|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The other day I read this thought:
"It has been said that the First World War was the chemists' war, because mustard gas and chlorine were employed for the first time, and that the Second World War was the physicists' war, because the atom bomb was detonated. Similarly, it has been argued that the Third World War would be the mathematicians' war, because mathematicians will have control over the next great weapon of war--information."
Two questions came to mind:
(1) I've always heard that WWII was largely decided by the success (or failure) of encryption and cryptology, particularly in relation to the UBoats. Any war historians out there care to offer his or her take on this?
(2) What criteria must be met for a war to be considered a *world war? Is there a quarum of participating countries that must be met?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
<<criteria of world war
In the past, a world war has been one consuming most of Europe. Seems to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
In the past, a world war has been one consuming most of Europe
Thus there will probably never be anything defined as a world war anymore. The EU keeps Europe united and the UN keeps the world united. With most nations being or progressing towards being democracies there will most likely not be any huge disagreements that could split apart those unions.
This "war" won't be considered a world war because it's practically one sided. Everyone except a tiny band agree that terrorism is destible and there won't be much of a war. It'll probably just be a large scale UN police action, if even that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
there will probably never be anything defined as a world war anymore
I wish I was as sanguine as you are, Jazzo, about the possibility of mass exsanguination. Experience suggests to me that when we all lean towards one belief, the opposite tends to occur - never be surprised by the frequency of surprise!
My answer to the original question would be that World War is defined as war involving countries on every continent.
And tho' only an amateur historian, I would say the effect of codebreaking in WW2 was massive - Enigma was probably the major contribution to keeping supply lines open for the UK and therefore the European mainland - yet still not decisive. For example, US troops still took massive casualties in the Battle of the Bulge due to complete absence of prior warning of the German battle plans - so in this and other key episodes, what counted in determining the final outcome was the strength of purpose of the man prepared to die in the mud. Perhaps no intelligence or codebreaking system in the world can ever equal that effect, as the CIA are wondering to their cost.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
and as an allied force to the main post, I disagree with the original quotation as a typical bit of post-facto pattern-making. If a simple formula were to suffice, it would surely be more realistic to say that WW1 was primarily a war of the static, dictated by the twin evil innovations of machine guns and barbed wire (which signalled the end of the horse in major human conflict), whilst the 2nd was a war of mobility, dictated by the innovations of aircraft, submarines, and tanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
WW1 was primarily a war of the static, dictated by the twin evil innovations of machine guns and barbed wire (which signalled the end of the horse in major human conflict), whilst the 2nd was a war of mobility, dictated by the innovations of aircraft, submarines, and tanks.
And the third world war will be one of static mobility, using telecommunications to battle each other over intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
And the third world war will be one of static mobility, using telecommunications to battle each other over intelligence.
And the fourth world war will be one of memory searching memory in vain for the trace of its embodiment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819 |
Cryptology did play a huge part in WWII, so maybe the mathematicians deserve some credit for that war as well.
Wasn't it Albert Einstein who said "I don't know what World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
the mathematicians deserve some credit True then, I reckon. But now the architectificationists have taken over the asylum, this is more like how it will go: "It looks like you are trying to obliterate humankind. Would you like to see the library of pre-defined templates?...erk. slwmf. prsxzctg...." ALERT: <<Error reading Drive Z: Abort / Retry / Fail?>> 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
I tend to agree that the definition of "World War" is pretty much a non sequitur these days. By default, any war involving any two of the first-world countries or the two third-world countries with nuclear weapons will have effects far beyond the borders of those countries and, willy-nilly, those other countries will either be directly affected by or drawn into the conflict.
I believe that WWI and WWII were called "world wars" because the protagonists were not single countries but world-wide empires ...
In some sense, the original quotation was probably spot on. The major contributions that modern science had on both wars were definitely gas in WWI and the atomic bomb in WWII. Both changed the face of actual warfare forever. Now, of course, we also have biological warfare, so we can wrap it all up in a nice, tidy three-letter acronumb, BNC.
It seems unlikely to me that there will be a WWIII as such. Everyone has too much to lose to start a general conflict and no one can afford to sustain one anyway. And with the demise of the Warsaw Pact the conditions for one to begin seem to have disappeared. However, that's not to say that there won't be a conflict between two countries which will exhibit some of the characteristics of a global conflict if BNC is part of the arsenal used.
Does this make sense?
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,317
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
759
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
