I should clarify the title, Is inter-state conflict over?
I've seen a few arguments that claim that inter-state conflict has come to an end, the realities of globalisation have made war unprofitable, it is simply easier to secure resources through trade.
That combined with the fact that war is no longer considered a legitimate political tool, is it over?
It looks like we are seeing evidence of it now, the biggest wars since the fall of the cold war have been either civil wars, or a war of a state against a guerrilla force.
Some argue the future will be rife with ethnic conflict, Ignatieff's theory of the Narcissism of minor differences claims that as the differences between groups decreases, the groups will choose to focus more and more on these minor differences.
Look at Yugoslavia, it seems precisely because there was so little difference in the lives of yugoslavs that their ethnic identity became so important to them within a matter of months.
What does /his/ think? Is war between states over? Are we entering an era of blood conflict between brothers and ethnies?
I disagree with huntingtons thesis of a clash of civilisations, however his narrative is so widespread, that it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>>329890
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts#Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1999
>>329890
I agree that war between states is over, but I think the reason is everyone is scared to go to war because they fear nukes will get involved.
War....War never changes
>>329926
Only a few states possess nukes though
>>329925
I'm not saying it is completely over, admittedly that is what the title implies.
But are we not reaching a position where this is the case?
after 16 years I think we can safely say that times have changed, at least a little
>>329926
Israel is constantly at war
India is constantly at war with Pakistan and both are nuclear states. I've been a tourist to Jammu and Kashmir and
I've been to the war torn areas and people told me they have to endure shelling from the Pakistani side of the border a lot
War is now about the targetting of regimes, not people. Or at least that's how conflict is spun. No one wants to fight a people, that's deemed wrong. Now they aim to target specific people or parties and if the people who support them die along the way, so be it.
>>329942
This is just Syria.
Toppling regimes was a very 20th century tactic.
>>329890
Anti-nuclear methods of protection will be invented and we'll be straight back to it
>>329890
Quite possible but we will have to see that the recent scuffle/Saber rattling between Russia and Turkey cools off to fully give a say at the moment.
However, I would hardly say that the Break Up of Yugoslavia and Serbia/Kosovo split as hardly "Guerrilla Forces." Part of the reason being is because Josip Tito left each region with a sizable standing National Guard/Region Police Force.
To the point of "Ethnic Identity Wars." In Western Civilized Societies. Race/ethnicity matters little to almost none. Even with the dust up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although brought about a bit if steady fast bias against Muslims and middle eastern peoples but in the long run it matters little.
I think as the world trades more it will be less likely that open conflict will happen but because humanity is petty an action like say Turkey/Russia as of recent could potentially boiling point. We also cannot forget either about Chinese Expansionism in the South China Sea and Africa. It is tough to say that "World Peace" will be a thing in the future but the more unified the globe becomes its less likely conflict will arise.
I'm still waiting for Mars colonization and then Buenos Ares getting hit by a meteor and then get advertisements of "ARE YOU DOING YOUR PART?"
OP here.
Maybe to give a better understanding of the position I've presented, some people should watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbuUW9i-mHs
>>329926
>but I think the reason is everyone is scared to go to war because they fear nukes will get involved.
Are you 12?
How would nukes prevent war between non-nuclear nations and nuclear vs non-nuclear conflicts?
The actual reason is that ruling class are no longer nationalistic and care about their own well being above everything else
>>329890
Totally unrelated but John Lennon is a piece of shit
>>329890
Thats a good question actually. Outside of africa it seems to have completely disappeared.
>>329951
I would call the Yugoslav conflict an ethnic civil war.
I would say that wars have become fought via proxies, Syria and Ukraine are both proxy wars between the west and russia.
It is much easier for states to simply manipulate certain groups to do their bidding
The logic stretches back to the cold war, from the west funding Salafist groups to both physically fight the soviet union, but also to combat the spread of Communism in the middle east in general.
>>329890
>Look at Yugoslavia, it seems precisely because there was so little difference in the lives of yugoslavs that their ethnic identity became so important to them within a matter of months.
The ethnic identity was always very important it was just tucked away nicely under the carpet by the Tito's communist establishment for almost 50 years. Yugoslavia never should have existed and the biggest mistake any Serbian leader made was the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1918. The Republics' borders were made up along arbitrary borders that never accounted for ethnic make up of the people living there, which was admittedly done exactly for the purpose of making a new, Yugoslav (South Slav) identity. Which failed to work after the strong government that perpetuated and strengthened that identity collapsed after the end of Cold War.
What I think that you would like to believe is that First World countries will not consider war as a legitimate political tool, completely glossing over the fact that they have promoted proxy wars ever since the ending of WW2
>>330228
OP here.
I completely agree that it has become an era of proxy warfare, this is obvious in both Ukraine and the Syrian conflict.
But I would also argue that the Yugoslav nationalism was not existing before the communist state, Tito used a narrative that Communism had brought an end to a history of ethnic conflict, because it both legitimised the state and promoted communism.
>>330451
Yugoslavia was called Yugoslavia before the WW2 though. The whole reason behind Serbia becoming the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes after WW1 was getting all the South Slavs unified in one country (and well, weakening Austria, but that is not the point here).
To be honest, >we (Serbia) would have been better off if was just Kingdom of Serbia after 1918 with the lands where Serbs were majority
>>330505
>Serbia becoming the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes after WW1
friendly nationalistic reminder that slovenes and croats actually had agency in this decision and that one of the primary factors was the creation of a stronger state to act as a power block against imperialistic machinations of neighbours, the original State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs being seen as too weak for that.
Obviously, it was just one of the factors.
>>330505
My mistake there, i didn't mean Yugoslav, but serb, croat nationalism etc.
The myth of a resolved history of ethnic violence, was used to justify the nation building projects after titos death. It legitimised the national differences between these groups, saying they had no shared history.
Not that this is a contingent, bad decision, it is the logic of nation state formation to create a homogeneous identity.
But it is anachronistic to claim modern serbia shares an unbroken cultural lineage with the old Serbia the modern state was named after.
>>330558
Ofcourse they had agency, they would still be a part of Austria or Hungary (or both) if it weren't for them being incorporated into Serbian Kingdom. It was a stupid thing to do if you're Serbia and just 'won' a war that crippled the country and made female to male ratio something about 7:1 due to war, starvation and typhoid fever. Best thing that could have happened was to recover, take what land your people live in majority you can try to claw yourself out of agrarian society and form some sort of industry, which was advocated by anyone with half a brain but I guess this is why megalomaniacs are bad decision makers in the end.
>>330593
>they would still be a part of Austria or Hungary (or both) if it weren't for them being incorporated into Serbian Kingdom.
No no no, that's exactly what I was on about. I don't know why they teach that in Serbian schools (as this opinion is so widely expressed), but it wasn't as much a case of serbian troops walking into the first SHS as it was Slovenes and Croats liberating themselves and petitioning Serbia for a union (excluding some southern parts like bosnia and slavonija, which serbs actually did conquer).
Initially, it was meant to be a union of equals, but we all know how it turned out.
Anyway, here's a quick link to indicate some of what I've said, but I don't want to shit up this thread with yugo nationalism too much, so... :^)
https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Maister
>>330670
It isn't taught that Serbian troops actually went physically to liberate all those areas.
You can't really compare the what impact Serbian war effort had on the war to anything that nationalist uprisings in Slovenia in Croatia. I am sure that if it were anywhere near close to comparable they would have petitioned to become nations in their own right, as they should be.
I would suppose that any small nation that exists today in the region would last as much as a snowball in hell surrounded by other great powers after WW1, and that is why they united. I am talking from Serbian perspective, we should have told them something along the lines of "Well tough luck, all the best, godspeed" and try to protect just Serbian people
>>329930
Every since man discovered the killing power of rock and bone
Major war between two or more nuclear states is over.
Proxy wars will continue forever and small skirmishes may still occur.
if radical ultrnationalist global communism ever makes a comeback i can see nukes being used
>>329890
>What does /his/ think?
I think you're being a really privileged whitey right now
>>329890
War between States is as likely as ever. I'm reading "Elements and Art of Military Science" by Walleck. This "hybrid warfare" Russia uses, that NATO likes to give mouth service to, is covered in a book written 150 years ago, where he discusses "offensive wars" and when they should be used.
>>331461
>Major war between two or more nuclear states is over.
Kargil War.
>>331499
Care to elaborate?
Wars outside the west have still largely not been between states.
Saying we are entering an era of civil war, ethnic conflict and proxy wars isn't eurocentric.
>>329942
>War is now about the targetting of regimes, not people.
Isn't that what the Coalition said when they fought France to depose Napoleon? Regime change has always been a facet of war, it's not new.
>>329890
I don't view the present state of world peace, which is an objectionable claim in the first place, as anything exceptional but merely a result of Pax Americana just like in the past except this time on a global level. American hegemony is mathematically bound to decrease and as a result so will any illusions about world peace as the quest for overseas influence among nations is renewed. There will be a cold war-like state of affairs and it's already happening right now in Syria.
With that said, I believe that WMDs have effectively ended direct confrontation between great powers and that technology such as drones might put an end to direct human involvement as well.
>you were born just in time to see wars be decided by robot football games
>>331534
>Saying we are entering an era of civil war, ethnic conflict and proxy wars isn't eurocentric.
but we already entered that a few decades ago
and I don't think victims of war care much if it's a state or a rebel that puts a bullet in their head
>>329942
Regime is purely a rhetorical concept lmao
>>331536
No, it's a facet of modern wars. There have been plenty of times in the past where people go,
"Let's go murder and take those people stuff, because they are those people. Fuck those people"
>>331565
But war as is it is commonly conceived by the layman in the west, a conflict between the armies of two states, is at an end then?
And ended decades ago?
>>331724
Yes and no. I don't think you can make such generalizations yet.
>>329955
you should cease to drop your trip before posting here, might lead to interesting results
