If you could be a fly on the wall one hundred years from now, would our latest "Global War on Terrorism" look like WWIII, or something else?
What would you call it?
WWIII
If you could be a fly on the wall one hundred years from now, would our latest "Global War on Terrorism" look like WWIII, or something else?
What would you call it?
It'd be chapter one in a history book called, "The Decline of the United States of America."
Probably. At least in the changing context of "Super Power" status, Empires that over-extend themselves into extinction, or what the "Brave New World" will look like?
WWI and WWII were more coordinated and cooperative efforts. Clearer Good vs Evil entities and actors. Presidents and Prime Ministers would proclaim a State of War, and everyone knew what that meant. Much of what we're doing now isn't officially "declared" or coordinated at all. Unless we count the UN or NATO?
I can't decide if "states of war" are totally different now, in our high-tech/networked global connectedness of policies, politics and economies.....yet we're still operating under archaic 19th or 20th century definitions of WAR....or what.
It's definitely not like WWIII, since it's not all out war, and the war on terror does not really affect most countries directly (there's no fighting in most countries). Plus the sheer amount of casualties is vastly different from world wars.Originally Posted by GGT
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Are your papers in order? Can you cross borders without those papers? Are you "frisked" or scanned before you can board an international flight, let alone a domestic one? Is your car or cell phone tracking your movements, whether you're aware of it or not? Are you stopped (in certain places) for having brown skin, speaking a foreign language, having the name Mohammed, or simply being "profiled"? Is your nation pumping funds into The Global War on Terror, whether or not your citizens are "fighting as soldiers" on the ground?
1. Yes
2. You couldn't before any war on terror, either.
3. Yes, but that already happened before the war on terror too and is a pretty logical step with the increased terror threats (albeit somewhat arbitrary and sometimes over the top)
4. Don't have a car, and my phone is probably sooner tracked by Google, or by a drug enforcement team, than an antiterror squad. (no, I am not a drugs dealer, but loosely acquainted with people in that area and the Dutch police quickly does phone taps and the like..)
5. How often does that even happen in the streets?
6. Yes, but before we also put money in the war on drugs, wars in yugoslavia and kosovo, and a shitload of other wars during the years.
Now.. while the breaking of civil liberties for the war on terror is definitely something I do not support, compare it to:
Most of Europe, Africa, Middle East and Asia ravaged by war, widespread ethnic cleansing, and more than 60 million deaths (and god knows how many wounded). Not to mention the complete lack of civil liberties in all occupied places (or even outside - muslims in the USA are not put in camps like Japanese during the last world war are they?).
Not saying that the war on terror effects on us are good or anything but they are in no way comparable to those of a world war.
Plus like Loki says, it's not exactly world wide, either.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
60 millions deaths? huh? We're not talking Black Plague here.....
New wars won't necessarily look like old wars, though. We don't have to isolate Muslims in interment camps like we did the Japanese, if all we need to do is "profile" them and prevent their travel.
Seriously, wouldn't we be in dire straits if we only look at total death tallies (6 million for Jews during WWII) instead of civil liberties or human rights? Hell, we can't even agree on a discussion form what those things mean. And fuck Loki. These things ARE world wide problems.
The Third World War will be fought by the major powers, over resources and lebensraum. It will take some time before the globe destabilizes to that position, and it seems pretty impossible, at least from my ignorance, to guesstimate whether I'll be alive to see it. The war on terror is a legally strange police action, not "war" in any meaningful sense of the term (compare 'war on drugs').
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Police Action 3.0 doesn't have the same Alert title as WWIII....
I find this curious - you actually think there will be a global resource war among major powers? (I do agree that the 'war' on terror is a side show compared to a real world war, though.)
It seems like global population is going to peak in about 40 years, and start dropping after that. The richest countries will by and large have stable or falling populations well before then, and one of the two big contenders for major power status this century is looking at some very tricky demographics. I don't doubt our resources will be strained this century, but to be honest I doubt a resource war is likely. If anything, you'll get resource wars in the poorer world, where increasing scarcity really affects them.
*shrug* I think that the constantly shifting exchange of power between those individuals who're on the right side of the aggressive-passive bell curve vs the ones on the other will tip the balance eventually, and the reason most pressing IMO is the transition from a fossil fuel energy economy to...Whatever it is we end up replacing it with. It doesn't necessarily have to devolve into a global conflict, but sooner or later something will. It's not as if the people 100 years ago were significantly less 'moral', or significantly less altruistic, it's just the combination of the nuclear option and inter-twined global economy that makes a global conflict a trickier situation to navigate. And, it's not as if all the motivations behind WW2 obeyed min-max, or what could arguably be dubbed rationality; you've shied away from the topic before, but there are some people in the US who would not hesitate to ignite a global conflict for essentially super-stitious reasons.
This is all very hand-wavy, but I suppose the argument is that the stable position we're sitting in now isn't any more in the actual minimum potential well than the Cold War was. I can't back that with empirical study, and it can easily be dismissed as the natural pessimism of a sworn misanthrope.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I think I agree with you in principle that the 'unipolar moment' after the Cold War was hardly a stable equilibrium, and that probably the most stable system is a bipolar world dominated by two major superpowers. Given that we don't have they yet, but some multipolar mix with a strong but not hegemonic superpower presiding over things, it's a fairly unstable situation.
I just don't see resources being a major source of conflict for the rich and powerful nations to fight with each other about; they're more likely just to price the poorer nations out of the market and cause wars there. It doesn't make the world peaceful, but I doubt it makes for a world war, just a lot of bush wars and human misery. Who knows? We could both be right. That's a cheery thought.
Multipolarity lasted centuries. Bipolarity lasted 40 years.
Hope is the denial of reality
And when all is said and done, the 'war on drugs' is probably more likely to be source for sliding into real conflicts which could develop into a WWIII than anti-terrorism.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
In the days before Penicillin. Knowing how to treat bleeding bullet wounds, or cutting off limbs wasn't enough, if sepsis set in. What do you mean about both World Wars being less than 2 million?
Don't make me argue against GGT.
Yes, I know. You'd said it, I just affirmed it, so why are you saying it again? Do you think my affirmation of your statement itself needed an affirmation?
For the US. But I didn't say both World Wars combined were less than 2 million, though they were. I said they were less combined than the Civil War. All war-related deaths for the US across its entire history *counting the Revolutionary War, but not prior wars though they would not noticeably change the results. I am including activity like conflict with Native Americans and their losses, including from forcible relocation events* would not reach 2 million. I don't think they would even top 1.5 million.What do you mean about both World Wars being less than 2 million?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Count up the amount of countries involved in the two world wars and the amount of people killed and then compare that to the "war on terrorism".
Hope is the denial of reality
So is global warming. Maybe we can call that WWIII instead.
Hope is the denial of reality
Spoken like a true Political Scientist. Oh, wait, never mind.
But it's not a world wide war. It's fought in only a few countries. And the definition of a world war seems to be, well, a war all over the world. Or at least directly affecting most of the world's population.60 millions deaths? huh? We're not talking Black Plague here.....
New wars won't necessarily look like old wars, though. We don't have to isolate Muslims in interment camps like we did the Japanese, if all we need to do is "profile" them and prevent their travel.
Seriously, wouldn't we be in dire straits if we only look at total death tallies (6 million for Jews during WWII) instead of civil liberties or human rights? Hell, we can't even agree on a discussion form what those things mean. And fuck Loki. These things ARE world wide problems.
And yeah, more than 60 million, how many lives do you think the second world war cost?
I mean, if people object to comparing killing one man to 3000 people, I can object to you comparing some civil liberty restrictions (that are less than those during other world wars) and some wars (in way fewer countries than during other world wars) and global casualties (way fewer than any other world war).
Plus the entire war on terror is more of a vague definition thing, not exactly a war.
And FFS, do you really think that the patriot act is worse than interning japanese, or the 'minor' civil liberties restrictions the nazis and the japanese imposed on half the world?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Define the term WAR, first off. How is the "war on terrorism" not finding its way all over the world?But it's not a world wide war. It's fought in only a few countries. And the definition of a world war seems to be, well, a war all over the world. Or at least directly affecting most of the world's population.
And yeah, more than 60 million, how many lives do you think the second world war cost?
I mean, if people object to comparing killing one man to 3000 people, I can object to you comparing some civil liberty restrictions (that are less than those during other world wars) and some wars (in way fewer countries than during other world wars) and global casualties (way fewer than any other world war).
Plus the entire war on terror is more of a vague definition thing, not exactly a war.
And FFS, do you really think that the patriot act is worse than interning japanese, or the 'minor' civil liberties restrictions the nazis and the japanese imposed on half the world?
I am not a fan of the Patriot Act.
WWII may have cost 60 million deaths, but only if the numbers are global, secondary and tertiary, including deaths before "WAR" was offically declared.
"Fun" Fact or Folly: deaths at Pearl Harbor bombing were less than deaths from World Trade Center on 9/11.
Fun fact: the Soviet Union lost 10 million troops in WWII. The entire war on terror has yet to kill a tenth of that.
Hope is the denial of reality
Ten million Soviet deaths alone? Gosh, that's way more than six million Jew deaths. Nyet?
I suppose the point is, that by 21st century standards, simply tallying deaths is a bad metric. During our Revolutionary and Civil Wars, millions died from eye-to-eye combat as well as secondary infections or sepsis from their wounds. Or Trench Foot. Conditions specific to that era.
That doesn't necessarily mean the Wars (or battles we call Wars) are any "better" in the 21st century, just because there may be less deaths. Surgical Strikes, or what not. In fact, today's Wars and battles are probably more important than ever, but not because of Deaths.
Uh, no. Oh certainly disease counted for way more than battlefield deaths, but you're off on the numbers. All war-related deaths *or even ones only semi-war related* for all US conflicts prior to WWI combined probably won't reach 2 million. And actually, you can take out the Civil War and put in both World Wars and the number would be even lower. The US civil war killed more US citizens than any other conflict in our history.Ten million Soviet deaths alone? Gosh, that's way more than six million Jew deaths. Nyet?
I suppose the point is, that by 21st century standards, simply tallying deaths is a bad metric. During our Revolutionary and Civil Wars, millions died from eye-to-eye combat as well as secondary infections or sepsis from their wounds. Or Trench Foot. Conditions specific to that era. .
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Don't you know that Soviet deaths don't count, Icky?
Of course, knowing that if you were captured your family would be punished kind of encouraged death instead of retreat or surrender.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
A load of Soviet soldiers died in captivity due to the racial policies of the Grossdeutches Reich.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Oh yeah, let's not forget the number of soldiers that starved or froze to death.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
How does what I posted merit a "rolleyes" response?
You're having a monologue, not a dialogue.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote