• Why War is Killing Less of Us Than Ever
    41 replies, posted
[video=youtube;NbuUW9i-mHs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbuUW9i-mHs[/video]
Very interesting and educational, however they failed to mention that nobody wants all-out wars between developed countries due to the amount of destruction modern day weapons can cause (i.e. Nuclear bombs)
"Russians invading Ukraine" When did this happen? :v: Not taking sides, but it hasn't happened yet.
It's important to mention that war will only be avoided so long as it's cheaper to trade for resources. In the Future as resources become more scarce, inter-state war is inevitable in some form, at the moment we're just in a period where war isn't viable. Mankind hasn't changed, the lessons and accomplishments of the 20th century aren't permanent, lessons from History never are. If you look at the world from about 1870-1910, Many people believed at that point that no huge war between Great Powers would ever erupt again. They thought that they had entered a new age of enlightenment and prosperity and look what happened next.
[QUOTE=DMGaina;46191115]"Russians invading Ukraine" When did this happen? :v: Not taking sides, but it hasn't happened yet.[/QUOTE] Except, they kinda did cross Ukraines borders with armed forces without permission, which is technically an invasion.
The graph that he used to show how war deaths are declining is misleading. It went from 1950 to present day. I don't know why he used such a short time span, if he had used a longer time period, the casualties would look much more consistent.
[QUOTE=DMGaina;46191115]"Russians invading Ukraine" When did this happen? :v: Not taking sides, but it hasn't happened yet.[/QUOTE] Hell yes we did
Heh, the logo for WWIII was an oil barrel. I wonder if that actually will be the cause.
I love this guy's videos
The things I'm most worried about in the long term are China's territorial ambitions (though I can't really judge how serious those are) and the weird moves Russia might make if it doesn't modernize itself. For the rest, I'm not too worried. People in modern nations are more wary of war than ever before. We know what it looks like without having experienced it directly thanks to our media, and we're connected with more people around the world than ever before. There would need to be some serious unchecked aggression before truly democratic nations go to war. Also the sooner everyone accepts gay rights the better. At no point in history did two nations that support gay rights ever fight each other :v:
[QUOTE=Clavus;46191456]The things I'm most worried about in the long term are China's territorial ambitions (though I can't really judge how serious those are) and the weird moves Russia might make if it doesn't modernize itself. For the rest, I'm not too worried. People in modern nations are more wary of war than ever before. We know what it looks like without having experienced it directly thanks to our media, and we're connected with more people around the world than ever before. There would need to be some serious unchecked aggression before truly democratic nations go to war. Also the sooner everyone accepts gay rights the better. At no point in history did two nations that support gay rights ever fight each other :v:[/QUOTE] As long as China's military is focused on internal repression you won't need to worry about their territorial ambitions. They can make threats but they can't commit to any major external operation.
[QUOTE=Clavus;46191456]Also the sooner everyone accepts gay rights the better. At no point in history did two nations that support gay rights ever fight each other :v:[/QUOTE] I think this is the most contrived thing I've ever read.
[QUOTE=booster;46191333]Heh, the logo for WWIII was an oil barrel. I wonder if that actually will be the cause.[/QUOTE] The thing is if oil becomes so scarce to the point nations are fighting over it, we'd just end up using the last of it in doing so and I'd hazard a guess in saying that most governments aren't so retarded as to not realise that.
[QUOTE=Clavus;46191456]The things I'm most worried about in the long term are China's territorial ambitions (though I can't really judge how serious those are) and the weird moves Russia might make if it doesn't modernize itself. For the rest, I'm not too worried. People in modern nations are more wary of war than ever before. We know what it looks like without having experienced it directly thanks to our media, and we're connected with more people around the world than ever before. There would need to be some serious unchecked aggression before truly democratic nations go to war. Also the sooner everyone accepts gay rights the better. At no point in history did two nations that support gay rights ever fight each other :v:[/QUOTE] Wasn't China a nation that only defended itself along it's history? Like it never invaded others. I don't think their mentality changed much.
[QUOTE=booster;46191333]Heh, the logo for WWIII was an oil barrel. I wonder if that actually will be the cause.[/QUOTE] I hope by the time this would roll around, we've actually managed to [I]escape [/I]the grip of forced oil dependence
One problem I find with this video is that counting battle deaths is misleading as to measuring the social ramifications of war. For instance America only lost a few thousand soldiers to battle deaths in the second Iraq War, whereas the Iraqis lost over 10,000 to battle death. However this doesn't count [I]civilians[/I] who died due to violence that wouldn't factor into "battle deaths" which is easily over 100,000. And thats not to mention the displacement of peoples. Syria for instance has anywhere from 3-5 million people internally displaced by the conflict. To say that war is dying down because of battle deaths decreasing is failing to really have an encompassing methodology for judging whether its actually dying.
[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;46192753]One problem I find with this video is that counting battle deaths is misleading as to measuring the social ramifications of war. For instance America only lost a few thousand soldiers to battle deaths in the second Iraq War, whereas the Iraqis lost over 10,000 to battle death. However this doesn't count [I]civilians[/I] who died due to violence that wouldn't factor into "battle deaths" which is easily over 100,000. And thats not to mention the displacement of peoples. Syria for instance has anywhere from 3-5 million people internally displaced by the conflict. To say that war is dying down because of battle deaths decreasing is failing to really have an encompassing methodology for judging whether its actually dying.[/QUOTE] Well to be fair, it's a far cry from ancient warfare, where your entire country would be slaughtered or enslaved if you lost, or even WWII, where you might suffer a similar fate.
I wish the video would mention MAD. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction[/url]
[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;46192753]One problem I find with this video is that counting battle deaths is misleading as to measuring the social ramifications of war. For instance America only lost a few thousand soldiers to battle deaths in the second Iraq War, whereas the Iraqis lost over 10,000 to battle death. However this doesn't count [I]civilians[/I] who died due to violence that wouldn't factor into "battle deaths" which is easily over 100,000. And thats not to mention the displacement of peoples. Syria for instance has anywhere from 3-5 million people internally displaced by the conflict. To say that war is dying down because of battle deaths decreasing is failing to really have an encompassing methodology for judging whether its actually dying.[/QUOTE] That has also been reduced significantly. I remember reading that the 30 Years War killed over 1/4 of the German population.
[QUOTE=Swineflu;46192391]Wasn't China a nation that only defended itself along it's history? Like it never invaded others. I don't think their mentality changed much.[/QUOTE] Vietnam and a brief border struggle in Kashmir. Also Xinjang and Tibet, even if the two didn't really offer any resistance.
[QUOTE=dai;46192637]I hope by the time this would roll around, we've actually managed to [I]escape [/I]the grip of forced oil dependence[/QUOTE] [img]http://img.gamefaqs.net/box/4/1/7/74417_back.jpg[/img]
Structural violence and climate change are the new collective threats we face as a species, not warfare.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46192826]Well to be fair, it's a far cry from ancient warfare, where your entire country would be slaughtered or enslaved if you lost, or even WWII, where you might suffer a similar fate.[/QUOTE] Not really. The only people who wen't on the rampant slaughter-and-pillage route on the depopulating, displacing scale modern day weapons bring were the Assyrians. Even the Romans, famed conquerors, mostly let their enemies accept defeat as subject peoples and worked on peacefully integrating them and building their economies. After all, what point is pillaging something you are about to conquer? All you are doing is making the land there poorer and the people their resent you. Also, this video is incredibly optimistic. It strikes me as the kind of shit you would see from the interwar period between 1918-1939. I think it is incredibly naive to assume that, just because of some misleading statistics about battle deaths (which by the way, actual deaths rarely account for the majority of casualties and suffering in a war, as said by luverofJ!93), that war is in decline and the human race may change to more peaceful ways. In the end, humans don't change. War may not be respected as the diplomatic tool it used to be used as, but in the end, war will happen, and god help us if a war ever involves to major nation states. That is one difference of warfare; it is far less frequent and on a much smaller scale now, but the weapons used to fight it result in untold devastation that most peoples of the past couldn't even dream of. But even that is hardly a deterrent. I believe humans themselves just don't change like that, and as long as war remains on the table as an option of "getting what we want" (and it always will be; that's the primary reason why humans wage war) -whether "what we want" is resources, or more commonly in modern times, an ideology- war will never end. [editline]9th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Pantz Master;46193015]That has also been reduced significantly. I remember reading that the 30 Years War killed over 1/4 of the German population.[/QUOTE] Yes, but the German population was a fraction of what it is now. Hell, there were probably 3-5 million Germans alive at the time.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;46194767]Yes, but the German population was a fraction of what it is now. Hell, there were probably 3-5 million Germans alive at the time.[/QUOTE] My point exactly. Its all about proportion. You didn't see 1/4 of the German population get killed during WW2, did you? No. Because we're also improving in that aspect of war, limiting collateral damage.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;46194767]Not really. The only people who wen't on the rampant slaughter-and-pillage route on the depopulating, displacing scale modern day weapons bring were the Assyrians. Even the Romans, famed conquerors, mostly let their enemies accept defeat as subject peoples and worked on peacefully integrating them and building their economies. After all, what point is pillaging something you are about to conquer? All you are doing is making the land there poorer and the people their resent you.[/QUOTE] Yes that was a bit facetious. Even the Assyrians didn't outright kill everyone. They just shuffled them around and forced them to submit their gods to Asshur.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46194934]Yes that was a bit facetious. Even the Assyrians didn't outright kill everyone. They just shuffled them around and forced them to submit their gods to Asshur.[/QUOTE] I was implying more the enslavement part, like you said. The Assyrians were one of the most successful warlike peoples in history, so they are good to base the argument off of. [QUOTE=Pantz Master;46194910]My point exactly. Its all about proportion. You didn't see 1/4 of the German population get killed during WW2, did you? No. Because we're also improving in that aspect of war, limiting collateral damage.[/QUOTE] Except its not, its just that we have improve our ability to keep humans alive through all this shit. Populations are immense. It would take nothing short of limited nuclear war to equal the [I]relative[/I] destruction of the Thirty Years war, but that isn't because collateral damage is minimized. The only thing that minimizes collateral damage is the fact that armies are now organized and disciplined, but even then when it is total war the point is moot. Weapons of war, and the means of spreading collateral damage, have advanced much farther. The thing that saves us from wiping out a quarter of a world population is the fact that things like medicine, surgery, shelters and engineering, and wartime safety procedures have advanced just as fast to combat them. That, and because of numerous advances there are more people than ever, so killing them all, even with modern weapons, is rather hard. It isn't that war itself has improved at all; it is that all other things have.
The style this guy uses is real awful.
The background music sounded a bit like the MGS theme. I wonder...
I wish I could live to see a day where war and unrest is eradicated.
[QUOTE=ThePanther;46197013]The background music sounded a bit like the MGS theme. I wonder...[/QUOTE] War has changed... Hideo Kojima confirmed for a time traveler.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.