Have we lost the ability to wage a full scale war?

[Texashiker]

Not lost the ability as in physically, but physiologically.

If we lose a handful of troops in a single day in Iraq there is all kinds of news about it.

Battle of Gettysburg 51,000 men were killed or wounded between July 1 - 3.

How would the public respond now if 50,000 men were killed or wounded in 3 days?

In this thread about how schools are hostile to boys, how can we teach boys not to be aggressive, then expect them to go off to war?

As a society we are being more peaceful. Crime rates are down, murders are down,,, but at what cost?

If the time ever comes, will be able to find enough men filled with blood lust to defeat the enemy?

 

[Atreus21]

Price of prosperity and peace is complacency. No way around that.

But I would think that if we were suddenly invaded, we'd snap out of it. Complacency is deadening, but not so much as to suppress basic survival instincts.

 

[Oyeve]

No, we can not survive a fullscale war. Vietnam proved that. With the media all up in it we will never be able to have a full on war.

 

[jackstar7]

Robots remove this problem.

 

[nehalem256]

To be fair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_gettysburg

It looks like you get something closer to 8000 dead not 50,000.

 

[Texashiker]

To be fair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_gettysburg

It looks like you get something closer to 8000 dead not 50,000.

Opening post has been edited.

 

[bshole]

This is an insane question. Fullscale war? Really? The last time America engaged in full scale war was WWII.

A full scale war requires 1st world opponents. 1st world opponents have nuclear warheads. Any full scale war would have to become a NUCLEAR war at some point. Any NUCLEAR war would have a 50/50 chance of wiping out all of humanity.

Believe me, you do not want to be alive if America is ever required to engage in a fullscale war for survival. It will be civilization changing/ending.

PS. We haven't fought an opponent that could match our technology in 70 years. I can't imagine the devastation in a war of say the EU vs the USA. That would open up your eyes to full scale war. Having NY, LA, Omaha, Dallas, Atlanta, Boston and Milwaukee LEVELED with millions dead would give you an idea of what fullscale war is all about.

 

[thraashman]

This is an insane question. Fullscale war? Really? The last time America engaged in full scale war was WWII.

A full scale war requires 1st world opponents. 1st world opponents have nuclear warheads. Any full scale war would have to become a NUCLEAR war at some point. Any NUCLEAR war would have a 50/50 chance of wiping out all of humanity.

Believe me, you do not want to be alive if America is ever required to engage in a fullscale war for survival. It will be civilization changing/ending.

I don't know, I enjoyed playing Fallout 3...

 

[nehalem256]

No, we can not survive a fullscale war. Vietnam proved that. With the media all up in it we will never be able to have a full on war.

How much of it is the media and how much is advances in medicine?

There was a time where is was normal to have several children die due to disease. If one more dies in war its not as big of a deal.

Also, back then people had larger families. If one of your 6 kids dies in war its sad, but imagine if your only child dies?

 

[brycejones]

Not lost the ability as in physically, but physiologically.

If we lose a handful of troops in a single day in Iraq there is all kinds of news about it.

Battle of Gettysburg 51,000 men were killed or wounded between July 1 - 3.

How would the public respond now if 50,000 men were killed or wounded in 3 days?

In this thread about how schools are hostile to boys, how can we teach boys not to be aggressive, then expect them to go off to war?

As a society we are being more peaceful. Crime rates are down, murders are down,,, but at what cost?

If the time ever comes, will be able to find enough men filled with blood lust to defeat the enemy?

Frankly people would probably be pissed off if 50000 men were killed or wounded in 3 days. That would be a loss rate much higher than any seen during World War II. When our total dead was ~350K over 4 years.

You also have failed to take into the context in which your conflict takes place. If it was a war seen as necessary for the survival of the US people would probably take it. If it was a war to defend Chad from Uganda probably not. Context is everything.

 

[Karl Agathon]

When Red China finally completes its transformation into the next Nazi Germany, WW3 unfortunately will be waged.

 

[boomerang]

To be fair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_gettysburg

It looks like you get something closer to 8000 dead not 50,000.

Huh?

Between 46,000 and 51,000 soldiers from both armies were casualties in the three-day battle.

 

[boomerang]

We're unprepared in every respect. Warm bodies to fight is one aspect. Funding it would be an enormous hurdle. Somehow I don't think the Chinese would loan us money to defend ourselves from them.

The scariest part is that we don't have the capacity to manufacture like we used to. We'd have to rely on countries that essentially are our enemies for the manufacture of the goods of war.

None of this keeps me awake at night.

 

[mikeymikec]

Not lost the ability as in physically, but physiologically.

If we lose a handful of troops in a single day in Iraq there is all kinds of news about it.

Battle of Gettysburg 51,000 men were killed or wounded between July 1 - 3.

How would the public respond now if 50,000 men were killed or wounded in 3 days?

That would depend on how necessary the war was.

If we're talking full-scale war (ie. one developed nation with a respectable arsenal well-matched against another), 50k losses in a single manoeuvre is easily possible with today's tech, especially if either side is willing to engage in some underhand tactics (banned forms of warfare aimed at civilians, for example).

However, I think if one nation wanted to bring another to its knees, aiming for utilities with undercover agents would probably be a very easy way to do it without any loss of life, then place terms for surrender/'agreement on some point' on the table when they hold all the cards for a short period (as well as the threat of other such actions). I'm sure that some areas of defence have redundant power systems, but even so I think what wouldn't be covered by that redundancy will still be enough to cripple the nation. Factor in the stupid ideas of some developed nations of having vital systems Internet-connected and physical agents in their country might not even be required.

 

[Texashiker]

That would depend on how necessary the war was.

If the people can watch their newest celebrities and get fast food, is anything really necessary?

To the average working stiff, do they really care if Stalin of Jefferson is president? Just do not interrupt the TV show.

 

[xBiffx]

Robots remove this problem.

My line of work (Automation Engineer). I have yet to work on a robot that replaced a human worker. The human worker's job just changes, they are never terminated. Someone has to be there to feed the robot after all.

In this application, someone has to control (send) the robot. Or are we going Cyberdyne/Skynet?

 

[Zaap]

Why go back to the civil war? We fought some seriously high casualty battles in WWII. For example, the Battle of the Bulge from December 14th 1944 to January 25th 1945:

The battle involved about 610,000 American men,[2] of whom some 89,000 were casualties,[14] including 19,000 killed.


I can't even imagine the outcry today if 19,000 troops were killed in a little over a month.

Unfortunately, just as 20th century wars were massive scale-ups in death tolls vs. previous centuries wars, 21st century wars will likely see a similar scale up that make what used to be high death tolls seem piddly.

My view is, not ignoring reality and always maintaining a level of armed forces that make any type of full scale war futile to even attempt by some present or future dictatorship, is the only thing that will prevent such horrors.

Doing the opposite: the responsible western super powers of the world collectively singing Kum by Yah and disarming themselves and not keeping up with the inevitability of some twisted regime deciding the cost is worth it to attempt a full scale war, will be the course of action that gets the largest numbers of people killed.

 

[jackstar7]

My line of work (Automation Engineer). I have yet to work on a robot that replaced a human worker. The human worker's job just changes, they are never terminated. Someone has to be there to feed the robot after all.

In this application, someone has to control (send) the robot. Or are we going Cyberdyne/Skynet?

But the removed soldier leads to a greater distance psychologically from the horrors of war.

We're seeing it happen already (via drones).

 

[xBiffx]

But the removed soldier leads to a greater distance psychologically from the horrors of war.

We're seeing it happen already (via drones).

Agreed. The movie Toys comes to mind.

 

[Agent11]

I am willing to bet that there are plans in place, and tooling in mothballs should the need arise. Maybe it would be worth emailing a senator about though, just to see.

 

[Texashiker]

I am willing to bet that there are plans in place, and tooling in mothballs should the need arise.

It is not the tooling, or the plans, but rather the publics ability to deal with a long term conflict.

We have not seen food rationing since world war II.

We have not seen widespread fuel rationing since the 1970s.

Black friday has to be the epitome of our society. A war would only last until black friday, then people would be demanding cheap toys.

 

[Agent11]

There would also be a draft it were total war, noncombatants would be employed in the war effort.

Personally I think it would have a positive effect.

 

[xBiffx]

There would also be a draft it were total war, noncombatants would be employed in the war effort.

Personally I think it would have a positive effect.

Never going to be another draft, ever. If the situation was to that point all hell would be broken loose and there would be no such thing as a noncombatant.

If the military might we have currently isn't enough, its already over.

 

[Agent11]

If we ever want to succesfully occupy a defeated country so that it can be rebuilt and be a successful future ally we would need a draft.

There is military theory about how many troops are needed for a given population and area, in Iraq and Afghanistan we tried throwing all that out the window and it went very poorly. . .

Contrast that with the much larger military history of successful occupations and it is clear adjustments need to be made if we are ever to attempt such a thing again.

So the draft is still relevant.

 

[xBiffx]

If we ever want to succesfully occupy a defeated country so that it can be rebuilt and be a successful future ally we would need a draft.

There is military theory about how many troops are needed for a given population and area, in Iraq and Afghanistan we tried throwing all that out the window and it went very poorly. . .

Contrast that with the much larger military history of successful occupations and it is clear adjustments need to be made if we are ever to attempt such a thing again.

So the draft is still relevant.

When was the last time we fought a war to then occupy. Never.

Every war that we have fought someone else does the occupying.