inflation which can be controlled by governmental monetary policy and not deflation which we are facing now. A condition for which there are few governmental tools to adequately address.

In short, if we are talking about a major war like a possible WW III I do not think that the current economic crises would be a significant factor.

 

[Sampanviking]

I do have to agree with a number of recent statements and I would summarise them in my own way.

Currently global competition is within a system and although more wobbly due to massive and largely unplanned restructuring, is still relatively stable.
We hear great powers being referred to as Stakeholders, but I think simple old fashioned Shareholders is closer to the mark. It that sense "competition" between powers is just good old Board Room Battles, where the executives struggle for influence and control of Global Inc.

As long as Global Inc holds true, things should be fine, if however it should fail and fall apart, you then have a vacuum that all players will seek to fill and to do so aggressively.

 

[rip]

I do have to agree with a number of recent statements and I would summarise them in my own way.

Currently global competition is within a system and although more wobbly due to massive and largely unplanned restructuring, is still relatively stable.
We hear great powers being referred to as Stakeholders, but I think simple old fashioned Shareholders is closer to the mark. It that sense "competition" between powers is just good old Board Room Battles, where the executives struggle for influence and control of Global Inc.

As long as Global Inc holds true, things should be fine, if however it should fail and fall apart, you then have a vacuum that all players will seek to fill and to do so aggressively.

I think competition is good. Is this a value judgment based upon my culture and experience, yes it is? I have seen many benefits from competition in my life both in technology, science, commerce, and even in the field of politics. Who will get to the moon first. But there must be rules that limited the ways and types of competition which can be conducted and they must be enforced equally be they for big players as well as for small.

Then the trick is what kind of rules gives the maximum gain for everybody over time (that is; what set of rules allows people to be the best that they can be, at whatever they are best at doing) with the least cost coming from the rules. There are always costs that come with rules even with very good rules, nothing in this world is free. And whatever point that is, it is always shifting as the world around the rules constantly changes. So they have to adjust but one of the benefits of having rules is stability. Nothing is easy.

The world economy is changing very fast and no one understands it and we may need new rules. The rules are not keeping up but I do not have any great ideas of my own to make them better. I certainly do not want to go back to centralized top down economic control. We all know that that doesn’t work and crushing the international trading system of almost free trade could only make things worse.

 

[surpreme]

As the current situation unfold is there any other defense treaty like NATO? no. That why I don't see a world war happening again anytime soon. Unless China, Pakistan, Iran, N Korea, Russia, and Brazil join alliance highly unlikely.

 

[The Scholar]

If you're referring to a conventional war on the same scale as the First or Second World War, in that all of the major world-powers are involved in total war, divided among two opposing alliances. The simple answer is no. The concept of deterrence as introduced during the Cold War prevents any major conventional conflicts, as any major conventional gains between world powers would either be prevented by or -if successful- followed by a retaliatory nuclear response. The World will not see another conventional war of that magnitude.

 

[assymmetric]

Yes, I think it is very likely that there will be another world war, though it is true that nuclear arsenal reduces the chance that any moment a war could break out. The nuclear deterrence is effective, but it is not necessarily true that a strong conventional war between major powers would be viewed by both sides as a prelude to a nuclear option. The reason being, that even before nuclear arsenals came into the picture, we didn't imagine our war with Japan would escalate to the point of firebombing the civilian population. I don't think anybody truly imagined we would evolve into the systematic destruction/burning of millions of civilians. Likewise, I think there is this naive thought that we have a higher control over ourselves then we really do. North Korea must have believed that they could torpedo a South Korean submarine without a nuclear response from the U.S., and they were right. But it would be easy to see how South Korea or the U.S. could have hit back, and eventually things escalate into a full scale war. A few mistakes here and there, by luck, major powers enter into it. Everybody may think they would never revert to nuclear weapons, and because of this thought, whether it is an accurate thought or not, the war escalates. And perhaps nuclear weapons are assumed not to be an option, as North Korea assumed there would not be a nuclear response, and as Iran has assumed that we wouldn't use a nuke to take out there sites. Because of the lack of serious notion to use the nuke, nations may assume they will not be used, and as a result, wars can escalate, rapidly. I think another major world war is likely within our lifetime. It may be a major conventional war, with everybody knowing the rules--no nukes. Humans have shown incredible restraint when it comes to fighting. I have seen heated fights with the fist, but no groin shots or eye pokes despite the heat of the moment--knowing the rules instinctively.

 

[STURM]

And perhaps nuclear weapons are assumed not to be an option, as North Korea assumed there would not be a nuclear response, and as Iran has assumed that we wouldn't use a nuke to take out there sites.

The big difference between both countries is that though North Korea may not have missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, she has nuclear devices that can be used for retaliation against U.S. forces in South Korea, assuming these are not destroyed in a U.S. strike. With Iran its different as many would agree that she hasn't even decided to have a nukes programme but is only ensuring that it has the capability to do so if a decision was made and therefore can't retaliate with nukes. Which begs the question - shouldn't the U.S. be devoting greater attention to North Korea rather than Iran and which country presents the greater 'danger' and 'threat'? Or, is the difference in treatment and approach driven by the fact that North Korea has the means to retaliate? And if Gaddafi had not given up his WMD programme some years ago and had made progress in developing nuclear tipped missiles, would the West have been so keen to intervene in Libya last year?

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYWKmQa_OJQ"]Living with a Nuclear Iran | Robert Kaplan - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[hauritz]

We all live in a global economy. It is unlikely that China would declare war on the west since its own economy is absolutely dependant on trade ... and visa versa.

Resource wars are always a possibility. In fact you could probably make the claim that most wars are resource wars.

The superpowers squaring off in the middle east over the last of the oil reserves remains a possibility I guess.

 

[exported_kiwi]

We all live in a global economy. It is unlikely that China would declare war on the west since its own economy is absolutely dependant on trade ... and visa versa.

Resource wars are always a possibility. In fact you could probably make the claim that most wars are resource wars.

The superpowers squaring off in the middle east over the last of the oil reserves remains a possibility I guess.

But are the last of the oil reserves in the ME? Brazil has discovered large fields. I think I read somewhere that there are more in the southern oceans as well....correct me if I'm misinformed please.

The US has it's oil shale and Canada has it's oil sands.

I think, if it's over resources, oil will not be a significant player. It'll more likely be over unpolluted arable/grazable land as well drinkable fresh water, after all, we cannot eat or drink oil. Yes, we are used to living with products made from oil but, they're conveniences more than necessities when it comes down to survival.

If anything is initiated in the ME, it'll probably be of an ideological or religious issue. These things seem to be more of an issue over that way, especially now that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt appears to have one that election with the army still holding sway over things.
I think initiating a war is more emotive than anything else...who has the biggest and best sort of thing.......

......your thoughts on this folks?

 

[assymmetric]

But are the last of the oil reserves in the ME? Brazil has discovered large fields. I think I read somewhere that there are more in the southern oceans as well....correct me if I'm misinformed please.

The US has it's oil shale and Canada has it's oil sands.

I think, if it's over resources, oil will not be a significant player. It'll more likely be over unpolluted arable/grazable land as well drinkable fresh water, after all, we cannot eat or drink oil. Yes, we are used to living with products made from oil but, they're conveniences more than necessities when it comes down to survival.

If anything is initiated in the ME, it'll probably be of an ideological or religious issue. These things seem to be more of an issue over that way, especially now that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt appears to have one that election with the army still holding sway over things.
I think initiating a war is more emotive than anything else...who has the biggest and best sort of thing.......

......your thoughts on this folks?

It is also for political reasons. Often when a leader declares war on a country, his favorability % goes up. As long as there is politics, I think this will serve as motivation for a small war, which can quickly escalate into a major worldwide conflict.

 

[ngatimozart]

Take a look in asia. A lot of countries is in tension at that area and at any minute war could erupt.

What would you base this startling piece of analysis on? Methinks you need to add your reasons why you think war could erupt any minute. Also the mods do not like one liners and tend to get a bit cranky about them.