@ Putin33

I agree with you. Barring some divine intervention, I think world peace is a complete fantasy unless we adopt a common government or religion, and even then, war would be hard to avoid due to a scarcity of resources.

It's really quite unfortunate. I probably won't see world peace in my lifetime.

guys i said in the next 30-50 years.

not forever. so to those bringing up malthus, sure, if you like.

my point is we can't really predict past that point with any certainty, so anything could happen.

but within the next 30-50 years (read: while the west still has most of the control), the world will not see major wars (read: conventional war between two powerful countries).

that was my point. sorry if you missed it.

and the reason i brought it up at all is because it corresponds to this question.

which is a more important topic of discussion?

a) anti-submarine defenses of carrier battlegroups or
b) anti-insurgent tactics.

take your pick.
let me know which one you think won't be outdated in 30-50 years too.

however about long term world peace, i will say this:

taking the long view, we will eventually look mostly the same, have a long history of tolerance and democracy, have mostly a common culture, and probably a common religion or lack thereof.

combine that with increasing globalization and what will probably be a stable world population around 10 billion, you might possibly see world peace for the lion's share of the future, for a few centuries anyway. it would be unprecedented.

but that assumes humanity doesn't drop the ball on things like developing economies, increasing crop yields, expansion into outer space, and global warming.

however i am for the most part optimistic about those things.

Been reading 3001: The Final Odyssey by chance?

I see Thucy is channeling his inner Kant. - Trade & Democracy = Peace.

"guys i said in the next 30-50 years. "

Yes and we're likely to see Malthusian crises well before that time.

"which is a more important topic of discussion?

a) anti-submarine defenses of carrier battlegroups or
b) anti-insurgent tactics."

We cannot act as if conventional war is a non-threat simply because it hasn't been for 2 decades. That's presentism at its finest. Yes, I have no doubt that insurgencies will continue and not only continue but become pervasive and understanding them and counterinsurgency tactics is very important. We'd do well to study how the British and French handled anti-colonial uprisings in their colonies. However, insurgencies direct threat to the US is but a pinprick compared to the damage a conventional war would cause. Now, I said before the US would die from a 1,000 cuts, so these pinpricks add up. But that doesn't mean that conventional war is off the table, and if we ignore military power it is likely that American supremacy would be eliminated very quickly. Look at what happened once the Soviets withdrew their military from their allied countries? All hell broke loose. A similar phenomenon would happen if the US withdrew its security guarantees from its client states.

Yes and we're likely to see Malthusian crises well before that time.

no we're not dont start talking like sicarius. i give it 70-80 years, if it happens at all.

i didnt say anything about withdrawing security guarantees or significantly cutting the size of the military, including in conventional war capability.

what i said is that its silly to act as if a conventional war is somehow possible or likely soon. it is precisely because of the size and might of the military, and our security guarantees and our nukes that this is exceedingly unlikely.

but after 30-50 years, america may be signifcantly not as powerful, which is why i wont comment on likelihoods until we get closer. or, even if usa is weaker, if the new system in place seems apt to promote global peace or not.

if not, then i would agree that war is generally inevitable but since all of that is right now speculation, we will have to wait until then wont we.