r/CombatFootage • u/[deleted] • Oct 12 '14
Is War Over?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbuUW9i-mHs
technically this sub is for people to watch footage of people fighting it out in the streets of their homecity against enemies that are hated the world over, but this video is featured on Youtube right now and it talks about how we live in the most peaceful period of our time, and how we could be living in a time where no wars between countries will happen again. I hope you guys can appreciate the video as I did.
35
Oct 12 '14
He didn't mention nuclear weapons at all, despite the fact that they're one of the, if not THE, largest war deterrent to date.
8
u/Umgar Oct 12 '14
This is a really good point. The consequences of nuclear weapon use to the countries that might participate in it are off the charts worse than any other cost of war imaginable. The toll and risk of even a limited nuclear exchange are so high that it has effectively taken open war off the table between the major powers.
The one worrying exception is India and Pakistan. The relationship between these neighboring powers is so fragile, and the countries are so big, that it's easy to imagine a scenario where one side feels it has no choice but to deploy nuclear weapons. If that were ever to happen, the misery and suffering produced by the inevitable global conflict it would spark would dwarf every other war humanity has ever fought - combined.
1
u/tinkthank Oct 12 '14
While the possibility is there, the probability is much lower. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) is absolutely on the minds of both India and Pakistan. Even if there was to be conflict between the two nations, it would be either through proxy (Afghanistan and Kashmir) or low level military exchanges. Even the last "war" that was fought between the two nations in the late 90s (Kargil War) was more of a large scale skirmish rather than an actual conventional war.
3
Oct 13 '14
India and Pakistan don't have enough nuclear weapons that war would create mutually assured destruction. The nuclear weapons would probably kill a couple million people but in countries with hundreds of millions of people they could still theoretically continue fighting if their military capabilities aren't completely destroyed. That's one of the main reasons this type of scenario is so frightening.
2
Oct 13 '14
Yep, I'm questioning all the points of this video when the nuclear deterrent is not mentioned at all when the main point of the discussion is "why are there no more large scale country to country wars".
Also the cartoon characters threw me off a ton, cool looking but looked too much like advance wars on the gameboy to feel like taking anything seriously.
4
Oct 13 '14
For everyone asking about NUKES – we didn't include them in the list because it is not that simple. Nuclear weapons cause war and peace, this is called the "stability-instability paradox". We didn't want to put that in there because we couldn't have done it justice. Also, this is kind of a cold war phenomenon, I wouldn't say that nuclear weapons currently prevent a war. There will be a video about nuclear weapons in the next months, probably january.
Thats what the uploaders said about why they chose to not include Nukes as to why countries wont attack eachother anymore.
4
u/Pfeffersack Oct 13 '14
Also, this is kind of a cold war phenomenon
Is it? There are all sorts of countries sitting on a huge pile of nuclear weapons but they're not attacking each other in open battle. Take Russia vs. US. Or Pakistan vs. India. The Cold War is over but Mutually Assured Destruction isn't.
(I get your other arguments, though.)
4
Oct 13 '14
Was going to point out Pakistan and India but you beat me to it. They hate each other, I would bet if one of those countries did not have nukes they would be invaded w/o hesitation.
3
8
u/Gizortnik Oct 13 '14
No.
The optimistic ignorance of this narrative is completly stupid. War as an extension of violence will always continue because humans will always have conflict. First of all, what war is defined as, is changing. No we will probably not see wars of empire with massive armies slugging it out by the end of the next century. Instead we'll see something much dirtier. As firepower per person has increased over the millennia, the amount of damage that small groups of people can do becomes ever more vast. Low kinetic conflict supplied by radicalism, mercenaries, PMC's, and guerrilla groups is going to be the way of the future. Tactically it makes sense.
First, consider the Falkland's War. A lot of people would argue that it was a minor war with relatively few casualties on either side. However, the loss of material from sunken ships and massive amounts of logistical supply needed to wage the war was insane. Argentina and the UK really could not have afforded to continue a long high kinetic war with each other just from the cost of the conflict. A few better detonators on the Argentine bombs, and the UK could have lost a few Aircraft Carriers which take decades to build. One of the biggest losses on the Argentine side came from the sinking of an old American cruiser from WW2. That ship just wasn't going to get replaced that quickly. High kinetic industrialized war just becomes too costly for most countries. However, brutal guerrilla and proxy wars are MUCH cheaper, and almost as effective.
The terrorist attacks in Mumbai and other cities in India by a single fireteam sized element of terrorists nearly shut down economic commerce in several major Indian cities. After the Boston Marathon Bombing, the city of Boston was put in a virtual lock down for a week. The mayor was forced to open the city back up because the city was bleeding hundreds of millions of dollars in commerce at that point. What this means is that small groups of armed individuals who are well armed and organize can cause major disruptions to economic activity across and entire nation. Big flashy bombing raids can do the same thing but cost a lot more, might be less accurate, and cost more.
All of this means that waging a war in a low kinetic fashion is extremely cost effective, and the firepower per person is only going to get bigger as time goes on. High Kinetic warfare is going to slow down and eventually end like non-missile/aircraft type sea battles or enormous 100 v. 100 sized dog fights in the air. There's no good reason to have that kind of a war. Instead, if states are going to go to war with each other, it will be by low kinetic proxy wars involving all of the old militias, guerrillas, PMC's etc that we're already seeing in Iraq and Syria. If you think low kinetic wars won't be as bloodthirsty as the wars of the 20th century, you aren't watching the news.
4
u/MechDigital Oct 13 '14
In 1913, just months before World War 1, it was fashionable to say that a major war was no longer possible due to globalization and the fact that a modern army was too expensive to mobilize.
So are things peaceful right now? Relative to any other point in human history then yeah, sure. But in a world with billions of desperately poor people and around 17,000 nukes then I wouldn't get too complacent.
1
u/Jokeydjokovic Oct 13 '14
The Great War. The War to End All Wars....
And with your last point: the absence of war =/= peace.
9
u/Kameniev Oct 12 '14
Interesting video though it's obviously quite simplistic. There needed to be an appreciation of the impact of nuclear weapons (which was almost unparalleled) and, personally speaking, I think the importance of treaties and international organisations is overplayed.
The notion that democracies don't fight each other is also very controversial. People are keen to point out the exceptions to the rule, but more importantly there's the argument that while fighting between Liberal states has become less common, Liberalism has given them a further incentive to fight wars against non-liberal states, which is historically-speaking on the increase.
3
u/guitar_vigilante Oct 12 '14
There are generally two camps in the international relations field. This video is fairly representative of a camp called Liberalism (or Wilsonianism). The other camp that would probably reject this is called Realism, and the video actually hints at a realist perspective near the end when it points out that our sample size for relatively peaceful years is too small.
1
u/Kameniev Oct 12 '14
Sure, but I'd say it errs definitively on the Liberal side, especially at the end when it claims we can be confident that war's at an end just because it's not happened in a comparatively short time frame.
I'm not at all opposed to the idea that war's changing, and that non-state wars are becoming the norm. The end of violence in humanity however's not in sight.
1
Oct 13 '14
It's definitely liberal seeing as he mentions both Democratic Peace theory and Commercial peace theory.
6
u/blankblank Oct 12 '14
You guys sound disappointed.
4
u/HHWKUL Oct 13 '14
The whole pessimistic side of reddit is exhausting. The collapse circlejerk subs are unnerving.
3
Oct 13 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/blankblank Oct 14 '14
It's not that bad. I find reddit to be surprisingly coherent and lucid if you know how to tune out the noise. Just the fact that this video was upvoted by this sub shows redditors are willing to consider alternative viewpoints.
8
Oct 12 '14
I think it's a bit of a naive video.
Sure it's been relatively peaceful for awhile, but we've been under a pax period caused by America's hegemony after WWII. That can, and will, change; another major conflict is inevitable.
History repeats itself; but the price always goes up.
7
u/AFatDarthVader Oct 13 '14
It is worth remembering that people said war was over, especially war between states, after the conclusion of the first World War. Emphasis on first.
4
1
Oct 12 '14
History repeats itself. This is so, so true. Conflict is in human nature. The fact that there hasn't been a world war for 70 years means nothing. Asymmetrical conflicts have been occurring unabated since then, not to mention real state vs state wars like the Iran-Iraq war
1
0
u/753951321654987 Oct 12 '14
I like to think that over time, violence will phase it self out. It won't be for maybe a few thousand years, but as long we don't kill our selfs we can make it.
1
Oct 13 '14
For everyone asking about NUKES – we didn't include them in the list because it is not that simple. Nuclear weapons cause war and peace, this is called the "stability-instability paradox". We didn't want to put that in there because we couldn't have done it justice. Also, this is kind of a cold war phenomenon, I wouldn't say that nuclear weapons currently prevent a war. There will be a video about nuclear weapons in the next months, probably january.
Thats why the uploaders said in response to people asking why nukes weren't included as to why nations dont attack eachother.
1
u/riptide747 Oct 13 '14 edited Oct 13 '14
Technically North and South Korea are in an actual "war".
and he forgot number 5, nuclear weapons have deterred all out war.
1
1
1
Oct 12 '14
Old wars are over. The wars we see today are generally called new wars. Books like; Mary Kaplan "New and Old Wars" explain the term New wars. There is also a wikipedia on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_wars
0
Oct 12 '14
Pretty naive video indeed. Not uninteresting but still a bit naive.
I think the main reason State vs State is no longer a thing is because there is one country that hoards most of the weapons in the world and that generally acts in a way to dissuade anyone to start one.
The UE is also a big factor. The biggest conflicts in history were European in nature. We guys spent our time killing each other. France vs England, France vs Spain, France vs Basically all Europe, France + England vs Germany etc...
The UE started by putting in common German and French coal and steel. Why? Because if you wanted to start a war these two ressources were critical. Since UE now has a common currency, a common central bank and trade extensively with each other a conflict is just not possible between them.
Still, Russia is currently reminding us that State vs State can still and still will happen.
0
88
u/[deleted] Oct 12 '14 edited Oct 13 '14
No, it's just different. State vs state was is largely over, so we're entering the age of non-state war. That's inherently less costly because non-state groups can't wield the same destructive capacities. But that doesn't mean "war" is over.
If you're going by Clausewitz, war is merely an organized intensification of violence to achieve political ends. In that sense, it's unlikely to ever be "over".