We live in an age where every Military death is reported in detail and a dozen losses is a worldwide news event. Disregarding Military capabilities, would it ever be possible for the liberal Western Democracies to Fight a War the size and type of WW2 again?
We live in an age where every Military death is reported in detail and a dozen losses is a worldwide news event. Disregarding Military capabilities, would it ever be possible for the liberal Western Democracies to Fight a War the size and type of WW2 again? In short, yes. The caveat is of course that the political situation got to such a poor state that a world war was the only option. You are right that in these days of very fast communication and where every death is reported it would in the beginning not be at all acceptable. However, if the political situation was such that a full scale war was the only option, and that that option is seen to be the only just one, the public would very soon become more involved than they are at present with the 'small' wasrs of the last 30 years. Let us not forget, all the wars that the British (and probably the Americans) have been involved in over the last 30 years, the predicted casualty figures were very much higher than they actually were. The government were willing to accept and were prepared for much worse than they got. There are always desenters and pacifists who have a valid view, but who's ideas of politics tend to go against mainstream human nature. In my opinion you'd be surprised what the general public will actually accept if the political and national will is behind a just cause.
I hate even thinking about it. But I think that if the same situation was to repeat itself in the same magnitude, where the enemy was evenly matched, in equipment, capabilities, etc. (not what we have seen since WWII). The West would more then likely use tactical nuclear weapons (or maybe even strategic). I don't think anyone in their right mind (or any sane person for that matter) would be willing to sacrifice millions of lives for the sake of defending yourself when an alternate means is available. Even Harry Truman made that decision. Who know, if the Allies had a working bomb around the time of D-Day, they might of popped Berlin in hopes of ending the war.
I hate even thinking about it. But I think that if the same situation was to repeat itself in the same magnitude, where the enemy was evenly matched, in equipment, capabilities, etc. (not what we have seen since WWII). There were two comparably strong sides stood facing each other on the brink of war for fifty years. It is purely the fact that both sides had nuclear weapons and the fear of their use, that prevented them falling off the edge into another world war. Nuclear weapons are terrible and rightly so. But for fifty years they did exactly what they were supposed to do. Living in fear of war and its concequences was far better than the real war itself. After all, if you don't fear war you don't prepare for war and that's when wars happen.
We live in an age where every Military death is reported in detail and a dozen losses is a worldwide news event. Disregarding Military capabilities, would it ever be possible for the liberal Western Democracies to Fight a War the size and type of WW2 again? Against whom? I don't think the conditions will ever exist like that of ww2. I could only imagine China and (of course) the usa going at it, but that is still not close to the involvelment of countries in ww2.
We live in an age where every Military death is reported in detail and a dozen losses is a worldwide news event. Disregarding Military capabilities, would it ever be possible for the liberal Western Democracies to Fight a War the size and type of WW2 again? The main point is, against whom do we fight this war? There is no apparant alliancies forming at the moment, which threaten us.
Against whom? that is the vital question. I do not think that a war on the scale that we knew, is now possible. The weapons are now so sophisticated that a single sub could take out a fleet. And the other thing is this..Where are you going to find the Naval ships. It takes an age to build warships, we have for all purposes, very few. If for instance the war was against a Nation such as Russia, those vast areas of the that huge nation would swallow up everything we could throw at them....... No one can beat Russia! Why? Their land extends from Europe across the world to the Pacific Is it 14 time zones? You could pour in men and material and it would be swallowed up. So who else can you go to war with? There is one final bar...Who would be able to get those Nations together today? Not a chance. Sapper
Just random thinking here, so don't take it as gospel.... It was pointed out to me at Uni last semester that two true Democracies have never gone to war against each other. So that would certainly split the globe into the Global North and South, as it is now referred to. So who would WW3 be against? At present there is only one expanding country that could be considered a 'threat', and that is China. So would the Global North gang up against China if needs be? I'm not sure it would, unless China was the agressor, and seen to be the agressor beyond any shadow of a doubt. But if it did, say, bomb another country and then continued its expansionist activites as seen with Germany, then maybe the world would go to war under NATO. But it would not be the kind of war that we saw in the 40's. That beast was laid to rest a long time ago. Now it's much more focused and nasty. Now there are nuclear weapons all around the globe. Who knows what could happen? This is one of those really tricky questions where there is no solid answer. Kitty
No, never as seen in WW2 on the Land, Sea, and Air. Hey, Glad to see you post, Haven't heard from you in awhile. I agree America has given away its manufacturing capability which, and I know I am going to get it for this, but that's what won the second world war in the long run. Two things that prevent America from being militarily invaded. 1. NBC arsenal 2. All smart Americans own firearms. And now for something completely different, An emoticon joke: What the difference between the Left and Right? Left= :icon-mrgreenbandit: :icon-mrgreenbandit: :icon-mrgreenbandit: :GroupHug: :nospeakhearsee: :icon_sleepy: Right= :icon-mrgreenbandit: :icon-mrgreenbandit: :icon-mrgreenbandit: :hoverboy: :twocents::twocents:
Medics to Thread! Medics to Thread! Oby has overdosed on emos again. Repeat, Oby has overdosed on Emos again!
I had the thought for the question more along the lines of the will and ability to fight a war on a huge scale rather than a specific war against any particular enemy. World War one was described as "the war to end all wars" and 20 years later off it all went again. Prediction of future potential conflict must be the most uncertain science of all. I feel there's enough complicated flash-zones with the most labyrinthine potential political complications to make such conflicts, sadly, always a possibility. (For instance there's so many potential permutations of how the world and China's massive growing power come to terms...who knows??) Regardless of all that I was interested in whether we would ever tolerate mass warfare issues such as conscription and the sheer scale of casualties seen in WW1&2 or is 'limited war' (terrible terminology I know) the most the Political and Social will could/can stand these days? Cheers, Adam.
I thought the thread had got away from what you actually asked for. The Gulf War of 1990/91 was more acceptable to a larger amount of the population than this current one as a Sovereign state had been invaded and there were calls to go all the way and finish Saddam off. Also the UN was agreed on the course of action. Now if this "next" World War was seen as justifiable and just then I could see being it tolerated but obviously not liked by the Western Nations.
It's always important to keep a standing military that is mission ready because it prevents the little guys from aspiring to be Hitler.
Like the others said, if it was for a damn good reason then a country would probably stand up and be counted. If it would tolerate the casualty levels of the 2 world wars is something else entirely now the media is everywhere. The constant intrusion of the press and the overbearing imagery they beam into living rooms constantly is too much for many. Who could stomach the constant replay of 9/11? I watched the London bombings unfold on live TV and i was sickened by just how close the BBC etc were trying to get to the ambulances as victims were being rushed into the A&E's. At one point they zoomed in on one poor sole as a nurse sat across his stomach whilst she performed heart massage. it was obvious he wasn't going to make it, but that camera man just stayed on the image. When i realised fully what they were doing i turned it off. This would make a personal war impossible for many, but maybe not a total war, as techniques of war have changed so much.
The media is only concerned with making a profit. There was never any journalistic ethic. The problem with freedom of the press is it presumes the press has morals and ethics which they clearly do not. The UN is a self serving joke and doesn't help national sovereignty. It causes more problems than solves and effort doesn't close the deal. Members of the EU will find a wake up call as their more tax and spend socialistic members run out of cash and look to the stronger members to support their countries failures, can you say France, I thought you could. **Sincere thanks to PBS's Mr Rogers for the inspiration of that last point.**
Difficult to comment on this without straying into current politics, but here goes.... Russia hasn't gone away and may well be as big a threat as China. It is rapidly reverting to it's old ways. Can you really see Putin stepping down in two years as he is supposed to? He is the latest in a long line of dictators, and our best hope is that, like Brezhnev etc, he has no real ideology other than staying in power so he may conclude that a major war will not help him retain power if he loses If we do go to war with Russia, then as Sapper says above, the country is too big to invade in the conventional way, even 1941 levels of equipment let alone current ones, so we are back to the nuclear stand-off. And people are going to be saying we shouldn't spend money on a Trident replacement..... The nightmare scenario would be an alliance of Russia, China and Iran. Adrian
I still think people, you are missing Von Poop's point. Forget who the War is against, could we "softies" in the western developed World stomach the fight? I imagine we'd be so worried about Health & Safety Regulations we'd send the Troops off with rubber bayonets and flower bombs in case they hurt someone and got sued! As to Kitty's point, This would make a personal war impossible for many, but maybe not a total war, as techniques of war have changed so much. people still die the way the always have. You had the luxurey of turning the TV off. Back in WW2, I bet they'd love to be able to turn it off too they didn't actually enjoy it then either.
I believe it would be almost impossible for Western powers to engage in an all out knuckle busting war now or anytime in the future. Political Correctness being what it is these days, it has become impossible to demonize any foe to the extent necessary for us to carry out "Total War" against any enemy no matter how heinous.
