Tbh ithe next time we need conscription it would be for inter-solar or inter-galactic war. Depending on who we're fighting

>>29336358
>Is full-scale war between large countries obsolete?
No.

>Ever since the 1990s we haven't had wars where conscription was deemed necessary by the major powers to fight a war.
Good thing, too.

>Considering the economic interdependence that America, Europe, Russia and China have with eachother, why would they ever declare war against each other?
You're really short-sighted if you don't think any of those countries could find a reason to go to war with each other.

If I had to guess though, it will probably be similar to a WWI situations where a couple of smaller nations start shit, then the larger countries get pulled into the conflict because of treaties.

War is never obsolete, it just isn't the preferred method right now to handle international disputes.
People are still used to the Cold War method of indirect economic warfare and would rather write letters and force trade embargoes over shooting people.

>>29336358
>War is out of date, obsolete.

Says the guy who got exiled from his own country.

>>29336627
This. Maybe if he warred a little harder Tibet could be India's lackey instead of China's Fritzl daughter

>durr muh humanity
>hurr mah civilization

War has been a part of all of human history. It will be a part of all remaining human history yet to come.

Couldnt tell you what mudslimes think about the end times, but for Chrisitans, the end times are ended by guess what, war (with of course the new heaven and new earth not having war after that... But I digress)

TLDR retards who say we have no need for war/it's obsolete/blah blah blah/ are retards

>>29336358

I don't think there will ever be another large scale conflict between major world powers again. With nuclear proliferation the way it is, you can't have anything beyond a pissing match. As soon as a nuclear armed nation was genuinely threatened in a conventional war, they would have little reason not to loose their nuclear arms.

Once we make it to space and the power demographic of the Sol system starts to shift, maybe. While the majority of humans still live on a single planet? I really doubt it.

>>29336358
Full scale 1st world to 1st world? Probably just too hard to get people that ramped up for blood unless it's a select group. Cyber and trade warfare is far more damaging anyway. You can do a lot more underhanded stuff.

>>29336673
Honestly this is dipping into /sci/ bio territory - simply put,
>intra-specific conflict is a thing
When it comes to war, nothing more need be said.

>>29336673

War isn't "obsolete" you fucknut, it's just that with the kind of military might wielded by global superpowers a full scale "total war" would be absolutely catastrophic to the point where it isn't going to happen while we're limited to this rock.

Just imagine a fight for survival between two major global powers. Powers that have the capacity to drop dozens of nukes a day for months on end, or thousands in just a few days.

>>29336720
>lasers are developed
>rail guns come into their own
>suddenly ICBMs don't have the force multiplier factor they used to
>guess invasions still work

Who is the fucknut now fucknut

I'd say war as we know it is obsolete, which is what the Dahli Lama is talking about. I mean, the most we've had now is police actions but the fact many nations have a "end everything now" button really makes hot wars obsolete.

i say that the next big wars are gonna be between corporations EVE online style, or just on different planets. or we just turn the surface of the earth into a hellscape with nuclear arms.

>>29336358
What determines the rating of "full scale?" What is 1/4 scale war?

>>29336782
You need "high powered" rifles to enter a "full-scale" war.

>>29336755

You really believe that laser and rail gun based weaponry will nullify the destructive capability of ICBMs?

If you went out of your way to construct "stealth" bombs, you could easily use an ICBM to put a 25 megaton delivery vehicle in orbit, which could then change it's course at will, dropping out of the sky wherever you want at over Mach 10.

You might not be able to make it invisible to radar, but you can definitely make it impossible to get an accurate enough lock on for a laser or projectile weapon to disable. The difficulty in getting a projectile to intercept a target at those speeds is incredibly difficult. As for lasers, do you have any idea how powerful of a laser would be required to disable a nuclear warhead with ablative armor in the short time between reentry and impact?

>>29336396

> then the larger countries get pulled into the conflict because of treaties.

What is, Ukraine?
Yeah,it's not going to happen until the dollar falls, that's what all this Arab warring is about.

>>29336962
>What is, Ukraine?
What part of that treaty said anyone had to go to war?

>>29336956
>Stealth
>Mach 10 is faster than the speed of light
>durr there will be no progress in power sources for lasers
>hurr means of detection will not improve either

Don't know why we didn't just stop with muskets. They could defeat plate armor.

>>29336962

Non-binging.

>>29336986

The power source for the laser isn't the limiting factor you turd, it's how much energy you can direct through the atmosphere before the air the beam is going through begins to "lase", or turn into plasma which obscures the beam and limits range.

Basically, there is a maximum effective range, and maximum effective power for any laser weapons used in-atmosphere.

As for detection, your argument is that radar and whatever other tracking methods will improve, but that doesn't mean that the technology for hiding from those very things wont improve right along with them.

Weapons technology is going to improve, but the power of the atomic weapon isn't going to be nullified or sufficiently mitigated any time soon. We effectively developed a weapon that functions on a scale too large for planet scale wars. War will resume when the scale of war is increased again.