Actually, I read somewhere not long ago that the total number of conflicts worldwide has been on the decline, but current conflicts are claiming more lives than before. As for world wars, that would imply that at least a few 'giants' (militarily speaking) are going at it, and are forcing their allies/foes to align with/against them, mostly because they have a stake in the outcome. If that's the criteria, then it's very difficult for me to imagine a scenario where China, Russia, the U.S., and countries like Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Israel would be at each others' collective throats. For one thing, most major powers today have friendly -- if sometime 'cool' -- relations. Most are too economically interdependent to even consider war, let alone an all-out conflict that would prove destructive to all sides involved. And lastly, there's the issue of nuclear war. A 'World War' in today's terms would mean a nuclear holocaust...no one will risk that with exception of extreme circumstances that would push them to do so. So in a warped sense, nuclear weapons might have made this a 'safer' world, relatively speaking of course. The fact that no one has a monopoly on nuclear technology is a good thing, IMO.
Things will get interesting in the Middle East if Israel and Syria start shooting at each other. That might be the fuse to light the keg because then Iran might get involved.
Still wouldn't be a 'World War' unless the entire Muslim world is somehow dragged into it, not to mention the U.S. It would qualify as a regional conflict.
I say don't you know You say you don't know I say take me out I say you don't show Don't move time is slow I say take me out I say you don't know You say you don't go I say take me out
True world wars are caused when super powers are in economic conflict. You don't really see that...yet, China and the US's need for raw materials is the closest thing to a world war catylast but the truth of the matter is they are both dependent on each other economically and the stakes of world war in the nuclear age are just too high. Also modern information sources and communication are better too. Some wars have started just from the paranoia of not knowing what the other side is up to. I guess you could say that the nearly world wide clash between Islamic and non-Islamic nations is a world war but it's a new paradigm, not the traditional definiton of war where armies take land and capitals. A wise man once observed: Entropy is an interesting concept that I think applies to everything, even social systems. The theory implies that everything moves from simplicity to chaos but that chaos is the more stable condition. In this case, every little ethnic division in the world wants self determination and is willing to commit acts of violence to get it. While it's true this is more chaotic, there are probably less people dying from violence world wide than when the great powers engage in all out warfare. Simplicity= a few great powers in large conflicts Chaos= lots of small ethnic conflicts In the great powers conflicts tens of millions are killed and maimed. In global chaos maybe tens of thousands are killed and maimed. __________________
That's not warped at all. Nobel invented dynamite to promote peace. The scientists in the Manhatten Project used the exact same rationale. But I'm not so sure. Given the oil and money involved in the middle east, if this conflict expands then this will QUICKLY become international rather than regional. The US may not wage war against China ...but each country might "support" opposing sides, like the Afghan war of the '80s. It probably will remain regional but it'll probably be regional+ given the international implications.
I was gonna ask do some of these guys realize how small the intitial incident that started world war I was. all it takes is one large country to back one of the smalller ones. and then the dominoes began to fall. Austria vs. Serbia started WWI.
The dominoes fell due to a complex series of alliances, along with the strongly held notion, at the time, that if a country mobilized for war, then the other countries that might possibly be drawn into the conflict must mobilize as well, or risk being unprepared. Not only that, but the conventional wisdom was if you mobilized for war, you should then go to war, or risk defeat while demobilizing. Pretty convoluted, but it was what they believed. The result was an unintended cascade of mobilizations, followed by declarations of war, once Austria attacked Serbia. And Austria had every intention of attacking Serbia, even after Serbia gave in to one of the most humiliating demands in history. After that, the dominoes fell. Kind of reminds me a little of a current conflict, after all, in which a great power made demands upon a much smaller one, with every intention of going to war, regardless of the response. Keep D&D Civil.
right now we're allied with isreal, and we are already in one muslim country in a war. I'm not saying its likely, but when you add in the oil factor, the growing unstability is unsettling. but back then there was also the factor of countries were coming off a heavy for lack of a better term "empire buiding".
There is a pretty good body of evidence that many of the key people in Austria-Hungary felt that the country had been in a long, slow period of decline since the revolutions of 1849 forced Austria to accept increased independence for the Magyar populations in Hungary. These people thought that the only way to save the Austro-Hungarian empire was through a war that would increase power and stir nationalism as opposed to ethnic loyalties. The only direction war was possibly winable was in the direction of the Balkan states. To give you an idea, I have a officer's traning graduation document from 1887 somewhere around here and in order to graduate and become officers they had to know something like 5 or 6 languages, which were all different languages spoken in the empire. Franz Joseph was very much against war in general, but the war ministry basically lied and selectively edited information given to him to make him feel that it was impossible to escape war. Also, keep in mind that between the time Turkey had to relinquish the Balkans at the end of the Crimean War and the start of WWI, there was nearly continuously a war going on in some part of the Balkans.
If Syria and Israel mix it up and Iran enters the fray, it will no longer be a regional conflict. It's a short skip and a jump from Iraq to Iran. If Fox news reports as Cheney dictates most people might not even notice since there's only one letter different in the spelling.
it depends on you definition of world war. At the moment with the majority of the world in either conflict with other contries, or conflict within their own countries, it seems like you could call it world war. why does it have to be everyone vs. everyone to be classified world war?
Your point may still be valid, but Nobel invented dynamite as a safe way to handle nitroglycerin. A factory explosion in 1864 killed his younger brother and four other people.
With more competition, each power would have to weigh how the neutral parties would react. Much like going all in in Hold'em and having three other people calling. What's ignored in this scenario are mulitnationals and NGOs who's combined vested interests can be potentially larger than individual countries. Much like a few interest groups taking control of the nation, a timely disaster could give them the opportunity to make decisions that aren't in each power's favor.
What makes WWI & II different are the motives behind the war. These two wars were about conquoring and occupation and other nations jumping in to save their skins. The current conflicts are about petty things ranging from religions reasons to border disputes to out right lunacy.
In the hundred years war, religion and state were to a large degree interchangable. Replace identification with a nation with identification with a religion and its not all that different.
Man, I come back from vacation and I find someone trying to enter ME into WWIII... "Are we SwoLy entering..."
there are only two ways i think this would escalate. one being israel attacks syria which even the israelis shouldn't be stupid enough to do. however i didn't think israel would be bombing beirut either. second which is more possible and most dangerous is if hezbollah or any fringe elements attack the US helicopters in theirefforts to rescue americans...that would be insane. and the US would feel a need to retaliate. perhaps even justified. and syria/iran would find it hard to resist getting involved. and the images of US attacking another arab country wouldn't exactly play nicely in the arab street.
