Thucydides + 1

@ Putin33

Thanks for that data.

Checkmate, Jack_Klein. The numbers starting going down in '43, which happened to be the year that strategic bombing against Germany began.

"hey no you dont understand what im saying lol.

violence is here to stay.

*CONVENTIONAL* war *IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD* is gone forever though, i think.

thats what i was saying."

I understood exactly what you were saying. I was proposing the possibility of conventional war in a number of cases, between military powers who were roughly at the same level although obviously there are differences.

"i mean seriously? why the fuck would we go to war? lol i think an alien invasion is more likely."

We'd go to war over Taiwan, or perhaps the Korean issue expands into regional war where we get involved on one side and the Chinese on the other, or we go to war to defend American client states that surround China (the ASEAN countries and Japan). When Bush II came to power, his big foreign policy concern was the expansion of China. Had 9-11 not happened, Sino-US confrontation would have been much more frequent throughout the 2000s. As it was, before 9-11, we had that scandal with the plane in Hainan. There are many in Congress who are itching to cut off trade with China, because of perceived currency manipulation or whatever else.


"and why would china attack japan? they too are huge trade partners. what is the motivation? conquest doesnt work anymore. the world knows that. "

Because they don't get along. Because they're competing for territory (Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands). Because the US no longer will keep Japanese military ambitions in check. Because Japan is afraid of Chinese military modernization and increasingly assertive foreign policy.

Trade is not everything. Before WWI, there was a very high level of trade and economic interdependence. That didn't prevent war. Israel and the Palestinian economy are intimidated intertwined - that doesn't prevent war there.

Economic interdependence = mutual vulnerability. If people believe they increased trade is leading to their being vulnerable and potentially cut off from essential resources, they are more likely to fight. That's exactly what happened prior to the two world wars. The Soviets and Americans barely traded at all - and lo and behold - no war.

"conquest doesnt work anymore. the world knows that. "

Then why did we go to war in 1991 to prevent the conquest of Kuwait? We know damn well it works, and were afraid of Iraqi control of those rich oil resources. Conquest worked during WWII. The Germans got a lot of production and materials from the territories they conquered. Ditto the Japanese. They faced very little resistance in these territories, except in the Soviet areas of eastern Europe. Conquest works. There's a brilliant book about this by Peter Liberman. I'm not saying to read it, obviously, but if you ever get time it's worth a look.

"The numbers starting going down in '43, which happened to be the year that strategic bombing against Germany began."

It didn't begin in '43, and you reached the opposite conclusion that I did from that information.

Why would an apparently sane modern power go to war with another modern power? Because they think the end justifies the means. One power thinks 1. I am entitled (to this land,this resource, this sphere of influence etc) 2. I have the power.
There are other reasons too, such as preemptive strikes - fight now before it is too late.
Also some regions are more unstable than others, especially along borders. Take the border between the USA and Mexico. Much of the USA used to belong to Mexico. It is not inconceivable that Mexico might want it back one day. It's hard to imagine now, as Mexico is not powerful enough, but circumstances change.

@ Putin33

Yeah, but 1943 was the last peak year. That would indicate that the increasing buildup rate countered the damage done by strategic bombing. For example, we would bomb a factory, and they would build another one. By '44, they couldn't rebuild fast enough to keep up.

@thucy: ok I guess we are mostly arguing about semantics, but are you seriously saying the iraq war (1 or 2)...... was not a war, but a police action?

The term Police-action implies the suppression of factions *within* a single state.
The iraq war involved large scale military conflict between states - hence the term 'war'. no?

The strategic bombing efforts from 1940-1943 were miserable failures. Losses were high and successes were few. Losses were particularly spectacular during the summer and fall of 1943, when the US lost 54 bombers on August 1, 60 bombers on August 17, and during one week in October 1943, the US lost 143 bombers on 4 missions. Daylight bombings proved very difficult, with strong air defenses thwarting most raids (the British lost 96 bombers on a March 1944 attack on Nuremberg). The Americans, like the British and the Germans, switched to night raids which were even more ineffective although losses were fewer. As losses escalated, raids deep into enemy territory became fewer and fewer.

There were a number of reasons why bombing wasn't so effective. 1 - Radar gave the advantage to the defense. 2 - Fighters increased their performance vs Bombers.
3 - Targets were difficult to put out of commission. Bombs couldn't hit targets well enough or often enough to completely destroy a target. The German ability to repair factories and get them up and running after being hit was effective. This response also limited bombings ability to decrease morale. Also, it was difficult for bombers to figure out what kind of damage they did do, so they often thought they destroyed a target when they did not.

In 1944-1945 things changed, not only because by that time German fortunes on the Eastern front were very bad, but also because the western air forces finally decided they would develop fighters to escort their bombers.

72% of all bombs dropped on Germany happened after July 1944. By that time the Allies had already invaded France.

Considering the amount of resources the British and Americans put into bombing, it wasn't very effective. These resources could have been directed elsewhere (into the naval war, or into supporting ground forces), and probably would have been more effective. The British lost a total of 8,325 bombers, and directly 40-50 percent of their war production into the RAF. The Americans lost 8,237 bombers, 3,924 fighters, and 73,000 crew members (29,000 dead). More bombing crew members died than in Normandy, Ardennes, the entire US Navy, and the entire US Marine. In fact, the entire pacific campaign only had 57,000 dead. So more than half that number died in bombing raids. It also killed close to 600,000 German civilians. Imagine how many fewer civilians would have been killed if we didn't focus so much on bombing. Almost as many French died from Allied bombs as British died from German bombs.

Most of the above numbers comes from a journal article in the Journal of American History, 1986, by Kenneth P. Werrell.

In addition, while one can brush off bombing military targets in an area bombing way, there are several instances of both the British and American bombing commands designing missions not to destroy military assets or military production sites, but to simply kill as many civilians as possible.

This is what you might call a massacre, gentlemen. Yes, they were Germans. Yes, the Germans did it first. To quote Vonnegut "I instructed my sons that they should never work for companies that manufacture massacre machinery, that the news of the massacre of their country's enemies should not fill them with glee, and to express contempt for people who think we need massacre machinery.".

I for one deliberately requested that I not serve on a ballistic missile submarine (despite its predictable schedule being better suited for the relationship I was in with my then-fiancee). I didn't want anything to do with a device whose only purpose was to conduct an atomic massacre. At least on a fast-attack, we'd be shooting at other warships, and that is the game that warships play.

tl;dr: Massacres are bad, kthxbai?

about police action.

yes it is pure semantics. i said it make a point. iraq is a war, sure. it's just not a conventional war. i'm saying the troops have more in common with LAPD gang officers than they do with napoleon. that's all.

and yes i know states go to war for all kinds of reasons, and i know the interdependence was high in WWI. however, as i said, i don't think anyone is willing to risk war anymore.

the only time there is a real threat of it is when there is a dictator who is actually not right in the head.

in WWI they still believed in conquest, they still thought they could take over Europe, same in WWII. those experiments failed. the world now does not believe in conquest. there is a UN resolution against it.

when iraq attacked kuwait, we attacked back *because you can't conquer other states*

yes i know they had oil but it was also just the egregiousness of trying to actually conquer another state that made us step in.

do you really honestly think that, for instance, South Africa could attack Lesotho and just conquer it? And that everyone would just be like "oh congrats SA on adding a couple thousand square miles to your territory!"

no. come on. on top of that no one would ever do it in the first place for fear of reprisal.

on your supposed flashpoints: China is not going to attack Taiwan. They want them back, but they also don't want to go to war with us. That's why they haven't attacked yet. The longer this is the case they more likely it will be that China just accepts their independence and lets it drop.

Japan and China are not going to fight. I don't feel I have to explain that one. You don't get anything out of winning a war against your neighbor like you did in the past. What are they going to do? Make them pay tribute? As if that will actually cover the cost of the war.

War is too expensive. We would only engage in it to, for instance, prevent someone from, say, using nukes or conquering a country, etc. But that's where insane dictators come back into play. As it stands only NK in East Asia has an insane dictator. But even he shows signs of sanity, know that if he attacks SK the game is up and his rule is over. So instead he uses it as a threat, but it's a threat he can never carry out, because it would be the end of him.

Etc.

People are not going to spend all that fucking money on a war to, say, for instance, get control of some fucking rocks sticking out of the surf.

This isn't 1750. lol.

"the only time there is a real threat of it is when there is a dictator who is actually not right in the head. "

Because it was an "insane dictator" that invaded Iraq for no reason, right? Oh wait, that's a 'police action', so that doesn't count. There is nothing more worn, trite, and tired that the propaganda of calling anybody who opposes America "insane".

" the world now does not believe in conquest. there is a UN resolution against it."

Yes, but that's a separate point from whether conquest "works". It clearly works, whether people find it normatively acceptable is a separate point. And just because outright conquest is not acceptable doesn't mean that there aren't serious disputes about territory, and that war couldn't erupt about entities that weren't considered legitimate like Taiwan, Palestine, S. Ossetia, etc. IN such cases, it wouldn't be considered "conquest", but the effect would be just the same. Surely if China liberated Taiwan nobody in Beijing would say they are "conquering" the island.

"we attacked back *because you can't conquer other states*"

Unless of course South Korea conquered North Korea, then we'd be all for that. Or, in the 1970s, we'd certainly support South Vietnam conquering North Vietnam.

"yes i know they had oil but it was also just the egregiousness of trying to actually conquer another state that made us step in. "

Well if people are interested, the US essentially told Kuwait not to cooperate with Iraq on slant-oil drilling, debt, and oil production levels. Numerous attempts at compromise were spurned by Kuwait, at America's behest. The invasion of Kuwait was a set up. I don't think anybody gave a damn about the sovereignty of some emirate run by the Sabah monarchy so much as they cared about keeping Iraq away from control of Middle East's oil supply. Which is why they made up crap about 100,000 Iraqi soldiers lining up along the Saudi border in order to get people to sign on to the coalition.

"do you really honestly think that, for instance, South Africa could attack Lesotho and just conquer it? And that everyone would just be like "oh congrats SA on adding a couple thousand square miles to your territory!""

Interestingly, Lesotho recently pleaded with South Africa to annex them.

Yes, you're right, conquest is not normal anymore. That doesn't mean that there is no possibility of conventional war between major powers, though. As I said, there are lots of cases of territorial disputes, and plenty of other reasons for war. We'll see how the norm against conquest holds up when oil and other precious commodities become increasingly scarce. Interestingly, this all relates to my research, as I'm talking about how the norm against conquest has made states in Africa and elsewhere weaker. Since conquest and war was a primary means of states becoming strong in Europe.

"They want them back, but they also don't want to go to war with us. That's why they haven't attacked yet. The longer this is the case they more likely it will be that China just accepts their independence and lets it drop."

There have been numerous close calls on Taiwan. As late as 1996, there was a military stand off between China and the US there. China will absolutely go to war to prevent Taiwan independence. THe reason they haven't invaded yet is because Taiwan hasn't been foolish enough to go that far. They were close under Chen Shui-bian, but now they have reasonable leaders and ties are improving.

"Japan and China are not going to fight. I don't feel I have to explain that one. You don't get anything out of winning a war against your neighbor like you did in the past. What are they going to do? Make them pay tribute? As if that will actually cover the cost of the war."

Why is tribute and conquered territory the other thing that can be won in war? Why wouldn't Japan want to reduce the power and influence of China in the region? Why wouldn't China want to eliminate a US client state that undermines their influence? The benefits of cutting a rival down to size might outweigh the short-term costs. That was our calculation with Iraq. The short-term cost of occupation would be outweighed by a stable, democratic Iraq that was a US client state and allowed US military bases.

"War is too expensive. We would only engage in it to, for instance, prevent someone from, say, using nukes or conquering a country, etc. "

Why would war being too expensive only prevent war between conventional powers? You talk about police actions, but these police actions are expensive too, and yet people engage in them. As I said, sometimes states believe short term expense can be overriden by the long term effects of victory.

"But that's where insane dictators come back into play. As it stands only NK in East Asia has an insane dictator. But even he shows signs of sanity, know that if he attacks SK the game is up and his rule is over. So instead he uses it as a threat, but it's a threat he can never carry out, because it would be the end of him."

NK is not "insane" at all. THey repeatedly called for a peace treaty with the US, which the US rejected. The US also promised 2 light nuclear reactors to help with NK's energy needs, the US never followed through (this was the 1994 agreed framework - build 2 reactors by 2002, never happened). The Americans and their UN "allies" bombed Pyongyang into the stone age in 1950, and never signed a peace treaty. Why on earth should they trust either the UN or the US, when they have thousands of soldiers stationed in South Korea?

No sorry, NK is very sane. They know that they will be continually attacked and provoked by the South and anytime they retaliate, the media will on cue call NK "insane" no matter what happens.

"People are not going to spend all that fucking money on a war to, say, for instance, get control of some fucking rocks sticking out of the surf.

This isn't 1750. lol."

China and India fought a war over control of rocks in 1962 (Arunachal Pradesh). 4,000 died. The UK and Argentina engaged in a bloody war over a largely uninhabited island in 1982. So you're wrong. The fact that we're in a number of 'police actions' points to the fact that expense doesn't prevent war.

And somebody tell me why India and Pakistan fought at least 3 conventional wars since 1945 and Israel and the surrounding Arab states have fought at least 6. Are these "poor countries" fighting?

yeah they are lol. those are wars outside the "rich world"

now that india, israel, and paki are much richer, i seriously doubt the possibility of war there.

industrialization cures conventional war.

it's the whole "two countries that have mcdonald's don't go to war thing" whether thats actually true... questionable. but you understand the idea.

and no i wouldn't be in favor of SK "conquering" NK.

when NK implodes, I am in favor of course of an international force keeping order and setting up an interim govt. If that govt wants to reunify with SK, well then that's not conquest.

Just like if Taiwan eventually decides to fold itself back into China... that's not conquest either.

When it comes to tapering each others' influences: there are lots of ways to do that besides go to war that all parties concerned much prefer.

As I said, this being a diplo forum, it doesn't surprise me that you guys are mostly war buffs. I guess we kind of thrive on that shit.

But the truth is conventional wars are already getting rarer and will only get rarer still as the world becomes smaller and countries get richer.

Conflict, however, is def. here to stay. I want to draw a really big distinction. When I have been saying "war" I am not talking about all fighting. So don't misinterpret.

The war in Sri Lanka, the war in Sudan, the war in Nepal, the war in Colombia, the war in Mexico, the war in Libya, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, these are insurgent wars, the war b/w Hezbollah and Israel, etc.

Some have more conventional aspects than others, but the key is that one side is a state, the other side is not a state. Maybe it is backed by a state but it is not a state.

Wars between states... the last one was... I guess... hm. Probably the Russia/Georgia war.

And that was definitely an anomaly. I think everything agrees that it stood out for being so.... anachronistic. But maybe I'm wrong.

And even then note the characteristics: international condemnation, ended quickly, not much at stake.

Yes you've repeatedly disqualified insurgent wars/police actions. Nowhere did I mention those so I don't know why you keep repeating this point, although they too are "expensive", so the whole expense argument goes out the window.

The fact that Egypt and Israel were among the top military powers in the world in 1973 I suppose doesn't matter, either.

India and Pakistan fought a war as recently as 1999 - the Kargil crisis. It's how Musharraf shot into power. Maybe they were still considered poor countries then. I don't know. The criteria keeps changing.

Pakistan only seems to be getting poorer and weaker, so I don't see why the future, according to your theory, entails a decreased likelihood of war.

As for their being "nothing at stake" in Georgia, hardly. The S. Ossetia issue has consequences for every case of unilateral independence around the world. Ukraine even went so far as to block Russia from using their ports. If could have easily escalated if Ukraine and Georgia had gotten their way.

"it doesn't surprise me that you guys are mostly war buffs. I guess we kind of thrive on that shit. "

I don't "thrive" on war, so I'd appreciate if my views were dealt with instead of reduced to a caricature. I could easily dismiss your views as the typical view of a liberal living in a rich country. Liberals in rich countries have been declaring the end of power politics and the end of realism for two decades now. I hear it all the damn time.

"But the truth is conventional wars are already getting rarer and will only get rarer still as the world becomes smaller and countries get richer. "

Except we're entering an era in which rapid economic growth is no longer really possible. Resources are getting more scarce. Once China and India reach a certain level of industrialization, the demand for resources will go into overdrive. We will no longer have the nice neat capitalist structure of poor countries mass producing cheap crap for people in rich countries to consume.

Everybody thinks the era they live in is the end of history or something unique, so I'm not surprised that this kind of idea is prevalent these days.

While this is a fantastic argument and hate to interrupt, I feel I have to throw in my two cents: My personal opinion is that, while we will continue to have wars, especially in the forms of insurgency and what-have-you, I think the possibility of an all-out war between two equally powerful states or groups of states is near-impossible - not because of the cost, not because of McDonald's. Because everybody knows that if we have an all out war, nobody will win. World War One was fought with machine guns. World War Two was fought with tanks. World War Three will be fought with atomic bombs, and World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones. It's the cold war effect - nobody wants to go to war, because if we go to war, EVERYBODY dies.

^^

also putin why the hell are you so belligerent lol.

your views are so obnoxious sometimes its just a drain on my entire day to talk to you or fasces.

i can start to see why people mix up communists and fascists so often. though totally different, they are equally incredulous.

go back to your carrier group discussion if you want.

btw every era of history is unique. i dont see your point.

you know what there needs to be though:

a service where you can make bets with them that are very very long term and when they occur they notify the two betters and distribute the money.

like, i want to make a bet with putin that there will be no major war between powerful countries before 2050.

but obv putin will be living in russia by then, kinda hard to contact him. the service could do it.

alas.

Oy, do we really need to revisit old threads to see how non-belligerent Thucy behaves?

I don't get what was particularly belligerent about that post. It was in line with the general tone of the thread.

Thuc is right about every period of history being unique.

By the way, do you guys think there will ever be infinite world peace? (Divine intervention aside)

"By the way, do you guys think there will ever be infinite world peace?"

No, not really. My inner Malthusian says no. I'd say under world socialism it could happen, but with the scarcity of resources and increase in population, I don't know.

Thucy, not to be belligerant or nuthin, but you obviously live with your head up your ass!

The total world population is increasing by more than 7 million people per month - about 80 million additional people every year.

As Putin mentioned, the traditionally poor countries are beginning to aquire gas guzzling mercedes and power-sucking air-con and spa pools. At the same time, the resources are getting harder to find.

We are potentially heading for some huge-ASS problems. You seem to think things will just get better and better? They can get worse, much worse.

In 1914 an archduke got shot and the whole world went to war.
In 1939 a polish border patrol attacked germany and the whole world went to war.
In 2001 a couple of buidlings were bombed, and the global 'war on terror' began. Bush says to the whole world: "you're either with us or against us".

Oh, and then the west conquered afghanistan and iraq, and possibly soon iran.

If you don't think these qualify as wars, well I think you may have a major blindspot in your thinking.

And what did the west use to invade these countries? Oh yeh, carrier groups and such.
Do you think the west could conquer other countries without a superior military?
The west is rich is *because* of its military strength.
And if say, china develops a carrier killing missle, and can make this available to the likes of saddam hussein, then the west won't be ABLE to conduct these 'police actions' as you call them.

I won't bother addressing your many, many other wrong headed ideas :)

"In 1939 a polish border patrol attacked germany and the whole world went to war. "

Eh? Hold up. What incident are you referring to? Gliwice?

heh, yeh apparently I am. From Wikipedia (gasp!) :
"An attack on a radio station in Gleiwitz on August 31, 1939, staged by the German secret police, served as a pretext for Nazi Germany to invade Poland, which marked the start of the Second World War."

Ok, so that begs the question - do you agree it was staged or not?

I guess, it doesnt really matter, even if it wasn't it still does not justify the reaction.

Gotcha.