Today's regional conflicts resemble the ones that produced World War II

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/next-global-war

by keepamovin • 2 years ago

21 58 2 years ago

dpflan8• 2 years ago

What about the influence of internet technology and near-light-speed communication and advances in military technology versus WWII conditions/state?

-- EDIT --

This document is referenced in the article regarding analysis by the Pentagon on its own capabilities: "National Defense Industrial Strategy" [https://www.businessdefense.gov/docs/ndis/2023-NDIS.pdf]

asah• 2 years ago

and improved intelligence, so nations hopefully don't underestimate each other... ?

dpflan8• 2 years ago

Right, there is no question that today intelligence is better / more capable.

mrighele2• 2 years ago

If it was true, Russia wouldn't have started war with Ukraine.

More less the plan was to capture Kyiv in 3 days, and complete the job in a few weeks

londons_explore• 2 years ago

The telegraph already reached nearly everywhere, and telephone connectivity had reached pretty much every capital city by 1939.

Communications between country leaders were fast and reliable, so I don't think 'I didn't get your apology letter so we went to war' was a factor in 1939, nor will it be in 2027.

dpflan8• 2 years ago

Indeed telegram existed. But now we have "telegrams" everywhere, in pockets, with advanced analytics possible on the myriad of types of "telegrams", etc. Video can tell a much more compelling, convincing, and detailed story than a telegram.

Lex-2008• 2 years ago

Communications between country leaders were fast and reliable

Maybe they were fast enough by 1939 standards, but it seems that in 1960s communication between Moscow and Washington was considered to be "not fast enough". Quoting Wikipedia article on Moscow–Washington hotline[1]:

During the [1962 Cuban Missile Crisis], official diplomatic messages typically took six hours to deliver; unofficial channels, such as via television network correspondents, had to be used too as they were quicker. The experience of the crisis convinced both sides of the need for better communications.
During the crisis, the United States took nearly twelve hours to receive and decode Nikita Khrushchev's 3,000-word-initial settlement message – a dangerously long time. By the time Washington had drafted a reply, a tougher message from Moscow had been received...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow%E2%80%93Washington_hotl...

Towaway69• 2 years ago

Have wars suddenly stopped because of the Internet? Not really.

More communication does not automatically mean more love, peace and happiness. Communication are the wires, words are the content and bring the meaning.

dpflan8• 2 years ago

There will always be conflict. It is human nature. The issue of the article seems to be more about kinetic war as conflict. The internet/media is a theatre of war.

pintxo• 2 years ago

The Nazis made “great” use of the (comparatively) new technologies of their time: radio and movies. In the end technology is a tool, you can use it for either purpose: good or evil. The tool does not mind.

maxglute• 2 years ago

Improved information processing/transmission reduces OODA loop and IMO will encourage MORE conflict and escalation once it starts. In the past, ligh speed communication made jaw jaw faster than war war. But diplomacy is still bilateral/multilateral - could take hours to get counterpart the on line. Meanwhile verifying attacks and planning/executing a counter strike package is unilateral, and with improved technology/sensors/info sharing can _eventually_ take less time.

xboxnolifes• 2 years ago

I disagree. While I agree there will be more conflict, I find that more conversations and open dialogues tend to reduce escalation rather than the alternative of letting people fester in their emotions that come about long gaps between communication.

It's a completely different world when you can be talking to people on the other side of world in realtime, all the time, with a device in your pocket.

fractallyte4• 2 years ago

The problem is that raw aggression - namely, Russian and Chinese - is not met with a robust, proactive, aggressive response. Military people know exactly what to do; the failures are all due to politicians and politics.

That's why history repeats itself. We have think-tanks, political scientists, game theorists, military academies - but the leaders we elect into power are almost universally unqualified for actual leadership.

Edit: one might point to the Cuban missile crisis as an example of careful leadership. I would argue that it should never have been allowed to escalate to that point. I stand by my assertion.

Waterluvian• 2 years ago

Because of how democracy works, politicians are inclined to kick any kickable can down the road. This is the king of all kickable cans.

borissk• 2 years ago

Meeting aggression with aggressive response is what leads to escalation. Escalation of conflicts between nuclear powers sooner or later will end with some unfortunate consequences.

Facing an aggressive Russian or Chinese regime, armed with nukes and more or less modern conventional forces doesn't leave a lot of options for Western politicians. Specifically Putin have reacted with raising stakes and escalation every time he's been challenged. If the other side reacts in the same way a nuclear war is inevitable. There is no magical "leadership" that can resolve complicated conflicts without taking enormous risks with the future of humankind.

The war in Ukraine was handled by the West politicians quite well IMHO. They supplied Ukraine with enough weapons and money to be able to free big parts of occupied territories and to stop any future Russian advances.

fractallyte4• 2 years ago

I emphatically disagree. A weak, non-committal response guarantees continued, escalating aggression. This has been amply demonstrated throughout history.

In particular, the West's response in Ukraine is a travesty: just enough weaponry to keep Ukraine going, but not enough for a decisive victory.

Ukraine is currently the only country that can defeat Russia. NATO countries are bound up in the treaty; all they can do is gear up to face Russia's re-militarized economy. The time to nip it in the bud was more than a year ago, before Putin had a chance to consolidate his grip over the country.

Proper leadership is to stand up for what's right, and to be ready to escalate beyond your opponent. However, the ethical principles that underpin "rightness" are missing in the majority of our political leaders.

FrustratedMonky4• 2 years ago

So many of the reasons for WWII were seeded from WWI.

I would really like an article comparing Todays situation to Pre-WW1, when there were dozens of similarly sized/capable countries with a web of treaties.

Would that be a better model? If you remove the US, the rest of the world is on pretty even footing, with a lot of different relationships, so seems like would be more like pre-WW1.

drewcoo• 2 years ago

Agree.

Without the USSR, things look very different. Russia is not the USSR.

Also, the US is the main aggressor in the world today, as opposed to a distant secondary power in the early 20th century.

A lot of the comparisons in the article just don't make much sense. Except to a neocon with a neocon's reading of history and the present.

ghostzilla• 2 years ago

Certainly agree with you on that one.

elango• 2 years ago

The world is in business now, almost everyone outside of conflict zone have a good standard of living that they wouldn’t want to be compromised.

Today's regional conflicts resemble the ones that produced World War II

Related Stories