posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 04:43 PM
I regard it as interesting, that immediately following a post regarding the absurdity of a world versus United States situation, the poster proposes
that very same quandry in an attempt to answer it.
However, for the sake of argument, let's dissect a bit:
Yes. Due to the change in weapons, tactics, economics, human geography, and politics, the battlefield will resemble nothing like the last several
Yes, the American government will no longer be able to maintain an isolationist status during these wars if they escalate to the status of total war.
[As opposed to the potential 'Proxy World War' wherein multiple small nations battle while funded materially, and immaterially by the 'higher
Due to interdependency amongst nations politically and economically, also, because of its military status, it would be if little else dragged into the
war by its failing allies in an attempt to 'level the field'.
Further, guerilla tactics, ie those seen in Vietnam and Iraq are unlikely to occur, or exact any lasting toll. As a World War is one in where the
submission of a state, or alliance of states is the outcome, and not prolonged fighting on the same battlefield -- Which, with today's weapons, would
hardly occur anyway in most scenarios -- the idea of tying up ones military, hopelessly bogged down in a temporarily-held city is ludicrous.
[Though arguably, if you'd prefer to think of today's world as being a third-world-war, then the above statement is false. However, my own personal
interpretation of war is two or more recognized nations fighting in a number of different arenas; erego I am not applying the above to your
To state my own brief opinion:
a. I do not believe a World War could happen. There is far too much economic and political co-dependency amongst nations today, that any nation, much
less an entire group could do without another military or economically equal state, or group of.
As much as I've heard discussion about Russia, or China, or any number of Middle-Eastern States versus the U.S., or Europe, or any other combination
you might imagine, the fact is that the destruction of any modern power in this day and age -- With the assumption that an attack on Europe would be
an attack on the Union -- would be catastrophic to victor and victim.
b. If it did occur, the fighting would last months, if that. Without the [inarguable] discussion of atomics, it can simply be agreed that with the
weapons we have at our disposal today, both military and national-leaders would suffer a very swift end.
The only way to survive such a war [even if only for a length of time] would be to act as inconspicuously as possible; as little a threat imagineable,
and to sacrifice your friends before yourself.
And that, I think, would not produce much of a war at all.