Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Fair point.So then the Gulf War was a World War?
I agree with President Zelensky, however, Ukraine was supposed to have security guarantees under the Budapest Memorandum and we see how that's worked out so far...
So then the Gulf War was a World War?
'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 warsI 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.
'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
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.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?
AgreeFor these reasons, yes, I see this as a world war, though I don't know what number should be attached.
There is a body of work that argues it should.Something I've been thinking about lately is that internet attacks on infrastructure or elections should be regarded as acts of war.
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.To add to the list, World Wars have multiple theatres of operation and are pan-continental.
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.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.
Ignoring is a problem as it does create a "frog in hot water" style situation, Having the redlines themselves is not the problem though.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.
So the slow strangling death of Ukraine? Nice!!My ideal would be to see the status quo maintained viz a viz material support to Ukraine:
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.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.