"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

GrauGeist said:
So then the Gulf War was a World War?
Click to expand...
Fair point.

Perhaps I would add an addendum: perhaps one of the defining aspects of a world war is that there are fights going on in multiple countries concurrently. In this regard, the political interference/cyber war etc that Russia is engaged in would be an arguable triggering point and it would also help differentiate other wars such as the 1991 Gulf War.
 
GrauGeist said:
So then the Gulf War was a World War?
Click to expand...

I think there's a big difference. Few countries supported Iraq, but many countries are lining up on both sides in this war. Another big diff is the non-combat warfare, because the Internet has changed things. One thing I think the Russians are correct in is software-warfare. That capability was not present in in 1991, and it renders this war a little different.

The advent of computers and AI has changed the nature of the battlefield itself, and broadened it to an extent that a combatant country might open up a new front online.

For these reasons, yes, I see this as a world war, though I don't know what number should be attached. Something I've been thinking about lately is that internet attacks on infrastructure or elections should be regarded as acts of war.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
I think there's a big difference. Few countries supported Iraq, but many countries are lining up on both sides in this war. Another big diff is the non-combat warfare, because the Internet has changed things. One thing I think the Russians are correct in is software-warfare. That capability was not present in in 1991, and it renders this war a little different.

The advent of computers and AI has changed the nature of the battlefield itself, and broadened it to an extent that a combatant country might open up a new front online.

For these reasons, yes, I see this as a world war, though I don't know what number should be attached. Something I've been thinking about lately is that internet attacks on infrastructure or elections should be regarded as acts of war.
Click to expand...
'Something I've been thinking about lately is that internet attacks on infrastructure or elections should be regarded as acts of war.'. I completely agree with this statement. Russia has (either directly or through the actions of proxies) downed an airliner (MH17); used a WMD (Salisbury); committed acts on sabotage in NATO jurisdictions, scrambled GPS data .... yadda, yadda, yadda. In C20th, acts such as these would certainly have triggered wars
 
Warspite63 said:
'Something I've been thinking about lately is that internet attacks on infrastructure or elections should be regarded as acts of war.'. I completely agree with this statement. Russia has (either directly or through the actions of proxies) downed an airliner (MH17); used a WMD (Salisbury); committed acts on sabotage in NATO jurisdictions, scrambled GPS data .... yadda, yadda, yadda. In C20th, acts such as these would certainly have triggered wars
Click to expand...

We need to stand up. We need to draw lines.
 
SplitRz said:
What are the supposed definitions of a World War?

Seems to me that first dimension is 'Unlimited war'. This isn't.

No fully strategic bombing. No firm and fully committed alliances involving 'boots on the ground' beyond mercenary forces and very limited deployment. Only two countries on an economic war footing. Global trade largely continuing as normal, and diplomatic and sporting functions continuing largely as normal.

If those trying to hype this into WW3 are using the current situation as what defines a 'world war', then it seems to me that Korea or Gulf #1 would also pretty much qualify?
Click to expand...
To add to the list, World Wars have multiple theatres of operation and are pan-continental. The Ukraine war doesn't. It is a strictly local theatre - and even the Russians have been careful to do no more than hint about escalation with the occasional sabre rattling or act of plausibly deniable sabotage. The best comparison as things stand as far as I can see, is Korea - as is the most likely conclusion.

Cyber warfare isn't really much different in many respects in strategy and intention than aggressive diplomacy, espionage and economic machinations. That aspect is all rather business as usual, tbh. As conducted to date, its an inconvenience - and much of it is by hackers and non state agents. Yes, it has huge potential for the future as we blindly continue to remove hard cash, paper and 20th century telephony from our national networks (criminal short-sightedness in my opinion), but its still hasn't had the political or social impact of a single conventional bomb or missile hitting a capital city.

People talk about 'lines being drawn'. Ordinarily, I'd agree. But the trouble with that strategy now is that we already have one brinksman too many already in the form of Putin. Once someone else has their feet up on the oak desk, there will be two. Personally, I don't want to see ANY more lines for the time being, because we'll have two individuals who have a proven track record of completely ignoring them. That simply invites both rapid escalation and the danger of things running out of control. Then WW3 will become something of an inevitable self-fulfilling prophesy. No thanks - I like my molecules attached, thank you very much.

My ideal would be to see the status quo maintained viz a viz material support to Ukraine: I'd also like to see Europe step up to the plate and to mandate ALL member nations of the EU and NATO to deliver the 2.5% GDP defence spending commitment as a direct condition of membership, in return for some meaningful continued US support to both Ukraine and the concept of NATO. Tragically, the war is going to have to run its bloody course until there's an internal regime change in either belligerent country, or some kind of uneasy truce.

Alas, in what looks to me like a largely apathetic and misinformed world full of conspiracy theory and confirmation bias, I feel like something of a loner on that front. People and politicians want clean and convenient conclusions. But in a world of nuclear weapons and despots, life isn't like that - and glib words and policy leading to wider war could ensure that death could be 'widely encompassing', to put it mildly.
 
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus said:
For these reasons, yes, I see this as a world war, though I don't know what number should be attached.
Click to expand...
Agree
Thumpalumpacus said:
Something I've been thinking about lately is that internet attacks on infrastructure or elections should be regarded as acts of war.
Click to expand...
There is a body of work that argues it should.
 
SplitRz said:
To add to the list, World Wars have multiple theatres of operation and are pan-continental.
Click to expand...
One might argue therefore that WW1 hardly qualifies given it was predominantly Europe based albeit with some offshoots. In the world of cyber attacks etc one might argue this constitutes an additional theatre.

Cyber warfare isn't really much different in many respects in strategy and intention than aggressive diplomacy, espionage and economic machinations. That aspect is all rather business as usual, tbh. As conducted to date, its an inconvenience - and much of it is by hackers and non state agents. Yes, it has huge potential for the future as we blindly continue to remove hard cash, paper and 20th century telephony from our national networks (criminal short-sightedness in my opinion), but its still hasn't had the political or social impact of a single conventional bomb or missile hitting a capital city.
Click to expand...
Err...there is evidence that Russia's hacker groups are state funded. As for impact, it already has the potential (and I suspect has already) to kill people. One could also argue that using such to help influence elections and topple governments is a definite act of war, especially if one takes the Clausewitzian 'War is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means' style approach, is far more destructive than a single conventional bomb.

As for removal of paper money, let's try to not go backwards.
SplitRz said:
Personally, I don't want to see ANY more lines for the time being, because we'll have two individuals who have a proven track record of completely ignoring them.
Click to expand...
Ignoring is a problem as it does create a "frog in hot water" style situation, Having the redlines themselves is not the problem though.
SplitRz said:
My ideal would be to see the status quo maintained viz a viz material support to Ukraine:
Click to expand...
So the slow strangling death of Ukraine? Nice!!
SplitRz said:
I'd also like to see Europe step up to the plate and to mandate ALL member nations of the EU and NATO to deliver the 2.5% GDP defence spending commitment as a direct condition of membership, in return for some meaningful continued US support to both Ukraine and the concept of NATO.
Click to expand...
The current 2% of GDP is a commitment but not a condition. NATO isn't meant to be some sort of club where you have to pay membership fees. It is there for the collective defence of all involved.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Luft.4
L
M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
1K
GTX
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
866
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
512
Thumpalumpacus
Thumpalumpacus
Back