|
HELLo WW3!!! (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| WWIII.... that's laughable. These situations could develop into regional conflicts but there is little chance they would result in a world war. None of the dissident states (assuming you consider Palistine a state) have the capacity to wage a long term war against the US/Isreal not to mention any states that may ally themselves with them. Without the capacity to conduct a long term full scale offensive there in almost no probablility that the combatants on both sides of the conflict will end up in total war (which is one of the most important defining characteristics of the Great War and the Second Great War). Moreover, it is highly improbable that any of the dissident states could forge alliances with neighbouring nations thus the geographical boundries of the resultant wars would be far too limited to be considered a world war (as such a war would need to be global or nearly global in scope). |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
WWIII.... that's laughable. These situations could develop into regional conflicts but there is little chance they would result in a world war. None of the dissident states (assuming you consider Palistine a state) have the capacity to wage a long term war against the US/Isreal not to mention any states that may ally themselves with them. Without the capacity to conduct a long term full scale offensive there in almost no probablility that the combatants on both sides of the conflict will end up in total war (which is one of the most important defining characteristics of the Great War and the Second Great War). Moreover, it is highly improbable that any of the dissident states could forge alliances with neighbouring nations thus the geographical boundries of the resultant wars would be far too limited to be considered a world war (as such a war would need to be global or nearly global in scope). |
My thoughts are simular.
Wouldn't a 'World War' denote a large portion of the world at war? :conf:
I doubt (and hope) that we'll ever see such a thing again since wars aren't fought like they used to be... |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
Although...
Would a "World War" mean that a good deal of the world were militarily involved, or merely affected?
Since the US appears to be (for better or for worse) the global economic prognosticator, would the effects of 9/11 (and subsequent "War on Terror") on the US and thus world economy fall into the later definition of "World War?" I think a World War does not necessarily mean that a large number of countries have a military role (and what exactly would that arbitrary number or percentage be?), but that the day-to-day and overall outcome of the war have profound global effects.
Thoughts? |
|
|
| skot_e |
| Whilst Australia was fairly issolated from the economic FX of 9/11, I don't think that the damage done to the world economy can really qualify as a W.W. for if that was the case what abput the economic instability that occured around 1929/30 - that to would have to then be classed as the same. (my thought being that the war on terror, although stemming from 9/11 is a seperate issue) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Although...
Would a "World War" mean that a good deal of the world were militarily involved, or merely affected?
Since the US appears to be (for better or for worse) the global economic prognosticator, would the effects of 9/11 (and subsequent "War on Terror") on the US and thus world economy fall into the later definition of "World War?" I think a World War does not necessarily mean that a large number of countries have a military role (and what exactly would that arbitrary number or percentage be?), but that the day-to-day and overall outcome of the war have profound global effects.
Thoughts? |
I don't think you can deem a war to be a World War simply because it has economic ramifications globally. Nearly all wars have global economic ramifications at some level. Following your argument the Invasion of Iraq in the 90s would be a "world war" despite there really only being a handful of combatants and the boundries being a small geographical area.
To be considered a world war a large number of states must be actively involved on both sides to such a degree that they are at "total war" (meaning most to all of the population and industry is involved in the war effort), a further number of non-combatant states are involved in supplying materials and other logistical support, and the war has multiple fronts over a very large geographical area. This to me would be a world war. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
Okay, but what is the magic number or percentage that must be involved? WWII involved 70 countries (Allies + Axis), although only 25 had an active military role. The Persian Gulf War invovled a 32 country coalition with 18 countries active in a military manner. 19 countries were involved militarily in the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan.
Is 25 the magic number? Do the 6 extra nations when comparing post 9/11 Afghanistan to WWII make the difference? If we're going by a total number of countries involved militarily and not global impact, than what is the rubric for deciding between a regional and global conflict?
Oh, and WWI only had 17 countries involved militarily, so does that mean it was not a World War? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Okay, but what is the magic number or percentage that must be involved? WWII involved 70 countries (Allies + Axis), although only 25 had an active military role. The Persian Gulf War invovled a 32 country coalition with 18 countries active in a military manner. 19 countries were involved militarily in the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan.
Is 25 the magic number? Do the 6 extra nations when comparing post 9/11 Afghanistan to WWII make the difference? If we're going by a total number of countries involved militarily and not global impact, than what is the rubric for deciding between a regional and global conflict?
Oh, and WWI only had 17 countries involved militarily, so does that mean it was not a World War? |
I don't think there is a magic number sort of speak.
A few distinctions need to be here....
a) while only 17 countries were involved in WWI many of those countries had vast colonial holdings that were also involved in the war. As they were not independent at the time they would not be counted as individual combatants but rather part of the colonial power.... thus the number of 17 is rather misleading.
b) Many of the states that took or are taking an active combat role in the Persian Gulf War and the Afganistan war/invasion/action (whatever) have taken rather minor roles. For instance, Canada contributed a few frigets, a couple of destroyers, an engineer company, a handful of CF18s and some other minor units to the Persian Gulf War.... that is a far cry from total war. The number of combatants is important but moreso is the extent to which those combatants are involved. You could have 80 countries adding one unit of various forces to a conflict and end up with a smaller overall contribution then one or two countries at total war.
c) as far as global vs. regional it is simply a mater of area involved in the same conflict. WWII was fought in Europe, Africa, Asia, and over the 3 of the 4 oceans.... it was one conflict that truely spaned the world. This is very different then having a bunch of independent regional conflicts that while when combined may in fact cover a large area on multiple continents are not one war but rather a bunch of wars. Lets say that the US go to war with Iran, Zaire invades Uganda, North Korea and South Korea start fighting, New Zeland has an air war with Australia, China invades Mongolia, and Canada and Denmark finally have the long awaited naval battle over Hans Island.... now there's a lot of war going on all over the world but is it a world war? Absolutely not as the wars are not connected by anything other then sharing a common historical date. |
|
|
| skot_e |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
the war has multiple fronts over a very large geographical area. |
I think this is probably what defines a W.W. - multple fronts over a large area fought by multple countries over the same issue. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Temperate
This is one of the craziest weeks I've ever seen. Just get a load of these articles.
Along with bombings in Iraq and India, the world is just so ed up and crazy, I'm glad to be safe here in the United states.
:nervous: |
I bet you are also glad to be living in white neighborhood. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| Way to go Israel :gsmile: |
|
|
| Temperate |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
I bet you are also glad to be living in white neighborhood. |
I ... don't?
:conf: |
|
|
|
|
