DescentBB

While the conclusion ends on a somewhat positive note, I don't think the 'long peace' is going to last much longer. Maybe even less than a few more months.

The Fallen of World War II in comparison to the history of war.

I just finished reading a book that detailed how the Soviets treated our prisoners of war and other nationals trapped behind the Eastern Front in Poland when the Soviets overran all those German prison camps. The Soviets would just release our people to fend for themselves in the frigid Polish countryside with no food or shelter. If those POW's were Russian, they were considered cowards, taken into the woods and shot. They even impeded our President's and our military's pleas to allow us to go in and retrieve our own men. We had to clandestinely send in military people for other stated reasons, under cover and threat of death, just to look for and find all our POW's and other foreign nationals scattered all over the Polish countryside. What prisoners we could find were then sneaked aboard trains with the help of the Pols and set on to Odessa, all get them out of Poland and back home. What a shame. It looks like Stalin started the Cold War long before WWII was finished.

[ I just removed two useless posts. Keep it professional, guys. ]

------------

TB, you've made a number of posts over the last few years about imminent massive international wars, yet none of them have happened.

I'm not claiming it can't happen (I obviously don't know the future), but is it possible you're reading too much credibility in some of these articles and videos you've posted?

Obligatory WW3 will be Obama's fault

woodchip wrote:Obligatory WW3 will be Obama's fault

thank goodness you tossed that winky thing in there!

Foil wrote:[ I just removed two useless posts. Keep it professional, guys. ]

------------

TB, you've made a number of posts over the last few years about imminent massive international wars, yet none of them have happened.

I'm not claiming it can't happen (I obviously don't know the future), but is it possible you're reading too much credibility in some of these articles and videos you've posted?

Yes- none /yet./ But the chances are growing by the day. There were literally no mentions of such a possibility just a few years ago- but the number and diversity of predicted war threats is increasing.

I would have laughed off the possibility of nuclear war a few years ago- but not so much now, sadly.

not sure about that 'increase' in chances. For instance, another board I frequented had a bunch of current and former military types. For the past 10 years, about every 3 or 4 months, one of the absolutely assured us all that an attack on Iran was 'imminent'(they had 'inside info', etc). Generally, whether it be at the last minute or not, such senseless violence tends to get averted. I must confess, the longer we have this issue with radical splinter groups that has been growing since the invasion of Iraq, coupled with a consistently unstable Pakistan, a large-scale violent event is always a possibility, but I really don't see any of the major powers starting a nuclear war.

ThunderBunny wrote:But the chances are growing by the day.

Actually, the opposite is happening. Great wars are less likely to happen, given the trend over the last several thousand years. Climate change might change that, which is why it is considered a national security threat. We will have to wait and see.

And yet it is being reported that ISIL has enough chemical and radioactive material to build a large dirty bomb. the question is, where would they detonate it? And what would the repercussions be?

It's hard to separate facts from propaganda and I'm skeptical that ISIS could build and deploy dirty bomb, though it is possible. As far as where to detonate one, well, it will definitely be a regional target. I you immediately think Israel then you should realize there are other targets that are just as enticing, especially if ISIS is playing the long game. Attacking Israel would see inch of ISIS territory razed.

And not to downplay the seriousness of a dirty bomb, but in most cases it will be a comparatively small explosive with a limited dispersal of nuclear material, and that material would be far less damaging than the actual explosive. In fact, the radioactive material could be cleaned up with enough effort leaving little long term impact on the site. Personally I am not any more afraid of a dirty bomb than a regular one.

vision wrote:Actually, the opposite is happening. Great wars are less likely to happen, given the trend over the last several thousand years. Climate change might change that, which is why it is considered a national security threat. We will have to wait and see.

What would you say has changed to make it so?

Here's my theory [note I'm not particularly studied on the philosophy of war]: I think the ultimate incubator of war is limited resources, and people/nations deciding to use war to forcibly take resources from others. This would explain why WMD's put such a damper of war - because they leave little behind to plunder. Lately, our advances in technology have rapidly expanded the global resource pool, providing (relative) bounty for all. I think this trend has to end at some point, for the following reasons: 1. We're hitting new technological barriers which are slowing our technological advancement. 2. We're finding the new resource barriers involved with our state of technology. (Particularly the sustainability of our methods) 3. We're essentially drawing principle on an ancient energy savings account which is limited (oil). 4. Our whole global society is increasingly interdependent, so localized events/interruptions have increasingly global effects; and likewise local areas are becoming less self-sufficient.

This leads me to believe that our current standard of living is running on borrowed time (you elude to something similar with your mention of climate change)... and when the bill comes due, I think the result of the resource pressure will be war. I don't know if it will be war between the great powers... but I do think that worse times are coming for mankind.

woodchip wrote:And yet it is being reported that ISIL has enough chemical and radioactive material to build a large dirty bomb. the question is, where would they detonate it? And what would the repercussions be?

what I was trying to say is that such an event becomes ever more likely, but I don't think any major power is foolish enough to ramp it up to nuclear war.

good points Snoopy and vision, re: the prospect of war in the face of limited resources.

snoopy wrote:What would you say has changed to make it so?

I believe you are correct with your perspective on resources. In S. Pinker's book "Better Angels..." he attributes several factors to the reduction of war and violence, resources being one of them. Surprisingly, one of the other factors is globalization. When your neighbors become necessary to the health of your economy you are less likely to attack them, no matter how much you disagree. Today, war is not profitable. I think that's the reason why the Iraq War was such a disaster compared to the Gulf War a decade earlier. The US lost trillions and gained nothing. If we merely wanted to destabilize the region there are far cheaper ways to do it. Likewise, Russia's recent military activity has had horrible effects on its economy. These days, cooperation gives you the economic advantage, not war.

RIGA, Latvia — In a significant move to deter possible Russian aggression in Europe, the Pentagon is poised to store battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other heavy weapons for as many as 5,000 American troops in several Baltic and Eastern European countries, American and allied officials say.

The proposal, if approved, would represent the first time since the end of the Cold War that the United States has stationed heavy military equipment in the newer NATO member nations in Eastern Europe that had once been part of the Soviet sphere of influence. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine have caused alarm and prompted new military planning in NATO capitals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/world ... urope.html

Sounds like de-escalation doesn't it?

Doesn't matter how many troops we put there. Russia can't win a war with the West and they know it. This is just political theater.

vision wrote: This is just political theater.

Nice sanitary term. The Kabuki dancers are already stabbing with their steely knives but just can't kill the beast.