its difficult to say if there will be a real front like in previous wars. i think the next major war would be between some of the g20, and invasion
just doesn't seem to be as practical as it used to. its too easy to predict largescale movement these days. our tech is too sophisticated and too
powerful. fronts won't exist because they'll be demolished too fast. i wouldnt even call the middle east a front anymore. were not fighting anyone
over there anymore. whens the last time you had two real state sponsored military forces fight against each other? i think the gulf war, and we saw
what happened there. i think that's how all wars would end up as, less fighting like we saw half a century ago and more simple annhilation. im not so
sure we can have even that kind of full scale demolition anymore now that the entire world is fitting into one large mural. if any nation tried to
launch such an attack, 30 other nations would be on their ass. africa is practically already bought out by China, France, and the US.
I think when it comes to asian resources, most of the conflict can be settled with trade agreements, as those nations are too developed as compared to
nations in the middle east. they have political leverage and economic leverage, whereas countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, because they lack
everything in every sense, might as well have never been considered legitimate states, which makes it easy to invade such a country, unlike say
Indonesia or India or even Korea. there could only be battles being fought everywhere or nowhere is what i think, because you don't need as much
strategy anymore. you only need a computer and coordinates and you can blow up anything you want from anywhere you want. all that matters is if you
can defend yourself from THAT kind of attack, which is the purpose of all these missile defense systems. you only need a platoon of men and a jet to
each man with a frigate or two off the coast to completely destroy a place like LA in my opinion. not that an operation like that could be carried out
so easily, obviously two enemy frigates off the coast would be sunk in no time, but that is my point in a nutshell. too much destruction in too little
time with very little effort is required in modern warfare.
notice that when you play your modern war themed video games you are working in teams of like 4-8 people and yet you are taking down a battalion of
enemies and their city. i dont feel it is any different in reality. the only you can do to prevent your own destruction is have a proper defence.
having an attack force wont do much good anymore. youll never see 60 F18's in the air like youd see of B 52's in ww2. tanks are only good for quick
sweeps, which sounds ironic, but how could you ever get a russian tank onto american soil and expect it to remain in one piece for more than 10
minutes? how could you expect the russian craft taht delivered that tank to ever make it across the sea in the first place?
anyways, if i had to choose a reasonable front, it would remain along the former iron curtain, the himalayas-golden triangle region, oceania for naval
battles, maybe the Caribbean and/or just Mexico, and of course the middle east.
the truth is that we havent seen a real war in decades, and the whole way that warfare is played out and the pieces used to play these days has no
relation to how it was back in ww2 or even vietnam or korea.
edit on 20-11-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)
20-11-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)