World War Three.....

[LittleFuzzy]

I was asking if you're a civilian now, or still active duty between assignments, and if/how that status affects your opinions?

That is not what your text said. As everyone reading it pointed out to you.

Sure, I'm ok....just looking at things differently, apparently. Seems everyone is comparing "WWIII" to WWI or WWII, where countries picked sides, allies vs enemies, undertook massive and obvious actions in coordination, used 'conventional' rules of warfare, with distinct declarations for beginnings and victories, etc.

Go figure. In seeking to understand/apply a concept, we turn to how it actually has been understood/applied.

Today there are either civil wars, tribal wars, religious wars, military conflicts, and pockets of genocide or ethnic cleansing in so many countries today -- with other nations providing weaponry or military funding. Even the so-called 'nations at peace' are dragged into violent conflicts as participants via trade, commerce, banking.

And all of that is, in fact, normal and has been going on for millennia, without being a world war. On a sphere with not quite 200 million square miles of surface with a population of over seven billion people spread across it, conflict happen. It pops up regularly, in a lot of different places, and drags in a lot of other people in tangental ways. Unless most of that is from one overarching conflict, it's not a World War.

If you're using the Webster's Dictionary to define things....maybe you're not the political scientist or international diplomat we should be listening to?

You've yelled at Loki and I in the past for not being accessible/using accessible materials. But when Loki does, you object and say that if he actually knew anything he wouldn't be providing a prosaic and accessible source?

[Loki]

I'm coming to think that she doesn't actually have any beliefs. She simply gets thoughts into her head and disagrees with anyone who doesn't accept those thoughts as facts. A few weeks later, she might have new thoughts that are diametrically opposed to the previous one. And once again, if anyone disagrees with her, it's because they don't understand the reality on the ground.

[GGT]

OK, if you want something more specific to give the discussion more direction:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/



I heard that after starting this thread, but it's organized better than my OP title or posts. It poses the questions surrounding terminology, legislation, legal context, policy, and public perceptions of WAR that I wanted to talk about (but failed to express).

There's no need to be patronizing about it.

IMO, everyone should be asking themselves what WAR means, and when/if/how a 21st century "Global War" can mean the same thing as what a "World War" used to mean in previous centuries. Geez, we ought to be able to do that on a fricking forum.

[Loki]

Everyone should be able to provide criteria for a phenomena before they can claim that event X meets those criteria.

[GGT]

Everyone should be able to provide criteria for a phenomena before they can claim that event X meets those criteria.

Would it be correct to say you think of "World War" as a phenomena, or a distinct event, using WWI and WWII criteria?

Here's the rub: "The Great War" was only called WWI after WWII.

[Veldan Rath]

Because The Greater War sounds stupid?

[Being]

Thank God for the atom bomb.

[GGT]

Uh, it wasn't "The Greater War", and the atom bomb didn't solve everything.

Isn't there anyone on this forum I can engage in a philosophical conversation about War, or World War, and its definitions?

If you don't want to listen to the radiolab broadcast link, then at least address things like AUMF, the US Patriot Act, UNSC or NATO....that would suggest we're in a perpetual war, a never-ending war, or that we can't define peace.

If splitting hairs matters, is "WWIII" what matters most? How about we define terms like Associates, Allies, co-belligerance, imminent threat, or (my personal favorite) "national interests"?

[Spenni]

Uh, it wasn't "The Greater War", and the atom bomb didn't solve everything.

Isn't there anyone on this forum I can engage in a philosophical conversation about War, or World War, and its definitions?

If you don't want to listen to the radiolab broadcast link, then at least address things like AUMF, the US Patriot Act, UNSC or NATO....that would suggest we're in a perpetual war, a never-ending war, or that we can't define peace.

If splitting hairs matters, is "WWIII" what matters most? How about we define terms like Associates, Allies, co-belligerance, imminent threat, or (my personal favorite) "national interests"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III

[GGT]

Well, either I'm talking to myself () or someone will come along to ask/answer the tough questions and turn this into a participatory discussion.

Are we engaged in a new World War? How does it matter if "we" means the US or the EU or UAE or Asia or Russia? Should "we" be surprised that thousands of refugees show up at "our" borders seeking refuge from oligarchs and organized corruption, or that radical extremists found a niche to exploit?

Are first world democratic nations being lulled into thinking there isn't a new "World War" because it would cost too much to fight head-on with taxed resources? Is the US the only leading nation that "plans" for military costs by passing it onto next generation citizens, while we're allergic to taxes for domestic spending, but not military intervention?

Here's the thing. If the US decided to stop funding cartels and corrupted governments, we could change the world's trajectory. But we won't, because we still believe that "Free Market" principles apply to all nations, even when their governments are oppressive, or living in past centuries.

Plus, since the US employment economy isn't so hot, there are too many people needing to buy cheap products "Made in China". WalMart Corporation, and its ilk, has us coming and going.

[Loki]

Are you seriously asking whether countries can deny the existence of a world war in order to save money? Do you not realize how absurd that notion is? It's like the British Prime Minister pretending that London is not being bombed in 1940 to save money on aircraft.

The US funds cartels? Which ones?

And our financial support towards corrupt governments is pretty small, especially if you were to subtract the sum given to Egypt, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

And clearly there's some relation between Americans buying stuff made from China and there being a world war...in your head...only in your head.

[GGT]

Are you seriously asking whether countries can deny the existence of a world war in order to save money? Do you not realize how absurd that notion is? It's like the British Prime Minister pretending that London is not being bombed in 1940 to save money on aircraft.

I'm not trying to equate WWII with anything else.

The US funds cartels? Which ones?

The US (and the EU) funds oil, drug, and weapon cartels. FFS, we even fund Columbian cartels when we buy coffee.

And our financial support towards corrupt governments is pretty small, especially if you were to subtract the sum given to Egypt, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Financial support is a huge factor, and when you follow the money trail it's clear that Europe has an even larger role than the US. Example Ukraine/Russia.

And clearly there's some relation between Americans buying stuff made from China and there being a world war...in your head...only in your head.

I'm more interested in your opinion as an academic scholar and international diplomat, and how you'd "advise" politicians/legislators, and voters in general. What's that look like? It's not WWIII unless Iran gets nuclear weapons and uses them?

[Steely Glint]

Alright, I'll bite.

Are we engaged in a new World War?

No.

How does it matter if "we" means the US or the EU or UAE or Asia or Russia?

It doesn't matter.

Should "we" be surprised that thousands of refugees show up at "our" borders seeking refuge from oligarchs and organized corruption, or that radical extremists found a niche to exploit?

No.

Are first world democratic nations being lulled into thinking there isn't a new "World War" because it would cost too much to fight head-on with taxed resources?

No.

Is the US the only leading nation that "plans" for military costs by passing it onto next generation citizens, while we're allergic to taxes for domestic spending, but not military intervention?

Maybe?

Here's the thing. If the US decided to stop funding cartels and corrupted governments, we could change the world's trajectory

No, it couldn't.

But we won't, because we still believe that "Free Market" principles apply to all nations, even when their governments are oppressive, or living in past centuries.

That's not why the US does it.

Plus, since the US employment economy isn't so hot, there are too many people needing to buy cheap products "Made in China". WalMart Corporation, and its ilk, has us coming and going.

OK.

Happy now?

[Spenni]

The fact that Walmart exists should tell you there is no world war 3

[Loki]

The US (and the EU) funds oil, drug, and weapon cartels. FFS, we even fund Columbian cartels when we buy coffee.

You mean the US government buys coffee?

Financial support is a huge factor, and when you follow the money trail it's clear that Europe has an even larger role than the US. Example Ukraine/Russia.

According to your reading of the existent literature on the subject. Oh right...

It's not WWIII unless nearly all of the world's great powers are involved in an overt war against each other. Those are some pretty basic requirements. There would also have to be quite a few casualties if we're to differentiate world wars from previous great power wars.

[LittleFuzzy]

OK, if you want something more specific to give the discussion more direction:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/



I heard that after starting this thread, but it's organized better than my OP title or posts. It poses the questions surrounding terminology, legislation, legal context, policy, and public perceptions of WAR that I wanted to talk about (but failed to express).

There's no need to be patronizing about it.

IMO, everyone should be asking themselves what WAR means, and when/if/how a 21st century "Global War" can mean the same thing as what a "World War" used to mean in previous centuries. Geez, we ought to be able to do that on a fricking forum.

I know very well what war means, as does Loki. That's one of the reasons we're disagreeing with you. War has a meaning and the sort of things you reference aren't it. Some of it does fall under "conflict" which is what is used for things that fall short of war. And no, a global war or conflict does not mean the same thing as a world war. They may have some Venn diagram overlap (and current conflicts aren't in the overlap area) but they definitely aren't the same. A "global war" lacks any sort of depth, intensiveness, or scale requirement. "Global" is an incredibly shallow term. If the US makes a grand total of five drone strikes in different areas of the world, it has managed to meet your prerequisites for a "global war" in a way that has a direct effect on maybe a few hundred people and second-order effects on maybe double that number.

And we can do that sort of thing on the forum, GGT, and a number of us have weighed in. Your problem is that in all of our considered opinions, you're just flat wrong. The equivalences you're trying to make aren't equivalences, the comparisons are invalid/incorrect.

[LittleFuzzy]

Would it be correct to say you think of "World War" as a phenomena, or a distinct event, using WWI and WWII criteria?

Here's the rub: "The Great War" was only called WWI after WWII.

While it was only called WWI after WWII, the term "the World War" was coined for it in 1919. It just had competition with "The Great War" as a moniker until an even bigger conflict rolled around.

[Loki]

It's not like I spend a whole week each semester talking about the definition of war or anything.

[Flixy]

Well, in her defense, public perception of the word 'war' has probably eroded by things like the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on terror', so while academic definition of a war may be pretty well defined, general use might not be ('war on Christmas', anyone?).

That said, I do agree with most of you here that we're not in world war three.

[LittleFuzzy]

Well, in her defense, public perception of the word 'war' has probably eroded by things like the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on terror', so while academic definition of a war may be pretty well defined, general use might not be ('war on Christmas', anyone?).

That said, I do agree with most of you here that we're not in world war three.

If the "War on Terror" existed as a standalone, I could grant room for confusion on the lines since that actually uses conflict. But it doesn't/didn't exist as a standalone. It was predated by the War on Drugs. Which was in turn predated by LBJ's "war on poverty." And those weren't the only predecessors. It arises from a line of "war on X" metaphors. And that's what the use of war is for them, a metaphor. General usage isn't trying to intend literal war either so her taking it that way is not actually rational. Particularly since she also insists things like the "War on Drugs" is literal as well.

[Steely Glint]

War. War never changes.

/thread

[Loki]

The sad thing is that there are dozens of war-related issues that could be talked about, but instead GGT does her usual thing of trying to destroy a widely-accepted definition of a term and linking every issue to every other issue in existence. She doesn't seem to realize that it's not actually possible to discuss a million issues at once.

[GGT]

I know very well what war means, as does Loki. That's one of the reasons we're disagreeing with you. War has a meaning and the sort of things you reference aren't it. Some of it does fall under "conflict" which is what is used for things that fall short of war. And no, a global war or conflict does not mean the same thing as a world war. They may have some Venn diagram overlap (and current conflicts aren't in the overlap area) but they definitely aren't the same. A "global war" lacks any sort of depth, intensiveness, or scale requirement. "Global" is an incredibly shallow term. If the US makes a grand total of five drone strikes in different areas of the world, it has managed to meet your prerequisites for a "global war" in a way that has a direct effect on maybe a few hundred people and second-order effects on maybe double that number.

And we can do that sort of thing on the forum, GGT, and a number of us have weighed in. Your problem is that in all of our considered opinions, you're just flat wrong. The equivalences you're trying to make aren't equivalences, the comparisons are invalid/incorrect.

I tried to change the thread title to avoid this sort of academic/technical bickering, or targeting "my opinions" as right or wrong. Not sure how to get the discussion back to defining war vs military conflict or other word substitutes. Even my thread on ISIS wasn't taken very seriously, so what does it take to spark a conversation about war here anyway?

Well, in her defense, public perception of the word 'war' has probably eroded by things like the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on terror', so while academic definition of a war may be pretty well defined, general use might not be ('war on Christmas', anyone?).

That said, I do agree with most of you here that we're not in world war three.

Even if this isn't WWIII---because it doesn't meet "prerequisites" or international consensus---the world is still busy warring. And it seems to me it's escalated the last couple of decades, partly because nations are reluctant to use the word War unless they're talking about domestic social problems, or ideologies that don't have political borders.

War. War never changes.

/thread

I think it does, or maybe I should say it has changed. The 21st century world is smaller in the Information/Digital Age, and globalism and democratization have new and different definitions, too. Even Islam has too many meanings to fit neatly in a package of terms.

The sad thing is that there are dozens of war-related issues that could be talked about, but instead GGT does her usual thing of trying to destroy a widely-accepted definition of a term and linking every issue to every other issue in existence. She doesn't seem to realize that it's not actually possible to discuss a million issues at once.

Loki, you're right -- we can't talk about a million things at once. Apparently, we can't even talk about WAR or "war-related issues" unless or until we can agree on how its defined and used, by whom, and for what purposes. No wonder it's such a clusterfuck.

[Loki]

Even if this isn't WWIII---because it doesn't meet "prerequisites" or international consensus---the world is still busy warring. And it seems to me it's escalated the last couple of decades, partly because nations are reluctant to use the word War unless they're talking about domestic social problems, or ideologies that don't have political borders.

You think wrong. The amount of violent conflict, the amount of interstate wars, and the amount of deaths from violent conflicts have all decreased in the last several decades.

[GGT]

I didn't see a source citation, let alone a definition of "battle" or "armed conflicts by type". The figure 2 chart makes 1989 and 1999 look like a sort of height, but isn't compared against data in figure 1 that's time-relative and contextual.

Look, I know statistics can be used to reflect or impact public opinion, and influence public policy. Statistics, charts, and graphs don't define War, let alone explain its impacts on civilians and their perceptions of War.

I'm just trying to break through the bullshit barrier.

As an American, I feel like we're involved in too many military conflicts around the globe because we're allergic to the word WAR. We prefer to kid ourselves by using terms like "monetary aid" for "young democracies". We can't even do a good job at defining "allies" when France sells billion dollar warships to Putin's Russia, or the UAE/Arab League states fund groups like ISIS.

[GGT]

World War III is in the making. It won't be a nuclear war, or a "hot" war. It may not be a "declared" war, but it will still be a World War because so many nations are involved.

WWIII will be a war about ideology, taking place during the internet/information age. It may even be a NATO War. It shouldn't take years to figure this out.....but we're stuck between ideology and technology.

[Aimless]

Ah yes, the "world feeling of unease" theory

[Aimless]

I didn't see a source citation, let alone a definition of "battle" or "armed conflicts by type". The figure 2 chart makes 1989 and 1999 look like a sort of height, but isn't compared against data in figure 1 that's time-relative and contextual.

Look, I know statistics can be used to reflect or impact public opinion, and influence public policy. Statistics, charts, and graphs don't define War, let alone explain its impacts on civilians and their perceptions of War.

I'm just trying to break through the bullshit barrier.

The only way to do that is to post much faster than the speed of bullshit

Presumably the figures are from reasonably high-quality datasets containing estimates of the number of different types of conflicts and the number of battle-related deaths. Which aspects of this information do you dispute, in which ways and to what purpose? For example, do you believe that it severely underestimates the total number of conflicts even though it seems to encompass the types you mentioned? Do you believe it severely underestimates the number of deaths?

Help us understand so that we can have a somewhat rational "if-this-then-that" type of conversation.

[Aimless]

I have a question for the thread. GGT questions the definitions of different types of armed conflicts and has expressed the opinion that these definitions need to be adapted to the modern age for example to take into account things like state-sanctioned (or -sponsored) cyber warfare.

Would this be a good idea? What would the consequences be? What is the purpose of defining conflicts and wars in the ways we do, and would that purpose be undermined by adjusting the definitions or in some other way taking into account whatever new features there may be to conflict?

I read somewhere that the US may not necessarily distinguish between cyber warfare and more traditional kinds, and that a cyber attack may well provoke a violent response.

[Steely Glint]

The purpose of language is to communicate meaning, I see no value in taking a word with a clearly understood definition (war; a violent armed conflict between two or more nation-states) and then changing the meaning of word to be less precise and moire vague simply encompass new phenomena that GGT reckons is kinda, sorta related to the original concept. If we're really witnessing new phenomena in international relations (and we're not), then it's better to invent new terminology than to debase old ones.