8 ms·

The chances of developed nations going to war with each other over dwindling resources is extremely close to zero.

by jlmorton 9y ago

robotresearcher 9y ago
Surely given a long enough time window it approaches one?
- lostapathy 9y ago
  The relevant time window here is the service life of the F-35, which is probably under 50 years and I'd say the relevant probability is still approaching zero on that timescale.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  Only if you assume the concept of "nation" will outlast the concept of "war". There are a number of reasons to believe that the future of warfare will look much more like Syria, i.e. states implode from within and then break apart into a number of warring factions, each fighting over territory & resources within the carcass of the state. Actually, most of the bloodiest 20th century conflicts were of this type (eg. Russian & Chinese civil wars, Rwandan genocide & Congo Wars, civil wars in Nigeria/Sudan/Ethiopia), and historically the highest death tolls have usually occurred in civil wars where an empire breaks up or in conquests when a much more developed power invades a less-developed power (eg. Mongol conquests or European conquest of America). WW2 was a historical anomaly in that it was fought between developed nations. It's an anomaly we pay a lot of attention to, though, because it led to the current international system of American hegemony and history tends to get written by the victors.
  - ManFromUranus 9y ago
    Syria's "implosion" didn't just fall out of the sky, it was induced by the US and it's allies as a means to oust Assad. Nobody disputes that, the only thing in dispute is whether or not the ends justify the means, meaning is ousting Assad a desirable end that justifies the current proxy war or not.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      > Syria's "implosion" didn't just fall out of the sky, it was induced by the US and it's allies as a means to oust Assad. A bunch of Syrians (peacefully) protested Assad's power. He started killing people. The protests stayed peaceful for months, but eventually, the protesters got tired of getting killed, and the violence turned into a civil war. That wasn't "induced" by the US. > Nobody disputes that... False.
  - jcranmer 9y ago
    > WW2 was a historical anomaly in that it was fought between developed nations. It's an anomaly we pay a lot of attention to, though, because it led to the current international system of American hegemony and history tends to get written by the victors. Because major historical powers like Rome, China, Mayans, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Britain never fought any wars against other powers that were at their same level of development. Oh, wait, all of them did. The anomaly is the past two centuries or so, which have been the most peaceful times on record, particularly between major powers. (Since the Napoleonic Wars, the sum total is Crimean War, Mexican-American War, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War, Spanish-American War, Russo-Japanese War, World War I, Russian Civil War, World War II [noting that there's a lot of related conflicts getting summed up here], Korean War, maybe War of the Pacific and the Russo-Turkish Wars). Compare that to the Early Modern, which is replete with constant conflict on Europe: 18th century alone has Great Northern War, War of Spanish Succession, War of Austrian Succession, Seven Years' War, American Revolution, and the French Revolutionary Wars, all of which were far nastier than the brief wars in the 19th century (save the American Civil War and the Napoleonic Wars).
    - nostrademons 9y ago
      Take a look at the list of wars by death toll: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll Categorized into great power wars (between well-defined states of roughly equal power levels), civil wars (where a single state breaks up into multiple factions that then fight each other), rebellions (where a state breaks up, but into an asymmetric power balance between one province and the rest of the state), and conquests (where a much more developed power - at least in terms of military technology - invades and destroys a less-developed one) and ordered by death toll, you have: WW2 (great power) Mongol conquests (conquest) Three Kingdoms war (civil) Qing conquest of Ming (rebellion, against backdrop of civil) Spanish conquest of Aztecs (conquest) Taiping rebellion (rebellion) Second Sino-Japanese war (great power, but against the backdrop of the Chinese Civil War) An-Lushan rebellion (rebellion) Germanic wars vs. Rome (effectively a civil war in that Roman territory was breaking up and many of the adversaries were trained in the Roman army, but you can quibble about this) WW1 (great power) Conquests of Timur (?) Dungan Revolt (rebellion) Chinese Civil War (civil) Spanish conquest of Incas (conquest) Reconquista (great power?) Russian Civil War (civil) Thirty Years War (civil - breakup of Holy Roman Empire) Ottoman Wars (great power) Moorish Wars (great power) Napoleonic Wars (great power) Mughal-Maratha Wars (?) Yellow-Turban Rebellion (rebellion) Second Congo War (civil) French Wars of Religion (civil) Indian Rebellion of 1857 (rebellion) Hundred Years War (great power) Vietnam War (civil, but with great power involvement) Crusades (great power) Readers can draw the conclusion they like from that data, but to my eyes - if you exclude WW2, civil wars and conquests end up killing far more people and remaking the map more than great power conflicts.
  - nordsieck 9y ago
    > There are a number of reasons to believe that the future of warfare will look much more like Syria If we're going to fight in 3rd world countries, we need more A-10's and Super Tucano's and less F-35's. Part of the F-35's justification is that it's supposed be able to go head to head with other 1st world nations airforces.
Cyph0n 9y ago
The last catastrophic war took place less than 90 years ago. In addition, the developed world has been "at peace" for only about 40 years (end of Cold War => MAD). These are but rounding errors in the ~5000 year history of advanced civilization.
- Retric 9y ago
  Looking though history major civilizations rarely fight their equals. The world wars had a lot more to do with mechanized nations dominating their neighbors than you might think. Consider Japan crushed China and Germany crushed the majority of Europe. Those where not fights among equals. Step back further and India and China both lost a fight with England. That's the kind of fighting that's appealing to first world nations, lot's of resources minimal effort.
  - notfromhere 9y ago
    That's a hindsight analysis, and not very useful for planning in the future. Germans v Russia was a fight among equals and the Germans lost.
    - Retric 9y ago
      I don't think Germany considered Russia even close to it's equal, and 1 vs 1 Russia without massive outside aid and unusual weather it would likely have folded quickly. Japan attacking the US is a better argument, but the US was not exactly neutral either. Anyway, I am not saying you're wrong, just that history is vastly more complex than just looking at the relative sizes of each nation on a map.
      - greedo 9y ago
        Even without US aid via Lend Lease, the only chance the Germans had against the USSR was if they had managed to capture Moscow and Stalingrad quickly. Once they failed to do so in the fall of '42, their fate was sealed. The Russian economy and population was too large and strong. The Germans were at the long end of a logistical tail, and weather in Russia (as Bonaparte found out as well) is a bitch. The only thing that would have saved Germany was if Japan had fought the Russians in the Far East. But after the Battle of Khalkhyn Gol (1939) where the Soviets handily defeated the Japanese, this wasn't going to happen.
wazoox 9y ago
The war in Syria is mostly about bringing gas from the Persian Gulf to Europe. The civil war in Ukraine is mostly about bringing Russian gas to Europe, too. So the developed nations are already at war over resources, though not yet against each other.
jotm 9y ago
Not this century, maybe.
knieveltech 9y ago
How do you categorize the series of multi-state "police actions" and the current goat rodeo in Syria, if not nation-states squabbling over resources?
skywhopper 9y ago
That was the conventional wisdom before World War I... and World War II. But you may be right in that the war will actually be over something much stupider than dwindling resources.
ManFromUranus 9y ago
We already have that occurring right now in Syria, US and its allies are fighting a proxy war for Syria's resources. If the US wins then Israel will likely annex huge swathes of Syrian territory in some kind of "security zone" and begin pumping oil immediately. If Russia wins, then Syria remains independent and Russia benefits somehow, perhaps with steep discount out for the next 50 years.
greedo 9y ago
People said almost the same thing verbatim before WW1...

The chances of developed nations going to war with each other over dwindling resources is extremely close to zero.

robotresearcher 9y ago

Surely given a long enough time window it approaches one?

lostapathy 9y ago
The relevant time window here is the service life of the F-35, which is probably under 50 years and I'd say the relevant probability is still approaching zero on that timescale.
nostrademons 9y ago
Only if you assume the concept of "nation" will outlast the concept of "war". There are a number of reasons to believe that the future of warfare will look much more like Syria, i.e. states implode from within and then break apart into a number of warring factions, each fighting over territory & resources within the carcass of the state. Actually, most of the bloodiest 20th century conflicts were of this type (eg. Russian & Chinese civil wars, Rwandan genocide & Congo Wars, civil wars in Nigeria/Sudan/Ethiopia), and historically the highest death tolls have usually occurred in civil wars where an empire breaks up or in conquests when a much more developed power invades a less-developed power (eg. Mongol conquests or European conquest of America). WW2 was a historical anomaly in that it was fought between developed nations. It's an anomaly we pay a lot of attention to, though, because it led to the current international system of American hegemony and history tends to get written by the victors.
- ManFromUranus 9y ago
  Syria's "implosion" didn't just fall out of the sky, it was induced by the US and it's allies as a means to oust Assad. Nobody disputes that, the only thing in dispute is whether or not the ends justify the means, meaning is ousting Assad a desirable end that justifies the current proxy war or not.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    > Syria's "implosion" didn't just fall out of the sky, it was induced by the US and it's allies as a means to oust Assad. A bunch of Syrians (peacefully) protested Assad's power. He started killing people. The protests stayed peaceful for months, but eventually, the protesters got tired of getting killed, and the violence turned into a civil war. That wasn't "induced" by the US. > Nobody disputes that... False.
- jcranmer 9y ago
  > WW2 was a historical anomaly in that it was fought between developed nations. It's an anomaly we pay a lot of attention to, though, because it led to the current international system of American hegemony and history tends to get written by the victors. Because major historical powers like Rome, China, Mayans, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Britain never fought any wars against other powers that were at their same level of development. Oh, wait, all of them did. The anomaly is the past two centuries or so, which have been the most peaceful times on record, particularly between major powers. (Since the Napoleonic Wars, the sum total is Crimean War, Mexican-American War, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War, Spanish-American War, Russo-Japanese War, World War I, Russian Civil War, World War II [noting that there's a lot of related conflicts getting summed up here], Korean War, maybe War of the Pacific and the Russo-Turkish Wars). Compare that to the Early Modern, which is replete with constant conflict on Europe: 18th century alone has Great Northern War, War of Spanish Succession, War of Austrian Succession, Seven Years' War, American Revolution, and the French Revolutionary Wars, all of which were far nastier than the brief wars in the 19th century (save the American Civil War and the Napoleonic Wars).
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    Take a look at the list of wars by death toll: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll Categorized into great power wars (between well-defined states of roughly equal power levels), civil wars (where a single state breaks up into multiple factions that then fight each other), rebellions (where a state breaks up, but into an asymmetric power balance between one province and the rest of the state), and conquests (where a much more developed power - at least in terms of military technology - invades and destroys a less-developed one) and ordered by death toll, you have: WW2 (great power) Mongol conquests (conquest) Three Kingdoms war (civil) Qing conquest of Ming (rebellion, against backdrop of civil) Spanish conquest of Aztecs (conquest) Taiping rebellion (rebellion) Second Sino-Japanese war (great power, but against the backdrop of the Chinese Civil War) An-Lushan rebellion (rebellion) Germanic wars vs. Rome (effectively a civil war in that Roman territory was breaking up and many of the adversaries were trained in the Roman army, but you can quibble about this) WW1 (great power) Conquests of Timur (?) Dungan Revolt (rebellion) Chinese Civil War (civil) Spanish conquest of Incas (conquest) Reconquista (great power?) Russian Civil War (civil) Thirty Years War (civil - breakup of Holy Roman Empire) Ottoman Wars (great power) Moorish Wars (great power) Napoleonic Wars (great power) Mughal-Maratha Wars (?) Yellow-Turban Rebellion (rebellion) Second Congo War (civil) French Wars of Religion (civil) Indian Rebellion of 1857 (rebellion) Hundred Years War (great power) Vietnam War (civil, but with great power involvement) Crusades (great power) Readers can draw the conclusion they like from that data, but to my eyes - if you exclude WW2, civil wars and conquests end up killing far more people and remaking the map more than great power conflicts.
- nordsieck 9y ago
  > There are a number of reasons to believe that the future of warfare will look much more like Syria If we're going to fight in 3rd world countries, we need more A-10's and Super Tucano's and less F-35's. Part of the F-35's justification is that it's supposed be able to go head to head with other 1st world nations airforces.

Cyph0n 9y ago

The last catastrophic war took place less than 90 years ago. In addition, the developed world has been "at peace" for only about 40 years (end of Cold War => MAD). These are but rounding errors in the ~5000 year history of advanced civilization.

Retric 9y ago
Looking though history major civilizations rarely fight their equals. The world wars had a lot more to do with mechanized nations dominating their neighbors than you might think. Consider Japan crushed China and Germany crushed the majority of Europe. Those where not fights among equals. Step back further and India and China both lost a fight with England. That's the kind of fighting that's appealing to first world nations, lot's of resources minimal effort.
- notfromhere 9y ago
  That's a hindsight analysis, and not very useful for planning in the future. Germans v Russia was a fight among equals and the Germans lost.
  - Retric 9y ago
    I don't think Germany considered Russia even close to it's equal, and 1 vs 1 Russia without massive outside aid and unusual weather it would likely have folded quickly. Japan attacking the US is a better argument, but the US was not exactly neutral either. Anyway, I am not saying you're wrong, just that history is vastly more complex than just looking at the relative sizes of each nation on a map.
    - greedo 9y ago
      Even without US aid via Lend Lease, the only chance the Germans had against the USSR was if they had managed to capture Moscow and Stalingrad quickly. Once they failed to do so in the fall of '42, their fate was sealed. The Russian economy and population was too large and strong. The Germans were at the long end of a logistical tail, and weather in Russia (as Bonaparte found out as well) is a bitch. The only thing that would have saved Germany was if Japan had fought the Russians in the Far East. But after the Battle of Khalkhyn Gol (1939) where the Soviets handily defeated the Japanese, this wasn't going to happen.

wazoox 9y ago

The war in Syria is mostly about bringing gas from the Persian Gulf to Europe. The civil war in Ukraine is mostly about bringing Russian gas to Europe, too. So the developed nations are already at war over resources, though not yet against each other.

jotm 9y ago

Not this century, maybe.

knieveltech 9y ago

How do you categorize the series of multi-state "police actions" and the current goat rodeo in Syria, if not nation-states squabbling over resources?

skywhopper 9y ago

That was the conventional wisdom before World War I... and World War II. But you may be right in that the war will actually be over something much stupider than dwindling resources.

ManFromUranus 9y ago

We already have that occurring right now in Syria, US and its allies are fighting a proxy war for Syria's resources. If the US wins then Israel will likely annex huge swathes of Syrian territory in some kind of "security zone" and begin pumping oil immediately. If Russia wins, then Syria remains independent and Russia benefits somehow, perhaps with steep discount out for the next 50 years.

greedo 9y ago

People said almost the same thing verbatim before WW1...