4 ms·

but the scuffles were not direct confrontations between the armed forces of the superpowers (the nukes held them back, they were afraid of a possible escalation

but the scuffles were not direct confrontations between the armed forces of the superpowers (the nukes held them back, they were afraid of a possible escalation); the wars were always in far-off places between proxies (or that the other side was a proxy)

freeflight 9y ago
I don't consider proxy wars to be "better wars", I'd consider them even worse than conventional warfare because it's people, sometimes whole nations, dying for somebodies else cause.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  " dying for somebodies else cause." False. 'Proxy wars' is a misleading title. The Korean war was not a 'proxy war' it was a real war, that happened to also be a proxy for other powers. Country A does not fight random country B for no reason. They are generally real conflicts where their actions may happen to have geostragetic alignment with other powers.
  - freeflight 9y ago
    > Country A does not fight random country B for no reason. No, they usually don't. But countries, nations, and people often have very long lasting disagreements. Instrumentalizing those, for another "bigger" cause isn't really that hard of a task for the far more influential and powerful countries C and D. C and D end up supplying A and B with money, weapons, training and sometimes even direct manpower. The result is usually a conflict that escalates much more quickly in scope and severity than it would have without the involvement of C and D.
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  they are still better than what WWIII would look like
Spooky23 9y ago
A century of suffering in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia is the consequence of those little wars.
- nkozyra 9y ago
  These predate the US-USSR cold war, though. They're rooted in good old fashioned colonial exploitation.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    The Soviets distributed kalashnikovs, rpgs and other weapons with missionary zeal to attain world communism. The US did all sorts of nasty stuff. The outcome is a tire fire that will burn for my lifetime at least.

freeflight 9y ago

I don't consider proxy wars to be "better wars", I'd consider them even worse than conventional warfare because it's people, sometimes whole nations, dying for somebodies else cause.

alexasmyths 9y ago
" dying for somebodies else cause." False. 'Proxy wars' is a misleading title. The Korean war was not a 'proxy war' it was a real war, that happened to also be a proxy for other powers. Country A does not fight random country B for no reason. They are generally real conflicts where their actions may happen to have geostragetic alignment with other powers.
- freeflight 9y ago
  > Country A does not fight random country B for no reason. No, they usually don't. But countries, nations, and people often have very long lasting disagreements. Instrumentalizing those, for another "bigger" cause isn't really that hard of a task for the far more influential and powerful countries C and D. C and D end up supplying A and B with money, weapons, training and sometimes even direct manpower. The result is usually a conflict that escalates much more quickly in scope and severity than it would have without the involvement of C and D.
throwaway2048 9y ago
they are still better than what WWIII would look like

Spooky23 9y ago

A century of suffering in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia is the consequence of those little wars.

nkozyra 9y ago
These predate the US-USSR cold war, though. They're rooted in good old fashioned colonial exploitation.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  The Soviets distributed kalashnikovs, rpgs and other weapons with missionary zeal to attain world communism. The US did all sorts of nasty stuff. The outcome is a tire fire that will burn for my lifetime at least.