4 ms·

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.

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.