Forums → The Tavern → Waging War in the Future?
| 17 | 4743 |
The narrator in Fallout 3 had said "war never changes." Phylosophycally, he may be right. But when it came to tactics, strategies, equipment and our weapons, he's dead wrong.
With a little research, I found out that we'd probably be fighting in small, elusive and mobile squadrons, engaging the enemy without risking innonect civillians.
And what about nuclear war? Could it be like that? Since the Cold War, other nations have joined the nuclear powers.
You guys think about it in the comment section.
- 17 Replies
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
- Albert Einstein
A nuclear war would indeed be devastating, and hopefully the warring nations will realize this and refrain from using their nuclear weapons. As Alfred Nobel said:
"The day when two army corps can annihilate each other in one second, all civilized nations, it is to be hoped, will recoil from war and discharge their troops."
So, yeah, hopefully improved weaponry can lead to that nations have more to lose than to gain, and thus seek diplomatic solutions to their problems. Hopefully. Otherwise, we're quite screwed.
Until now, war have evolved almost only in offensive ways, but in the future scientist might develop defensive system able to contain the growing destructive power of modern weapons. But if that doesn't happen war will probably stop targeting civilians and factories.
comment section.
This is the forums, not Ray William Johnson.
I heard a lot of people say that World War III will happen soon. In 2014 at latest....
Hmm.
Though, in my opinion, with the education and stuff we have now, I doubt there will be another World War in a while.
And what about nuclear war? Could it be like that? Since the Cold War, other nations have joined the nuclear powers.
I don't think the nuclear war would actualy happen. We would mess up the whole world, so it wouldn't be logical.
I don't think the nuclear war would actualy happen. We would mess up the whole world, so it wouldn't be logical.
Some nations or groups may decide to launch their nukes to provoke stuff, or maybe when they're losing a conventional war without hope.
, but in the future scientist might develop defensive system able to contain the growing destructive power of modern weapons.
A good defensive system is key to war - but with nukes involved, would anything work?
The problem with nuclear weapons and the whole "Will the world be wiped out" argument is that once one is launched, one may be launched back in retaliation. Once they start crossing and others get involved, it could be pretty darn devastating.
Some nations or groups may decide to launch their nukes to provoke stuff, or maybe when they're losing a conventional war without hope.
So they would go "screw you, im taking us both!"?
The problem with nuclear weapons and the whole "Will the world be wiped out" argument is that once one is launched, one may be launched back in retaliation. Once they start crossing and others get involved, it could be pretty darn devastating.
Yea like the pact Russia has with the US (can't remember name of it sadly, but i remember it was a good 1.)
Ignoring nukes for the moment, I say war will change. especially the equipment. I bet helical magazines will become the norm, and thermoptic camouflage being the main part of concealment. But as with all weapons, someone will make a counter measure. Then there'll be a counter-counter measure. And so on.
"The day when two army corps can annihilate each other in one second, all civilized nations, it is to be hoped, will recoil from war and discharge their troops."
The greater irony lies in that Nobel invented dynamite.
War has evolved to a highly mobile, small-unit affair that aims to win the support of the locals against the insurgents, rather than a 'take out the baddies' sort of thing. Once Petraeus took charge, and the commanders began to apply the 'win the people' attitude, we started doing much, much better.
As for nuclear weapons, MAD Theory holds that rational nations won't use them against each other, as they'll end up wiping each other out. The threat now lies in an insurgent group getting a bomb, and then using it. With the proliferation of Iran, and its close proximity to extreme Islamic sects such as Hamas or the Taliban, this is a very real possibility.
So they would go "screw you, im taking us both!"?
No; theres no point to declaring war if your nation won't survive to enjoy its victory. The advent of 'second strike' capabilities of major nuclear-wielding countries (namely, Russia and the United States) further enforces this.
A defensive system against nukes is entirely logical, all you'd have to do is have a faster, more mobile weapon that could destroy the missle while it's in the higher reaches of the atmosphere, where the explosion would do the least amount of damage. Apparently joint US and Isreali teams are already building such a system.
9/11 revolutionized warfare, and now massive armies are next to useless, when smart enemeys can simply step aside. A third world war is not possible at the moment, and will not be possible until the US is a non-existant military power. Small, mobile units can destory a superior enemies will to fight by simply bloodying them, and the democracy will soon vote to remove troops, until the playing feild is even, and then warfare can continue. Democratic armies are not armies, they only have to be bloodied to be destroyed. At the moment, offensive warfare is impossible, with armies of hundreds fighting with armies of hundreds of thousands, and no clear victor. Defensive war, on the flipside, continues with the WW II logic, with the superior defensive army being victorious.
Nuclear warfare is not nearly as potent as many people think, with most nukes only have a blast radius of a couple miles. Only cities would be destroyed, with most agricultural areas being untouched, because there simply aren't enough nukes. All the nukes in exsistance aren't enough to cover the entire planet. (Ocean included, something most statistics ignore)
Sorry if I rambled a bit there, and flipped around, but I hope my main point prevailed-
Small defensive armies are strong enough to destroy massive undertermned armies through politcal victories, (Such as happened with the middle east, and the vietnam war) and Nukes would neither destory the world, and soon would not be able to destroy anything.
[quote=sirmed1]The narrator in Fallout 3 had said "war never changes." [/quote]
Heh, Ron Perlman said that in Fallout 1 and 2, too. Ah, time flies by.
Right, I'm pretty sure we all know that the days of grand showcase battles and setpiece warfare is over. No more Cannae, Flinging men around like chess pieces in the hopes of overwhelming an enemy is even worse of an idea today.
I believe that warfare will shift focus and be conducted on a smaller scale with an emphasis on mobility and ruthlessly effective precision. Well, if it already isn't. This is probably sad news for kiddos that orgasm at the thought of some glorious thousand-strong army marching onto victory, but that's reality I guess. People have always worked to make the art of warfare ever more efficient. Some even hoped to make it redundant. But look at where humanity has come: from sticks and stones that poke a man to the splitting of atoms that vaporize thousands of people instantaneously.
Eventually we'll probably be able to fight exclusively through remote , i.e. robots. However, if the past is anything worth remembering the agony inflicted by war will always be constant. Which is why war never changes, in that sense. I hold hopes of a light at the end of the tunnel, but those are dim.
[quote=iMogwai]So, yeah, hopefully improved weaponry can lead to that nations have more to lose than to gain, and thus seek diplomatic solutions to their problems. Hopefully. Otherwise, we're quite screwed.[/quote]
I think we will be screwed, eventually. Doesn't mean it'll be soon enough for us right now to be hurt.
[quote=Gaboloth]Until now, war have evolved almost only in offensive ways, but in the future scientist might develop defensive system able to contain the growing destructive power of modern weapons. But if that doesn't happen war will probably stop targeting civilians and factories.[/quote]
I can just quote.. [quote=Masterforger] But as with all weapons, someone will make a counter measure. Then there'll be a counter-counter measure. And so on.[/quote]
[quote=sirmed1]9/11 revolutionized warfare, and now massive armies are next to useless, when smart enemeys can simply step aside. [/quote]
Guerilla warfare isn't new, but I can see where you're coming from. The conflicts that followed 9/11 have hit that point home. Warfare is now being waged on a more intimate scale. Mobility and precision over brute force and numbers. Insurgents are clever and adaptive. There is no evil dictator to throw darts at but instead persistent roaches that are hard to stamp out.
The tactics and equipment are not the only things changing. It's not unreasonable to believe that many future conflicts won't be decided by a few riveting engagements, but drawn-out and protracted ones.
Maverick made that clear.
Since we've seen how far we've come in just a century, I'm eager (and anxious) to see what will be next.
[quote=StormWalker]we wont survivve to 2014. 2012, remember?!?!?![/quote]
Don't bring that crap up.
[quote=sirmed1]Nuclear warfare is not nearly as potent as many people think, with most nukes only have a blast radius of a couple miles. Only cities would be destroyed, with most agricultural areas being untouched, because there simply aren't enough nukes. All the nukes in exsistance aren't enough to cover the entire planet. (Ocean included, something most statistics ignore)
[/quote]
I agree with you on that one. The blasts themselves would only affect a relatively small area. Sure you can kill millions of people who happen to be clustered together in New York, but folks in the country would fare better.
Of course, there will always be a desire to create even deadlier tools of destruction. But the whole nuclear apocalypse scenario has been overblown in many respects. Although not impossible, the heralded scenario of two superpowers squaring it off against each other with nukes (and annihilating the world in the process) isn't the likeliest. Consider MAD and such. What proud, self-respecting superpower would want to destroy itself? There's always other ways to make a point, whether they be soft or hard.
Therefore,
[quote=Maverick4]The threat now lies in an insurgent group getting a bomb, and then using it. With the proliferation of Iran, and its close proximity to extreme Islamic sects such as Hamas or the Taliban, this is a very real possibility.[/quote]
I hope this post makes sense.
In III world we use nuclear weapons in world war IIII we use sticks and rocks! haha
I agree with you on that one. The blasts themselves would only affect a relatively small area. Sure you can kill millions of people who happen to be clustered together in New York, but folks in the country would fare better.
Although the blast itself is small, there's a lot of fallout/radiation that would make that area unsustainable for many years. There's also an EMP that radiates from the blast and, depending how high the nuke was, could make all electronic devices useless for most of the country (image link). Everyone is relient on electricity now. Communications wouldn't work anymore and wouldn't be restorable for years. No phones, no cars, no lights... Society would basically collapse.
You must be logged in to post a reply!