The end of wars

[Tsur Taub]

Do you know the fact that since ww2 wars in our world are continuously decreasing?
In spite all that the media tells us, the casualties from wars are at the lowest rates ever (This includes terror attacks and civil wars)
What do you think about it?
And why there are so many who speaks of WW3 while the current politcal conditions in the world are as far as ever been, from global war, in the last 60 years?

[TSBU]

Wars are bigger, 500 years ago, wars were nearly between villages.

The casualties in war are not in the lowest rates ever (there are more and more humans every year, some wars in the past were between countrys with 10000 soldiers...). But please, show me how do you know that.

The last 60 years are... nothing, in historical terms. And now we have nuclear weapons, etc, we can easily destroy every human being in the world, so we talk about that.
But... how can you say that we are "far from global war"?

[Ormond]

But... how can you say that we are "far from global war"?

We are of course, in any given moment, only 30 minutes away from the total destruction of Western civilization. And at that hour when the nukes are quietly arcing over the north pole towards their final destination, there will inevitably be plenty of someones somewhere on the Net claiming we have transcended war.

[ThamiorTheThinker]

But... how can you say that we are "far from global war"?

We are of course, in any given moment, only 30 minutes away from the total destruction of Western civilization. And at that hour when the nukes are quietly arcing over the north pole towards their final destination, there will inevitably be plenty of someones somewhere on the Net claiming we have transcended war.

You begged the question, Ormond. The very question TBSU asked was what your evidence was for your claim. You merely re-stated your belief that the world is close to global war.

[Ormond]

You begged the question, Ormond. The very question TBSU asked was what your evidence was for your claim. You merely re-stated your belief that the world is close to global war.

Well, ok, fair enough.

I did state that we are at all times 30 minutes away from an event which really transcends our definition of war. So, that's pretty close.

We are afflicted by a very outdated notion that we would have warning of such an event as a political crisis escalated over time etc. And because we don't currently see a political crisis of sufficient scale to suggest a WW3, we assume we are safe. This is pre-1960 logic, out dated reasoning left over from over 50 years ago.

We should replace this outdated outlook with the knowledge that American and Russian missiles are on a launch on warning status. That is, if either side believes the other side has launched, they will launch immediately to prevent their own weapons from being hit on the ground.

Given the incredible speed of intercontinental ballistic missiles this gives each side very little time to make the most important decision of world history, literally minutes. Did you know that one time someone accidently stuck a training tape in to the Norad alert system, and for a few minutes the entire U.S. government thought there were incoming Russian missiles?

For more terrifying information, please see the excellent documentary Countdown To Zero, available on Netflix. Here's a trailer.

No one knows when the nukes will be launched. But if we keep them around long enough it's a certainty they will eventually be used. Human history is a very long record of the great powers going to war with all available means over and over. To argue this won't happen again is to argue against all available evidence.

[Tsur Taub]

The reason I claim wars are declining is because that the data shows so.
You can see it, for example, in the following article: (search google for "the decline of war by Angus Hervey", I can't post a link yet)

The reason I believe we are farther than ever from another global war (and in "ever" I mean since WW1) is because today most of the main superpowers in conflict are in commercial relations one with the other and are dependent one upon the other.
Who is going to open WW3?
People say Russia or China against the west.
But compare Russia and China's relationship to the west today with the past.
China is totally dependent on the west. Without the west, all its economy will collapse. Russia also.
In the past, Hostile forces didn't trade or depend one upon the other.
When they are, they are less probable to fight one another.

[Belindi]

I agree with Ormond. And there is now North Korea's madness.

[TSBU]

The reason I claim wars are declining is because that the data shows so.

Redundant, but ok.

You can see it, for example, in the following article: (search google for "the decline of war by Angus Hervey", I can't post a link yet)

Well... it's a strange rule, but you can, you just have to sat "point" or "dot" when there is a ".".
I've searched for that article, and it has no data, only a picture.
Casulties in wars are not very exact most of times, but there are a lot of data, please, show me a picture with all big wars in the world (with names), and more than 60 years.

I have some data.
The biggest wars of the Roman Empire (judeo-roman wars) had 1 million. Arround 70 dc. 8 years.
Opio wars: arround 1850, 30 to 60 millions. 8 years.

If there were wars like the one we have now in the first one age, there would be no humans. That was aproximately human population.

You can say that now we have "less war casulties per capita", that's true, and, depending in what period of time you get, you can say that we have "less casulties". Well, in the past, 90% of casulties were soldiers, now 90% are civil people. Casulties in wars are not very exact, now we have computers, so we can know better how many people die, but even know... if there is a war, and you don't have food because of the war... is that a war casultie? It is difficult.

The reason I believe we are farther than ever from another global war (and in "ever" I mean since WW1) is because today most of the main superpowers in conflict are in commercial relations one with the other and are dependent one upon the other.

In the past, countrys were the one who negociate, today, state only put taxes and things like that. Wars are (always) a fight for "who collect the taxes", and "who is the owner of this people". We are now more self-sufficient than we were years ago, of course, we are more conceted, thanks to transports and internet and that things... But it's complicated. in the past, go to war was a little more complicated, now, a couple of guys in a submarine can "put the button"... and that may mean... world destruction. Look at North Korea, look at Russia now... Look at what happened in Cuba with that missile... well, measure "how far we are from war" is difficult, I think nobody can think in terms of millions of people (but everybody seems to do that like experts), but I can say: In the past, there weren't that buttons.

Who is going to open WW3?
People say Russia or China against the west.

That's in your country, I asume that you live in "the west", I live in Spain, and... well... we don't see it that way. USA is the only country who has thrown nukes over civil population.

But compare Russia and China's relationship to the west today with the past.
China is totally dependent on the west. Without the west, all its economy will collapse. Russia also.

Are you serious? (this isn't sarcasm, I really don't know if he is using sarcasm or it is a joke or...). Did they say that in USA?

In the past, Hostile forces didn't trade or depend one upon the other.

What do you call "depend"? We have more tecnlolgy now, we can survive better in our own. We (that's for sure) make more relations with people we don't know based on "buy-sell", but nowadays, knowledge and industry or resources are or can be the same in any place...

Look, it's complicated, very complicated, world changes very fast, more fast every year, I don't know, I can imagine some things that can make all state disappear, and it's true, nobody wins if the nukes are launched, only a very very few people, but that's nearly a rule for every war, everybody lose, except a couple of guys.

-----------------
But well, let's suppose that there are less wars, for now, in the past two years or whatever. Well. I have no thoughts about it, it doesn't show me anytihing, what about you? Have you reached any conclusion?

-- Updated September 14th, 2016, 2:29 pm to add the following --

About "the guys in the submarine" I know that it isn't that easy to launch most of nukes. But it's easier than ever to kill a bunch of people and start a global war, that's what I mean.

[Supine]

Do you know the fact that since ww2 wars in our world are continuously decreasing?
In spite all that the media tells us, the casualties from wars are at the lowest rates ever (This includes terror attacks and civil wars)
What do you think about it?
And why there are so many who speaks of WW3 while the current politcal conditions in the world are as far as ever been, from global war, in the last 60 years?

Because the conditions for global war are more ripe today than they were in the 1980s or 1990s.

There are many small "low intensity" wars all over the earth today. That is not what necessarily by itself lends to global war though. A clash between nuclear powers is what can lead to global war.

Tariq Ali is about as liberal as you can get and a Pakistani atheist living in England. He interviews a young professor that taught at the University of Tripoli and supported the overthrow of Gaddafi.

At roughly the 9 minute mark he speaks about Hillary Clinton telling Libya by US order they can not have the secular government they voted in but that the US Government wants them to divide the country up to be ruled by Al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood in certain sections. At roughly the 27 minute mark he says the US and West has to stop supporting the Muslim Brotherhood if they want peace in the Middle East.

Tariq Ali eventually interviews the young professor again. This second time around the young professor is more pessimistic as the situation in Libya has deteriorated even further. He expresses his views on Hillary Clinton and states flatly he regards her as the most dangerous of all world leaders today. He goes on to say she is even dangerous for Americans because she is a warmonger that will lead Americans into more wars.

Published on May 17, 2016
Minute 23 Dr Derbesh states his feelings about Hillary Clinton.

Tariq Ali talks to Professor Mabruk Derbesh, formerly University of Tripoli, now in exile, about the worsening state of affairs in Libya. May 2016. Dr Derbesh was opposed to Gadaffi, but now is shocked at how how his country was "liberated".

Hillary Clinton will possibly lead the US into nuclear war with Russia. Environmental effects are difficult to predict because of so many variables. But with mass nuclear strikes on both countries it may be fair to predict the onset of nuclear winter (which would destroy vegetation in the Brazilian Amazon) and mass starvation across planet earth.

Some of these conflicts being pushed into the Middle East and NATO desiring to take over Eurasia might be in part (my speculation) do to liberals in Europe and the USA demanding their leaders only seek "green" energy resources in their own countries, and thus these nations and their energy corporations seeking to rob the other nations and regions of the earth of their non-green energy resources. I doubt that is the only source of conflict but it may be one.

[ThamiorTheThinker]

Fair's fair, Ormond. I don't know enough about global war, the causes of wars or the current state of international relations to have a determined position on this topic. I just wanted to contribute to the conversation however I could.

[LuckyR]

Do you know the fact that since ww2 wars in our world are continuously decreasing?
In spite all that the media tells us, the casualties from wars are at the lowest rates ever (This includes terror attacks and civil wars)
What do you think about it?
And why there are so many who speaks of WW3 while the current politcal conditions in the world are as far as ever been, from global war, in the last 60 years?

You are correct and the reason is Multinational Corporations. Gearing up for war is great for business, as are skirmishes (like Syria for example) but old style scorched earth type conflict is bad for business, hence no wars of that type.

[Tsur Taub]

Agree, but soon enough they will have to change their business strategy again.
The world is becoming more and more democratic, so the places you can invade under the guise of a protector are becoming more scarce.

[Nick_A]

War is one of nature's means for controlling over population and restoring a more efficient balance of nature. War isn't a choice; it is a natural cyclical reaction to ever changing external circumstances.

[Vijaydevani]

War is one of nature's means for controlling over population and restoring a more efficient balance of nature. War isn't a choice; it is a natural cyclical reaction to ever changing external circumstances.

Are you suggesting that nature has a will and the ability to implement strategy?

[TSBU]

When a person doesn't know how to explain a behaviour, that person start talking about insctinc, psichology, sociology, biology... it's the same as talking about god when it's raining. You can't see what cause rain, so "it just happen" or "it was god". It's more appropiate to talk in that terms, cause then you can put people thoughts out of the game, you avoid any sense of responsability.

Why are there wars? Biology. Why is my son using drugs? Sociology. Why am I being dishonest with my wife when I have sex with other women? Insctinct. I can't fight those things, so I can't teach people, I can't help my son, and I can't be honest.

Wars happen because some people gain power over pawns with them, and lot of pawns can be used as soldiers, so they are controlled to kill themselves. For example, opium wars. There are people who always win in wars (people making weapons for example) but most of people lose in them. And they are extremely dangerous for everyone, they are very volatile, and wars only destroy. So only when there are enough people under the right circumstances, a war happens. Of course, more people means a more volatile world. It isn't so easy to predict a war for everybody XD, you'd had to check and understand lots of minds, so nobody can say that we are in the end of wars looking at 60 years (you can say 60 seconds, it would be the same, history is long enough) and with a rude extrapolation.