Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Military Strategy and Tactics
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1965a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0358a.JPG

Miramar_14_GR4_1646a.JPG

Miramar_14_LF_0221a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Is some form of world war still possible in this day and age?

This is a discussion on Is some form of world war still possible in this day and age? within the Military Strategy and Tactics forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; First of, I always considered the Cold War as a World War (III) fought in proxy. I also consider the ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old June 17th, 2011   #16
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3
Threads:
World Wars

First of, I always considered the Cold War as a World War (III) fought in proxy. I also consider the War against Islamic Extremists as a World War(IV).

Would a 1940s style World War happen again? Not likely, for 3 reasons
1. The invention of nuclear weapons has made large scale wars less appealing.
2. The explosion in the number of world Democracies since the 1950s. Historically democracies generally dont attack each other.
3. The complex world economy. Advances in travel means and the internet are tying more and more economies closer together. You risk your own economic demise if you participate in a large scale war.
hasty_d is offline  
Old June 17th, 2011   #17
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 460
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ananda View Post
Well that's what the present economic system/battlefield are for. Look, Human nature is to compete. We will still be staying in the cave on the mountain or hut in the dirt if we don't have in our genetic a strive to be better. And to be better we naturally see what our neighbours had. Jelousy and envy can be negative or can be positive. The present system channel those basic human instict in to competitive 'game' that can keep 'commercially' scores without resulting on to other basic primal instict of grabing and destructions.

The present global economic system with all the ineffciency and injustices still provide the better alternatives for human to acquiared resources in more 'civilised' way in which you put as 'honest and fair' competions. But no competions is actually really fair and honest. It's only exist on an utopian level that we can only dream off.

In such any competitions we try to best our rival in everyway, in such the system have to enforce rules and ethics to minimise that. The ones that can utilise what they have more effectively and more recourcefulness usually can have advantages on the system. However as human nature, nothing is 'precise' and sure until one particullar game/competitions being played. Sometime you win, sometime you lose. But as long as the players still see that the nature of the game is more profitable than other 'primal instict' of mankind which are destructive, then it will survive to be used by humanity to search relative equilibrium on dailly life.
In general I completely agree with you about human nature. The attempts to change it are futile, unstable, and counterproductive. The societies that work the best are the ones that provide positive outlets for their citizen’s natural human drives so that they can be channeled into productive or at least nondestructive pursuits. For example, the ancient Greeks thought and with some good evidence(they created the Olympics) that completive sports were a worthy substitute to channel man’s natural aggressive spirit away from the gratuitous pursuit of war (for glory and prestige) to something les-harmful without trying to destroy that human spirit.

Not all substitutes for potential disruptive human drives must be in the economic arena but some must be. The perpetual struggle between the native drives of human emotions and the proven power of reason is perpetual and non-ending. The biggest mistake that most rationalist's make is in discrediting the value of human emotions. What I like to call "God’s general purpose guidance system for the human species". When they do the rationalist’s lose credibility and thus many of the arguments they would otherwise win. Emotions work quite well when people interact directly with each other one on one or in small groups but fail when setting policy or making rules that effect wide ranges of people in the impersonal masses. Especially when dealing with people from different cultures operating under different belief systems. The problem is most people would rather be liked than smart.

The two most important things beyond the satisfaction of physical want which men pursue that can be effectively subverted to build up societies instead of stunting them are the desire to gain status and admiration from others “especially from your peers” and (believe it or not) the will to dominate others.

If you are a billionaire you cannot possibly consume all of the wealth you have in any rational way just my satisfying your physical needs or even your wants. As an example, why did Bill Gates continue to work so hard and build up Microsoft even after he was already so impossibly wealthy? First he wanted to be recognized to be first among his peers for what he did. Second he wanted to have a say in what the future of mankind would be. And after he final gave up control of his empire he how seeks prestige and status by giving away billions of dollars for good causes in a very smart and public way. Once again wanting a say in what the future of mankind will be like. I think we can both agree that in this case at least, the pursuit of status and acclaim has had an overall positive effect upon society and the world in general. This is not however an overall endorsement of all of his business practices.

What were the societal factors that allowed this to happen? First, that success and the accumulation of wealth were accepted as a worthy goals to peruse within his society (this is not true in many societies that emphases conformity where the envy of the less successful causes public scorn. This then causes people not to excel to the degree of which they are capable) and thus he could be praised and the added fact of visibly standing out above others for accomplishments was admired. There may be many unsung heroes in the world that do good things and are never recognized for what they do but when they are publicly admired there will be far more hero’s in the end.
rip is offline  
Old June 18th, 2011   #18
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 13,153
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hasty_d View Post
First of, I always considered the Cold War as a World War (III) fought in proxy. I also consider the War against Islamic Extremists as a World War(IV).

Would a 1940s style World War happen again? Not likely, for 3 reasons
1. The invention of nuclear weapons has made large scale wars less appealing.
2. The explosion in the number of world Democracies since the 1950s. Historically democracies generally dont attack each other.
3. The complex world economy. Advances in travel means and the internet are tying more and more economies closer together. You risk your own economic demise if you participate in a large scale war.
There are a few serious problems with the democratic peace thesis, the main being time. There's just been too little of it since the 1950s.
Feanor is offline  
Old June 18th, 2011   #19
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
NICO's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: AZ, USA
Posts: 207
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hasty_d View Post
First of, I always considered the Cold War as a World War (III) fought in proxy. I also consider the War against Islamic Extremists as a World War(IV).

Would a 1940s style World War happen again? Not likely, for 3 reasons
1. The invention of nuclear weapons has made large scale wars less appealing.
2. The explosion in the number of world Democracies since the 1950s. Historically democracies generally dont attack each other.
3. The complex world economy. Advances in travel means and the internet are tying more and more economies closer together. You risk your own economic demise if you participate in a large scale war.
I generally agree with what you are saying here. I also hope we never have a large scale conflict again.

But I think there was a question of how one could start. I pointed out some of the differences with what we would have today compared to WWI or WWII. We wouldn't have a Pearl Harbor but maybe something like STUXNET or even more dangerous form take out the power grid or telcoms? What would be the response of SKorea if NKorea were to take SK stock market out for a day?a week? multiple attacks against TV,radio,internet? I think after a few days the SKorean population would want to see some "kinetic" action taken against NK, especially after a few days in the dark with no electricity or water. It could get ugly pretty fast after that.

Just today, I read in Bloomberg, United airlines computers were down, a few days ago it was US Airways. Interesting? What happens if this keeps going on? Then other industries start having problems at their turn. Could something like this be a prelude to an attack today (unlikely), hackers having a good time (likely) or some country giving their programmers a trial run? Computer viruses are great, they weaken your enemy, hard to prove their origin and it's soft power. How and when do you know you are under attack? Where exactly is the threshold where you start using hard power (bombs) in retaliation against a virus (soft power)? Who was it that recently said if you take out our power grid, you'll end up with an LGB coming down on you? It might have been Gates, not sure.

I remember reading somewhere that during the 80s (Cold War), if the Soviets took out a US satellite, it was considered an act of war with dear and immediate consequences. This was well understood by both parties. Could it be that it is time that all major countries develop some shared protocol where if a country comes under attack by computer hacking, well, everyone knows what to expect? I think we do need some new treaties to cover some of these worldwide emerging threats.

Maybe like you said, terrorism is today's WW4. I would add if I may: piracy, mafias, counterfeiting and narcs in there too. None of them really could take down a developed country in the West but you start adding them together with their favorite corruptible politicians/judges du jour and now you have big problems for every country including USA.
NICO is offline  
Old June 18th, 2011   #20
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 460
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NICO View Post
I generally agree with what you are saying here. I also hope we never have a large scale conflict again.

But I think there was a question of how one could start. I pointed out some of the differences with what we would have today compared to WWI or WWII. We wouldn't have a Pearl Harbor but maybe something like STUXNET or even more dangerous form take out the power grid or telcoms? What would be the response of SKorea if NKorea were to take SK stock market out for a day?a week? multiple attacks against TV,radio,internet? I think after a few days the SKorean population would want to see some "kinetic" action taken against NK, especially after a few days in the dark with no electricity or water. It could get ugly pretty fast after that.

Just today, I read in Bloomberg, United airlines computers were down, a few days ago it was US Airways. Interesting? What happens if this keeps going on? Then other industries start having problems at their turn. Could something like this be a prelude to an attack today (unlikely), hackers having a good time (likely) or some country giving their programmers a trial run? Computer viruses are great, they weaken your enemy, hard to prove their origin and it's soft power. How and when do you know you are under attack? Where exactly is the threshold where you start using hard power (bombs) in retaliation against a virus (soft power)? Who was it that recently said if you take out our power grid, you'll end up with an LGB coming down on you? It might have been Gates, not sure.

I remember reading somewhere that during the 80s (Cold War), if the Soviets took out a US satellite, it was considered an act of war with dear and immediate consequences. This was well understood by both parties. Could it be that it is time that all major countries develop some shared protocol where if a country comes under attack by computer hacking, well, everyone knows what to expect? I think we do need some new treaties to cover some of these worldwide emerging threats.

Maybe like you said, terrorism is today's WW4. I would add if I may: piracy, mafias, counterfeiting and narcs in there too. None of them really could take down a developed country in the West but you start adding them together with their favorite corruptible politicians/judges du jour and now you have big problems for every country including USA.
Yes it seems that the preferred methods of attack are now directed upon the infrastructures (both physical and social) and the stabilizing institutions within the society of the intended opponent. The so called asymmetric warfare option, where you attack the foundations of your opponent societies stability. Starting in a way that at first is not to obvious (sneak attack), deniable (using cutouts, criminal contractors, overt criminal activity conducted directly by government agencies, and surrogates of many different kinds), all calculated to spread panic. The Chines have promoted this model of warfare in their writhing’s as a way to overcome the US’s physical arms advantage but they are not alone in adapting this outlook.

There are many examples of the above to be found. So far the more established powers have used such techniques very very sparingly. First these faux weapons, that is what I call them for lack of a better term, are very much like biological weapons, in that ones you let them out they do not care very much who they hurt and the great powers have more infrastructure value to lose.

Or we can take as an example the actions of North Korea, who has engaged such thing as currency counterfeiting, counterfeit consumer products like pirated DVD’s and the like, drug smuggling, gun running and anything else that creates income and weakens the running dogs of the west. Only because North Korea is so small and isolated has this not come to a head yet.

The real question is, at what point will the threshold be meet where these activities and others like them, no longer can be left without strong response, ether of the same kind or more conventionally?

What is amazing to me is that some people think you can attacking the stabilizing values or other countries and still think, even if the other countries do not respond officially that it still will not come back and attack their own.

Let us pretend that you seeking some great advantage and could take down America without firing a shot what then? How could it not hurt you? Then all of a sudden you find out that your grandfather can no longer get his heart medication and a thousand other things like it and the advantage you though you would get disappears into unintended consequences..
rip is offline  
Old June 18th, 2011   #21
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
NICO's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: AZ, USA
Posts: 207
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rip View Post

.......Let us pretend that you seeking some great advantage and could take down America without firing a shot what then? How could it not hurt you? Then all of a sudden you find out that your grandfather can no longer get his heart medication and a thousand other things like it and the advantage you though you would get disappears into unintended consequences..
I think you hit some important points there that differentiates our current situation compared to WWI or WWII. It is very difficult to go to war today because of how most economies are linked and how do you avoid hurting your own economy/industry in the process. Only really the states under sanctions like Iran or NKorea that are pretty isolated could maybe gain something going to war today.Most other countries would probably lose out.

Maybe second cold war will be just asymmetric (malware,virus,etc..) with a touch of SForces and PGMs mixed in.

I think in the US especially, a lot of people would be against my idea of some kind of international treaty that would provide some kind of baseline when it comes to these new threats as it smacks for some of New World Order conspiracies which has grown in size and craziness but I still think it is necessary and it would be one way of avoiding a second cold war.
NICO is offline  
Old June 19th, 2011   #22
Banned Member
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 328
Threads:
You may be interested to note, that on Wednesday 15th, there were some very interesting comments in the communique of the SCO Heads of State summit in Astana (Kazahkstan).

It appears that for the first time, that China and Russia have harmonised their foreign policies on a range of security issues, including:
NATO in Libya
US Missile Shields in Eastern Europe
US involvement in South East Asia and Oceania
Continues NATO presence in Afghanistan post 2014.

It is also worth noting that at the same summit, the new process for admitting new members was agreed and that India and Pakistan have expressed the intention to join the organisation together, after resolving their territorial disputes within 3 years.

Both of these countries attended the summit as observers and so seem quite comfortable with the contents of the communique as expressed above.

People may wish to consider the ramifications thereof.
Sampanviking is offline  
Old June 19th, 2011   #23
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 460
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NICO View Post
I think you hit some important points there that differentiates our current situation compared to WWI or WWII. It is very difficult to go to war today because of how most economies are linked and how do you avoid hurting your own economy/industry in the process. Only really the states under sanctions like Iran or NKorea that are pretty isolated could maybe gain something going to war today.Most other countries would probably lose out.

Maybe second cold war will be just asymmetric (malware,virus,etc..) with a touch of SForces and PGMs mixed in.

I think in the US especially, a lot of people would be against my idea of some kind of international treaty that would provide some kind of baseline when it comes to these new threats as it smacks for some of New World Order conspiracies which has grown in size and craziness but I still think it is necessary and it would be one way of avoiding a second cold war.
It is not so much that the idea of a treaty is not praise worthy in and of its self it is that there is no way to enforce it. If it cannot be enforced, monitored, or verified it creates more problems than it solves. Most governments that are involved in these kinds of things use surrogates, usually becoming partners with criminal organizations who do the work for tradeoffs. If you cannot identify the true sources and players behind the attack it only becomes a worthless piece of paper.

What is more likely to happens long term is that many life support systems, beginning with the information bases ones are going to become increasingly off line, proprietary, non-connected, non-standard, incompatible, and hence structurally less efficient because they are too vulnerable to malefactors of all kinds. The end result will be that economic activity will become in many very measurable ways far less efficient and the whole world will become poorer as a result of the absence of trust.

The people who think they can take advantage but misusing others trust will just move on to the next most venerable kind of targets. Now think of a world where nobody trusts anyone. It would be a world where the problems that are coming at us will be unsolved. Not because the problems themselves are insurmountable but because we failed to cooperate in solving them due to a failure of trust.
rip is offline  
Old June 22nd, 2011   #24
New Member
Private
HybridCyph3r_F1's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Silent Hill
Posts: 15
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampanviking View Post
You may be interested to note, that on Wednesday 15th, there were some very interesting comments in the communique of the SCO Heads of State summit in Astana (Kazahkstan).

It appears that for the first time, that China and Russia have harmonised their foreign policies on a range of security issues, including:
NATO in Libya
US Missile Shields in Eastern Europe
US involvement in South East Asia and Oceania
Continues NATO presence in Afghanistan post 2014.

It is also worth noting that at the same summit, the new process for admitting new members was agreed and that India and Pakistan have expressed the intention to join the organisation together, after resolving their territorial disputes within 3 years.

Both of these countries attended the summit as observers and so seem quite comfortable with the contents of the communique as expressed above.

People may wish to consider the ramifications thereof.
You hit a very good point. Should you ever get a chance to read:
Terrorist Trail: Backtracking the Foreign Fighter [Paperback]
H. John Poole (Author), Mike Leahy (Illustrator), Ray L. Smith (Foreword)

In combo with:
On Combat, The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace [Paperback]
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (Author), Loren W. Christensen (Author)

Please read them.

One critical point that H. John Poole made was the involvement of both China and Russia in Africa throughout the early 1960's and onwards, and the development of Satellite Proxy Armies (SPA) in regions, historically speaking, where the West instituted slavery on a proportionally large scale, unseen in human history.

One critical point that Lt. Col. Dave Grossman made was the evolution of how war was fought. From large land based armies to individual state-less operators. (Let me get back my books so i can quote them.)

@Ananda
“It's the responsibility of all players in this economics batllefield to try to convinces eveyone to avoid 'armed' option, and stick to the game of the systems. Just like economics dicipline it self wich trying to quantified human nature, the 'economic battlefield' systems will try to reduces human natures to the numbers that can be traded in the game.” #10. Para. 4.
“The present global economic system with all the ineffciency and injustices still provide the better alternatives for human to acquiared resources in more 'civilised' way in which you put as 'honest and fair' competions. But no competions is actually really fair and honest. It's only exist on an utopian level that we can only dream off.” # 15. Para. 2

Travel to some "third world countries", and tell that to them.

So is some form of world war still possible in this day and age? Let's hope not for the future generations. However you would have to analyze Political, Infrastructure, Military, Economic, Social, and Informational (PI-MESI) factors.

Small wars will also continue to exist indefinitely.
HybridCyph3r_F1 is offline  
Old July 17th, 2011   #25
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Twinblade's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 290
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormbyte View Post
Some very interesting views, thank you to all that have posted.

But lets know throw a view at this. What if we were to think in terms of fiction/film setting/novel.

What then in the realms of semi-realistic fiction could start a global conflict?
If you look at ww1 and ww2, ww1 actually laid the foundations for a much larger, more destructive ww2. As of today NATO, Russia, India and China, neither have the intent nor the willpower to wage a full fledged war against each other and settle it in their favor.

However middle east is a totally different ballgame. Broadly divided into the Arab block, the Iranian block and the Israeli block, its as stable as barrels of gasoline in a dynamite factory. Here everyone hates everyone, and any two sides might have to work together (unwillingly) to whack the third out. A full out middle east war will certainly wreck the oil based economy, which may trigger a new great race for resources. It may be even a cold war like situation with no less than 2 players supporting rival factions in some troubled african nation with resources to gain the upper hand.

Since Russia has a lot of resources on hand, and India being run by peace loving hippies for the time to come, we can all guess which two blocks are going to face off each other in the long run.
Twinblade is offline  
Old July 18th, 2011   #26
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Beatmaster's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 506
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinblade View Post
If you look at ww1 and ww2, ww1 actually laid the foundations for a much larger, more destructive ww2. As of today NATO, Russia, India and China, neither have the intent nor the willpower to wage a full fledged war against each other and settle it in their favor.

However middle east is a totally different ballgame. Broadly divided into the Arab block, the Iranian block and the Israeli block, its as stable as barrels of gasoline in a dynamite factory. Here everyone hates everyone, and any two sides might have to work together (unwillingly) to whack the third out. A full out middle east war will certainly wreck the oil based economy, which may trigger a new great race for resources. It may be even a cold war like situation with no less than 2 players supporting rival factions in some troubled african nation with resources to gain the upper hand.

Since Russia has a lot of resources on hand, and India being run by peace loving hippies for the time to come, we can all guess which two blocks are going to face off each other in the long run.
I understand what you are saying and to some extend i can agree to it.
But like other posters have said you have to realize that a fully fledged WO is not very likely to happen as there are a number of facts that makes it nearly impossible to wage a large scale war or prepare one.

Obviously if a fool would declare war to 20 countries at ones and start hitting around like a raging mofo yeah then you got yourself a very short lasting world war the reason i say short lasting is because of the watch dogs out there like the security council who will or who will be forced to take actions against the aggressor.
And yes economic power and size does matter when you are talking about a world war but imo it really does not matter who starts it as the rest of the world will not accept it so even when it might escalate in a world war i personally believe that the rest of the world will do what ever can be done to stop this war.

And maybe i see this wrong but today's economical and international interests alone is reason enough to avoid a fully fledged world war.
Its not like 1940 see my point? the world has become so dynamic and nearly everything is digital that starting a world war (Without nukes) is a challenge of its own and ones you pulled this off then the rest of the world will be ready and waiting.
So besides the very unrealistic scenario that US invades Russia and China pays a visit to the EU while the Arab and African nations having their own gang bang i really do not see how a nation could be able to start a world war, imo is suicide for any nations regardless if its a tiny nation or its the biggest and strongest nation around.

However lets forget a fully fledged WO for a sec here as it is unrealistic at this point however there are a number of places on this planet that could result in a regional conflict if the international community does not pay attention and the risks coming from these regional conflicts could result in a political world war as international interests and agreements might force a nation to step in which might lead into a military intervention of some sort.
But a world war? no i do not see that happen not saying that a world war is impossible but the risks and negative effects from a world war is way to much for anyone to carry at this point so i personally believe that even if nations hate each other and would love to see a mushroom cloud at each others capital that they still would do what ever it takes to avoid a world war, specially if you take into account what small conflicts can do to world economics and such.

just my cents here

Cheers
Beatmaster is offline  
Old July 18th, 2011   #27
Defense Professional / Analyst
Colonel
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,561
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinblade View Post
If you look at ww1 and ww2, ww1 actually laid the foundations for a much larger, more destructive ww2. As of today NATO, Russia, India and China, neither have the intent nor the willpower to wage a full fledged war against each other and settle it in their favor.

However middle east is a totally different ballgame. Broadly divided into the Arab block, the Iranian block and the Israeli block, its as stable as barrels of gasoline in a dynamite factory. Here everyone hates everyone, and any two sides might have to work together (unwillingly) to whack the third out. A full out middle east war will certainly wreck the oil based economy, which may trigger a new great race for resources. It may be even a cold war like situation with no less than 2 players supporting rival factions in some troubled african nation with resources to gain the upper hand.

Since Russia has a lot of resources on hand, and India being run by peace loving hippies for the time to come, we can all guess which two blocks are going to face off each other in the long run.
I apologise in advance for the long post, but I am going to address two issues. The first is Twinblade above. I agree with most of your post. The Middle East is most definitely the major flash point at the moment. The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians reminds me of the 1930s & has created tensions that are growing each day. The tensions between the Persians and the Arabs and the Israelis are as old as the bible. Add in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This brings me to another flash point.

India & Pakistan. India is not ruled by peace loving hippies as you claim. They have fought, I think, 2 wars against Pakistan and 1 against China. India at the moment is undergoing probably the largest modernisation of any armed forces in the world plus it is increasing it's capacity to include a larger carrier fleet and introducing SSBNs with a fleet of 12 planned. India also has some internal security issues it is dealing with as well as security issues in Kashmir along with border issues in Kashmir with Pakistan. Both nations have nukes and India has a long defence relationship with Russia, Pakistan with China.

The third flash point is the South China Sea including the Korean Peninsula & Taiwan. China is starting to vigourously assert its claim to the Spratly Islands. They have already had a shooting war with Vietnam in the 1980s. Recently they had a run in with the Philippines and have also had a run in with the Japanese Navy (JNSDF). They have got cranky about US navy exercises in the South China Sea as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NICO View Post
I generally agree with what you are saying here. I also hope we never have a large scale conflict again.

But I think there was a question of how one could start. I pointed out some of the differences with what we would have today compared to WWI or WWII. We wouldn't have a Pearl Harbor but maybe something like STUXNET or even more dangerous form take out the power grid or telcoms? What would be the response of SKorea if NKorea were to take SK stock market out for a day?a week? multiple attacks against TV,radio,internet? I think after a few days the SKorean population would want to see some "kinetic" action taken against NK, especially after a few days in the dark with no electricity or water. It could get ugly pretty fast after that.

Just today, I read in Bloomberg, United airlines computers were down, a few days ago it was US Airways. Interesting? What happens if this keeps going on? Then other industries start having problems at their turn. Could something like this be a prelude to an attack today (unlikely), hackers having a good time (likely) or some country giving their programmers a trial run? Computer viruses are great, they weaken your enemy, hard to prove their origin and it's soft power. How and when do you know you are under attack? Where exactly is the threshold where you start using hard power (bombs) in retaliation against a virus (soft power)? Who was it that recently said if you take out our power grid, you'll end up with an LGB coming down on you? It might have been Gates, not sure.
Nico raises an interesting scenario and one I feel that needs to be discussed within the context of this topic. So far most of the discussion has centred upon state on state conflict which historically has usually been the case. One point Nico makes is:
Quote:
I remember reading somewhere that during the 80s (Cold War), if the Soviets took out a US satellite, it was considered an act of war with dear and immediate consequences. This was well understood by both parties. Could it be that it is time that all major countries develop some shared protocol where if a country comes under attack by computer hacking, well, everyone knows what to expect? I think we do need some new treaties to cover some of these worldwide emerging threats.
What if a non governmental organisation committed an act of aggression against a state? 9/11.
Quote:
Maybe like you said, terrorism is today's WW4. I would add if I may: piracy, mafias, counterfeiting and narcs in there too. None of them really could take down a developed country in the West but you start adding them together with their favorite corruptible politicians/judges du jour and now you have big problems for every country including USA.
Take it a step further from 9/11. Undoubtedly we have all been following the Murdoch scandal in the UK with the journos hacking cellphones. I see on tonights news that it may have spread to the US with the actor Jude Law claiming his cellphone was hacked in the US. Here you have a private corporation hacking into government figures, as well as private individuals, in the UK for private info to sell papers. This has a very real security implication. A similar organisation could have used the same methodology for more nefarious means. This is a cyber attack pure and simple; be it against an individual or a state.

Now the US has a rather large problem 24,000 files stolen from defense contractor: Pentagon | Defense Technology News at DefenseTalk The official line is that it could have only been done by a foreign intelligence service but there are multinationals out there who have far greater budgets than a lot of countries (including my own ) Who is to say that a private corporation could not conduct a similar operation. The US & Europe also have a debt problem and because like most of the OECD countries, as well as many others, they rely upon electronic media to process financial transactions and data. It's another target for a cyber attack. The list goes on. Think how much we rely on electronic data transfer & management now.

A war, even a world war, doesn't have to be guns and explosions. It can be something far more insidious, economically devastating and far harder to counter. It can be started by a state or a non state entity and can go global because of the ongoing momentum, just like a virus. Look at the last global financial crash which started in Manhattan because of one greedy banker. Cause and effect.

Just something more to think about.

Last edited by ngatimozart; July 18th, 2011 at 06:54 AM. Reason: addition
ngatimozart is offline  
Old July 18th, 2011   #28
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Twinblade's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 290
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
India & Pakistan. India is not ruled by peace loving hippies as you claim. They have fought, I think, 2 wars against Pakistan and 1 against China. India at the moment is undergoing probably the largest modernisation of any armed forces in the world plus it is increasing it's capacity to include a larger carrier fleet and introducing SSBNs with a fleet of 12 planned. India also has some internal security issues it is dealing with as well as security issues in Kashmir along with border issues in Kashmir with Pakistan. Both nations have nukes and India has a long defence relationship with Russia, Pakistan with China.
Well, if it weren't for peace loving hippies, the public opinion demanded for a full fledged war in 1999, 2001, 2004, 2006 & 2008 (nationalistic attitude runs very deep in asian societies, mostly silencing the voice of reason). Just saying
Twinblade is offline  
Old July 19th, 2011   #29
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9
Threads:
I think the one thing over looked is that if for some reason the US fell apart or pulled back from the world then a new war would be possible.
phrank is offline  
Old July 21st, 2011   #30
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Guangzhou, PRC
Posts: 168
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormbyte View Post
Thank you Rip.

I see no point trying to keep the two subjects seperate, as you say they will be joined at some point.

So lets discuss both from the outset.

For the initial question is "What would drive people to war on such a large scale?"
easy, resources! Let's face it, the world is getting smaller, resources are becoming more scarce, ummmm, it ain't rocket science!
exported_kiwi is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:55 AM.