Senate Is a WW3 upon us?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by The Star Wars Archivist, Nov 14, 2013.

  1. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Although I note that, um, interesting prior to WWI an economist, whose name escapes me, made a similar argument. I'm comfortable enough that the passage of time has altered the world enough that that thesis is more true than it was before. Just illustrating it's not a flawless proposition.
    DarthBoba likes this.
  2. SithLordDarthRichie London CR

    Chapter Rep
    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2003
    star 8
    There isn't enough hostility now for there to be a WW3. Sure Europe & the US don't always get on, but neither really wants conflict and they couldn't really afford it. The West's on-going conflicts in the Middle East are not enough IMO to cause another global war. Iran is a problem, and a war between it and Israel may happen that would result in various nations taking sides. But even that is unlikely to lead to global war, China & Russia are not keen on conflict with the US & Europe and would most likely abandon their questionable allies like North Korea and Iran if they had to.

    Nuclear weapons have really been anti-weapons since they were first used at the end of WW2. They are far more powerful now than they ones dropped on Japan and I think any nation that has them fears what using one will do. They don't want the deaths of so many people on them (not just the ones killed by the bombs but also generations affected by the radiation), plus the retaliation of bombing a powerful nation like the US would be severe and that really isn't worth it. What use is striking a blow at the enemy if it leads to the destruction of your own nation and people?
    Last edited by SithLordDarthRichie, Nov 18, 2013
  3. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    I honestly think it's naive to assume that the deterrent against war is casualties inflicted on the other side. There's simply nothing to back that assertion up. In any war, the number killed may add to war weariness in the modern age but the stakes of the conflict are much smaller.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  4. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    The deterrent against war is casualties inflicted on your own side. Once the bodybags start piling in, people will take to the streets.
    Which incidentally is the problem I see with drone warfare.
  5. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    I think that's only true some of the time. For example, Russia's extremely high casualties in WWI basically led to the Russian Revolution, but in WWII there was no uprising against Stalin. Similarly, North Vietnam was willing to sustain huge casualties in the Vietnam War, as was Japan in WWII, China in WWII and the Korean War, and Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Also, America was willing to sustain a lot more casualties in WWII, whereas today a death toll in the double digits would be considered extremely high.

    As for World War 3, I don't see it happening. If we go to war against Syria, Iran or North Korea, Russia and China are probably not going to intervene militarily. The worst scenario I can imagine is if the U.S. fights China as a result of some dispute between China and Japan, but even then it's an open question as to what extent the conflict might escalate to. I can't imagine either side would want to see destruction on the scale of the last world war, so that might be incentive for leaders on both sides to avoid escalation.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  6. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    I think it's worth noting that the media plays a significant role in those concepts about war weariness seeping in after "your side" takes casualties. Before we had mass media and embedded journalism, war was more remote to the person in the street than it is now. They aren't seeing image after image of carnage and destruction.

    It's also linked, I believe, to the fall-back ratios employed by the big powers i.e. the willingness to retreat is higher thanks to media.
  7. Heavy Isotope Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 10, 2013
    star 3
    Speaking of asymmetrical wars and regional conflicts would anyone consider that proxy wars are a facade for an actual WW3. Specifically I'm referring to the situations in Libya and Syria. But also Iran-Iraq could be an example as well. Where smaller powers are backed by larger ones and the battles are fought by other countries. Although continuing that train of thought would likely lead more to a discussion of a war industrial complex, which isn't the point here.

    Anothrr point is that many of the big players which would come about in WW3 can do a lot of damage with little military conflict. For example US naval dominance can shut down ports around the globe easily, Iran can blockade the main oil shipping lane, and of course Russia and US have large nuclear arsenals and militaries which will likely be used for posturing and bargaining chips.

    I myself am scared of nuclear war same as you. But I don't think a conventional WW3 is possible, nor global nuclear conflict because to restate an earlier point, there is no gain in it. Once the warheads are sent then it really is over, whatever point or victory people were trying to make becomes pointless even before they would impact. As I was saying, I think anything that looks like it is leading to WW3 will be a stalemate because many vital commodities and trade will come to a halt, which then becomes attrition and posturing, then eventually compromise.
    Last edited by Heavy Isotope, Nov 19, 2013
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  8. Jedi Ben Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 19, 1999
    star 6
    You're effectively describing the practice of MAD re: deterring nuclear war.
  9. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Isotope, I don't think you can rightly claim to share "our" concerns about nuclear war. Most people don't consider it and in here we're all firm adherents, it seems, in MAD.

    Also, I would not call the war in Syria or conflict over Iran proxy world wars, and neither should you.
  10. Heavy Isotope Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 10, 2013
    star 3
    Why not? (To both questions.)

    And when you say MAD do you mean EUCOM?
  11. Jedi Ben Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 19, 1999
    star 6
    Nope, Mutually Assured Destruction.

    For either war to count as a proxy means answering the question: Proxy for which states or organisations? And why do they need to resort to this method of conflict in the first place?
  12. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    What Ben said. The Syrian uprising was a domestic revolt against the Assad regime. It's not organised, directed, funded and armed by a third party state.
    DarthBoba likes this.
  13. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    I'm not sure we've really had a proxy war in living memory, in all honesty. I mean, I'm sure Russia and China liked to think of Vietnam as their proxy, but Ho had other ideas on that one :p
  14. Game3525 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2008
    star 4
    No, major powers are now too connected in terms of the world economy. You will see regional/smaller conflicts, but large scales wars are a thing of the past.
    Last edited by Game3525, Nov 21, 2013
  15. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Mmm, maybe...but there's also been a trend for the past few decades in that there are simply fewer wars, and fewer people that are dying in wars. The world's actually become a much less violent place since the Second World War. It just doesn't feel that way because "what bleeds, leads" and therefore the media is biased towards gloom and doom stories.

    Blockade is an act of war, as you should know from the Cuban Missile Crisis. But since the U.S. is so much more powerful than just about any other country, it would be a fairly short war...in other words, not World War III.
    DarthBoba likes this.