3 ms·

My two cents: 1. Modern nations would find engaging in a large conflict without a many alliance nations economically ruinous. Basically if all (or even some?)

My two cents: 1. Modern nations would find engaging in a large conflict without a many alliance nations economically ruinous. Basically if all (or even some?) of your major trading partners cut you off, it will cripple you. 2. The long range and high precision nature of modern weapons make the idea of maintaining an industrial complex during a 1st world vs 1st world conflict very unlikely. I think this is going to severely limit the length of any such war. >>US get involved on the ground with ISIL Compared to 1st. world vs 1st world conflicts this is a low intensity conflict similar to what has been simmering for the past decade. Just a new face for the enemy. >>you'll see the Ukraine situation simmer out with the Russian's holding the occupied land. Note this supports the previous poster's comment. >>and you'll see some major national or international incident with China in the next 15-30 years. If you are basing this on the "numerous discontent young men" hypothesis you are on sound theoretical ground, but its worth pointing out that China often seems to operate under an alternate sociological law. Its also worth pointing out the immense power disparity between a Chinese civilian and their government is much greater than in say the US; In terms of communications and weapon availability.

InclinedPlane 12y ago
The problem with this analysis is that it's irrelevant. Modern 1st world military capabilities are devastating beyond all reckoning from history. This is easy to forget because in every conflict involving such capabilities they've significantly pulled their punches for one reason or another. But in an all out total war things would be much different. Of course there is the issue of nuclear annihilation, which should not be easily dismissed, and still poses an existential risk for human civilization. Beyond that though, conventional military capabilities are quite potent, and if they were ever leveled intentionally and with ferocity toward, say, civilian populations we would likely be shocked at the outcome. Modern militaries are capable of killing millions per day using only conventional weapons.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Example: North Korea maintains its integrity by a viable threat that it could, using conventional (even old) weapons, level Seoul (pop.: 25M) in about a half an hour with a moment's notice.
  - hga 12y ago
    There's no way they could "level" Seoul with conventional weapons, it's way too big and per what I've read but ought to check more closely, beyond all but the heaviest of artillery (i.e. beyond 152 mm range, even with rocket assist (which reduces the payload)). Cause serious damage and kill a lot of people, yes, especially during the several days it would require to disable the howitzers in their Hardened Artillery Sites (HARTS).

InclinedPlane 12y ago

The problem with this analysis is that it's irrelevant. Modern 1st world military capabilities are devastating beyond all reckoning from history. This is easy to forget because in every conflict involving such capabilities they've significantly pulled their punches for one reason or another. But in an all out total war things would be much different. Of course there is the issue of nuclear annihilation, which should not be easily dismissed, and still poses an existential risk for human civilization. Beyond that though, conventional military capabilities are quite potent, and if they were ever leveled intentionally and with ferocity toward, say, civilian populations we would likely be shocked at the outcome. Modern militaries are capable of killing millions per day using only conventional weapons.

ctdonath 12y ago
Example: North Korea maintains its integrity by a viable threat that it could, using conventional (even old) weapons, level Seoul (pop.: 25M) in about a half an hour with a moment's notice.
- hga 12y ago
  There's no way they could "level" Seoul with conventional weapons, it's way too big and per what I've read but ought to check more closely, beyond all but the heaviest of artillery (i.e. beyond 152 mm range, even with rocket assist (which reduces the payload)). Cause serious damage and kill a lot of people, yes, especially during the several days it would require to disable the howitzers in their Hardened Artillery Sites (HARTS).