It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fourth-Generation Warfare: The Power of the Underdog

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
How about we abolish all government and practice religion (if we choose to) individually? We can experiment with different economic systems from region to region and we can learn to consume less so we don't have to fight each other over resources.




posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Now, on protracted war. Every self-respecting human being knows that if the defending force can protract a particular (not necessarily a war of attrition), the chances of that side winning are maximized significantly.


Well given the particularly fickle nature of public support for wars I can accept that has being true.




My question to you, despite this poor showing early on, could we in fact last in the Long War?


Yes but the the US and its allies have to smarten real quick the free world couldn't take another blunder on the scale of Iraq . People including me have lost confidence in US leaders ability to make good decisions . This problem would be solved by resolving the leadership crises in the US. That only leaves the problem of those who refuse to support the war and want to lie down in face of the enemy.



Could we, not just the America, but the entire Western world, actually end up being able to endure the Long War?


With some real leadership from the US and the likes of NATO and countries like New Zealand are willing to share the burden of sacrifice then the answer is yes.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Clearly, this discussion is shifting towards the home front. It'd be very interesting to see how the post-industrial economy and 21st century society is affected and deals with a a demanding war. Clearly, we can only speculate as to how things wll actually turn out, but to me, the socioeconomic side of 4GW is the most interesting and most important aspect. After all, at the end of the day, we care about what our children learn in school, watch on television, and how much money we've got left in our wallets. More on this to come.

To be a bit of a futurist, I think such a war would bring about a drastic change in everyday life. I could start an entirely new thread on this, but I almost see a return to pre-industrial society. Industrialism was a result of the abundance and predominance of petroleum, and as petroleum supplies dwindle, I highly doubt we'll find a sufficient replacement for it within a legitimate amount of time. A 4GW war would still push our resources to the limit, so I believe a 4GW war would pretty much result in an agriculture-focused society focused on singular, self-contained communities, unified by a government. Basically, I see us flying the Confederate flag by 2030.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I forgot to add in my last post that often the goal of insurgents is to tie down large numbers of enemy troops to avoid them being used elsewhere . There is no better example of this then Al-Qaeda in Iraq there minimal presence in Iraq is helping to tie large numbers of US troops. On the strategic level Al-Qaeda has it made in Iraq although have to do is keep a small presence and maintain a propaganda front the other insurgent group do the rest of the work for them.

Since coalition troops are tied down in Iraq victory isnt possible in Afghanistan . In fact due to a shortage of manpower victory isnt possible in Iraq or Afganistan. Industrialism was originally fuelled by the worlds coal reserves hence random places around the globe become important because of coaling stations . We could return to a middle evil society due to a number of factors even without a total war.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I want to now discuss what the outcome(s) of this war. By outcome, I don't mean geopolitical outcomes, but rather structural, social, and cultural outcomes.

To provide perspective, World War I resulted in a more internationalist mindset and a rejection of nationalism. Communism and socialism became highly popular, although many forces, such as the U.S. and Germany, rejected it. The U.S. embraced isolationism and capitalism, while Germany embraced fascism.

My prediction? It depends on a few things: the dominant economic and political system of the time and the reasons for going to war as well as the forces that pushed us to war in the first place, as well as any issues of scarcity. Most futurists make predictions with the assumption that no significant, catastrophic events will happen. But if this hypothetical war in this fashion does occur, it will take all these cyberpunk-esque future predictions and throw them out the window. Therefore, I see the following happening:

- The rejection of capitalism and globalization and a higher interest in green politics and maybe even socialism.
- The rejction of big government and a more grassroots, decentralized government, much like a confederacy.
- Less militarism.
- Focus on the community rather than large groups or individuals.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   
IMO in the after mouth of such a war things could god several differnt ways. The first is that the US is close to bankruptcy or bankrupt which leaves very little room for socialism at the government level. Economic hard could see things that we see dyeing out that is keeping every bit of string for future use and patching your socks.

We could see what happened post World War One allied governments let a mixture of the desire to punish Germany and disarm planted the seeds the grew in to the second world war. The powers that be are so firmly entrenched in the US government that at all costs corporate interests will prevail unless they are destroyed by the war much like the upper class disappeared after WW1.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
SweatmonicaIdo do you have anything else to add to the topic ?
It is worth noting that post WW2 despite Britain being virtually bankrupt there was the creation of the NHS and the Welfare state. Once the Poms knew that the war was won they no longer wanted Churchill as there leader.
Truman also won a famous come back election victory in 1948 . What people look for in wartime and peace time leaders are differnt things which makes Truman re election all that very much more interesting but alas that is another topic.

[edit on 5-12-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I've got more, I'm just trying to decide on how to tie everything together.

Eventually, this great discussion will have to come to a close. I do have something interesting to note. During the Cold War, internationalism was very vital to our efforts. In order to defeat the Soviet Union, you had to stop them "out there." You had to build alliances and create barriers, physical or theoretical, in order to stave off any Communist advances.

But in 4GW, internationalism actually seems counter-productive. Terrorists do not enter the U.S. in order to gather intel, that intel is of no use to them. Rather, they come in to hurt us. Therefore, internationalism, open borders, and anything and everything related to it (including globalization) serves to hurt us. So while the USA PATRIOT Act is definitely a step too far, I really would not mind seeing the country become a bit more "built up." Maybe we need to be a bit more introspective and learn to secure and build up what we already have instead of seeking to add more.

How we approach the issue of foreign policy is in many ways the essence of what will define our survival (not success) in the post-Cold War, post-modern world. Many people complain about why we have not intervened in Darfur yet. These people don't realize what a disaster intervention in Darfur would result in. In these times, there is no room for peacekeeping and police actions. Our leaders constantly preach the doctrine of "staying on the offensive." It makes sense, after all, we are stronger than the terrorists and the guerrilla fighters. Unfortunately, the non-state actors play on a completely different set of rules. That supposed weakness is suddenly the strength. It looks as if we are indeed the ones who have to play defense in order to survive.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join