A 20 year infantry heavy world war in an empty part of the world should be enough to thin out nearly all the nationalists?
Sufficient would consider it to be very profitable to force it into popularity. None of that market uncertainty that wild war brings.
Then with the remaining populous it would be easy to impression the war profiteers.
Topic: War in the wastes? (Read 506 times)
Not sure if I understand your question exactly, but wars are usually fought for financial interests of the parties involved (arms industry etc) but they'll sell it to the public under some other guise.
Are there ever sufficent incentives to wage war, when opposing armies are large and roughly equal, in non-populated areas?
Yes - to boost your military budget.
The world has changed a great deal. I'd be very surprised to see another war like WWII. Overall, the types of war that kill on large scales have greatly diminished. However, I think one last war could be inspired by religion, unfortunately.. well I mean it already is. When we all get over this latest bout of immaturity I imagine we'd have a long period of peace. Although, Russia has been stepping up it's unfair assertion of possession of various places. Crimea is just a sliver compared to what they are trying to do with the Arctic territory which will likely turnout to be rich in resources.
(Colorization mine.)Key: grey = “Peril: Tribe”, yellow = “Caution: Possession”, orange = “Warning: Money”, red = “Danger: State”
Consider that post without the colorized words, and rethink the abolition of state, money, possession, and tribe.
The world has changed a great deal. I'd be very surprised to see another war like WWII. Overall, the types of war that kill on large scales have greatly diminished. However, I think one last war could be inspired by religion, unfortunately.. well I mean it already is. When we all get over this latest bout of immaturity I imagine we'd have a long period of peace. Although, Russia has been stepping up it's unfair assertion of possession of various places. Crimea is just a sliver compared to what they are trying to do with the Arctic territory which will likely turnout to be rich in resources.
Only when one's right to live freely is being openly and actively threatened. Most wars are absolutely frivolous.
WWII against Hitler is a perfect example where a people's right to be free was being threatened, and a justified reason to go to war.
WWII against Hitler is a perfect example where a people's right to be free was being threatened, and a justified reason to go to war.
Are there ever sufficent incentives to wage war, when opposing armies are large and roughly equal, in non-populated areas?
For example to reduce economic ruin on both sides, even for the winners.
For example to reduce economic ruin on both sides, even for the winners.
Jump to: