War - by the numbers

[downzy]

Watched this today and thought it put war deaths into perspective fairly well.

[magisme]

There's something quite distasteful about putting death in perspective.

Besides, war was and always will be a means toward an end - the end being, almost always, power/domination - so to wear the rosy glasses because war deaths have gone down (according to a very short timeline all considered) is to be reductive and simplistic at best; it's to be propagandistic at worst.

So why have deaths gone down? Two reasons, primarily. First, the means itself, war, has changed dramatically. Technological development meant the American had to see real death on the TV, and he didn't think that was as fun as seeing other things on the TV, so war that promised lots of death (on our side) became unpalatable and unmarketable. Thank heavens for that technological development, though, because fast forward forty years and we can have some guy sitting in a suite in the UAE push a button to launch a drone strike to kill that terrorrorrrrrorrroorist (and his friends and family), and then we can put it on the news and tweet about it and podcast about it and facebook about it, and talk about how war is now much efficiency!!! Progress! USA!

Second, other methods have emerged. War is sloppy and unpredictable, so if you can find cleaner ways to dominate, fucking do that shit. Enter neoliberalism, which is morphing into crony-capitalist corporate fascism.

But fewer people are dying. A lot fewer white people, especially. Party time.

Edited June 5, 2015 by magisme

[Len Cnut]

As long as we all feel better about ourselves, thats the main thing.

[downzy]

I agree with the above rationales provided by Mags, but ultimately, the invention of weapons of mass destruction (particularly nuclear bombs) are likely the biggest reasons why we don't see combat between wealthy nations. Too much lose in a nuclear confrontation, hence national interests are pursued through wars by proxy. America's military primacy is great for projecting power, but in terms of national defence, a few nukes are all the country really needs. Of course I'm speaking within the context of state actors; non-state actors are another matter.

I've always known that Russia took the brunt of second world war, but the visual representation depicted in the video is startling.

[Len Cnut]

All that means is you can victimise the weak easier.

[magisme]

Yeah, you're right about WMDs regarding war between major powers, but large-scale proxy wars aren't even possible anymore. People lose their minds over "boots on the ground." Drone everybody. Who gives a shit? But no boots on the ground. OK, maybe a few boots on the ground, but it better be precise, surgical strikes by special-ops teams, and then let's train and arm whichever indigenous group is loyal (for now) to us. Then we'll just blame them when it goes to shit. "We trained them and gave them weapons. They must not love their own country enough. You can't make them love freedom ."And all that.

That Russia part was nuts. We always here about the lingering effects of Nazism on the collective Jewish and German psyches, but that must've taken a hell of a toll on Russia too.

[Len Cnut]

Talk to actual Russians and Poles about the shit that went on, they aint forgotten, some of the stories you hear are sickening.

[downzy]

Yeah, you're right about WMDs regarding war between major powers, but large-scale proxy wars aren't even possible anymore. People lose their minds over "boots on the ground." Drone everybody. Who gives a shit? But no boots on the ground. OK, maybe a few boots on the ground, but it better be precise, surgical strikes by special-ops teams, and then let's train and arm whichever indigenous group is loyal (for now) to us. Then we'll just blame them when it goes to shit. "We trained them and gave them weapons. They must not love their own country enough. You can't make them love freedom ."And all that.

That Russia part was nuts. We always here about the lingering effects of Nazism on the collective Jewish and German psyches, but that must've taken a hell of a toll on Russia too.

Except when a smaller player strikes a much larger player. If ISIS were to implement another 9/11-sized attack (or bigger) on the U.S., there would definitely be boots on the ground. In fact, if you examine nearly every war the U.S. has ever entered into (directly) in the past one hundred years, it's almost always a reactionary measure. You're right about proactive military engagement, but watch out if and when blood is spilt on home turf.

[Len Cnut]

Yeah, you're right about WMDs regarding war between major powers, but large-scale proxy wars aren't even possible anymore. People lose their minds over "boots on the ground." Drone everybody. Who gives a shit? But no boots on the ground. OK, maybe a few boots on the ground, but it better be precise, surgical strikes by special-ops teams, and then let's train and arm whichever indigenous group is loyal (for now) to us. Then we'll just blame them when it goes to shit. "We trained them and gave them weapons. They must not love their own country enough. You can't make them love freedom ."And all that.

That Russia part was nuts. We always here about the lingering effects of Nazism on the collective Jewish and German psyches, but that must've taken a hell of a toll on Russia too.

Except when a smaller player strikes a much larger player. If ISIS were to implement another 9/11-sized attack (or bigger) on the U.S., there would definitely be boots on the ground. In fact, if you examine nearly every war the U.S. has ever entered into (directly) in the past one hundred years, it's almost always a reactionary measure. You're right about proactive military engagement, but watch out if and when blood lands on home turf.

Reactionary measure? Reacting to what exactly, what was Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam in reaction to?

[downzy]

Yeah, you're right about WMDs regarding war between major powers, but large-scale proxy wars aren't even possible anymore. People lose their minds over "boots on the ground." Drone everybody. Who gives a shit? But no boots on the ground. OK, maybe a few boots on the ground, but it better be precise, surgical strikes by special-ops teams, and then let's train and arm whichever indigenous group is loyal (for now) to us. Then we'll just blame them when it goes to shit. "We trained them and gave them weapons. They must not love their own country enough. You can't make them love freedom ."And all that.

That Russia part was nuts. We always here about the lingering effects of Nazism on the collective Jewish and German psyches, but that must've taken a hell of a toll on Russia too.

Except when a smaller player strikes a much larger player. If ISIS were to implement another 9/11-sized attack (or bigger) on the U.S., there would definitely be boots on the ground. In fact, if you examine nearly every war the U.S. has ever entered into (directly) in the past one hundred years, it's almost always a reactionary measure. You're right about proactive military engagement, but watch out if and when blood lands on home turf.

Reactionary measure? Reacting to what exactly, what was Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam in reaction to?

First two, 9/11 (regardless of whether the states had anything to do with the attack). With Vietnam, it's a little less straight forward, but LBJ used the attack on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify direct engagement by U.S. military forces.

[magisme]

Yeah, you're right about WMDs regarding war between major powers, but large-scale proxy wars aren't even possible anymore. People lose their minds over "boots on the ground." Drone everybody. Who gives a shit? But no boots on the ground. OK, maybe a few boots on the ground, but it better be precise, surgical strikes by special-ops teams, and then let's train and arm whichever indigenous group is loyal (for now) to us. Then we'll just blame them when it goes to shit. "We trained them and gave them weapons. They must not love their own country enough. You can't make them love freedom ."And all that.

That Russia part was nuts. We always here about the lingering effects of Nazism on the collective Jewish and German psyches, but that must've taken a hell of a toll on Russia too.

Except when a smaller player strikes a much larger player. If ISIS were to implement another 9/11-sized attack (or bigger) on the U.S., there would definitely be boots on the ground. In fact, if you examine nearly every war the U.S. has ever entered into (directly) in the past one hundred years, it's almost always a reactionary measure. You're right about proactive military engagement, but watch out if and when blood is spilt on home turf.

Oh, definitely. All bets are off if something hits the mainland. Fighting is something that happens in other countries. When we go to war, we're the visiting team. Don't even think about bringing that shit over here.

Reactionary measure? Reacting to what exactly, what was Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam in reaction to?

That's how they're sold. Vietnam was the last one where we could send tens of thousands off to die for no apparent reason - and even with Vietnam they needed to fabricate the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Afghanistan and Iraq were in reaction to 9/11. Obviously neither makes any sense, but 9/11 gave the shitheads a rallying point.

[downzy]

Yeah, I'm not saying that the reasons given or how a war is sold makes sense, but that Americans are willing to use military troops if when they feel threatened.

Currently ISIS and the war that's raging through Yemen aren't considered threatening enough to most Americans. But most are concerned, which is why Obama is managing the skirmishes indirectly (through aerial bombing or providing military intelligence). It's a matter of managing costs/benefits; risks/rewards. Americans, and most citizens of developed countries, can't stomach or oppose direct military confrontation unless there's a real or perceived mortal threat to themselves and their way of life. Until that threshold is met, most are fine with the use of drones and aerial campaigns to manage regional or local theatres of war.

[OmarBradley]

WMD's aren't the only incentive not to fight for developed countries. The global economic links between most developed nations would be enough of a reason for most to not get involved in conventional warfare.

[downzy]

WMD's aren't the only incentive not to fight for developed countries. The global economic links between most developed nations would be enough of a reason for most to not get involved in conventional warfare.

Yeah, that reasons seems to be growing in importance as time goes by. I think the nuclear deterrent played this role throughout most of the Cold War, whereas now countries just could not afford to combat militarily due to the economic costs it would bring. Mind you, WW2 did do wonders for America's economy.

[Georgy Zhukov]

War today depends on which side is willing to go for the longer run. We should have never gone into Iraq because now it is in danger of falling to ISIL, which the average American cares little about though back in 2003, people all of a sudden cared about the poor Iraqis oppressed by Saddam Hussein who was "worse than Hitler".

It was stupid to go into these countries and destroy regimes because all it did was create power vacuums for parties a lot worse. When the US and other Western countries were supplying arms to Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets, they stopped caring when the Soviets withdrew. Nothing was done to help the infrastructure. It bit us in the ass in 2001. It has continued to do so and how we have created a much worse situation in Iraq.

[Val22]

I think the US lost the most men in the Civil War, but we've had so many wars since and lost so many men and women, so it might have changed now.

Unfortunately, man is a violent race and we've had wars since the beginning of time, so I don't see anything changing at all. The soldiers from all over the world are taught to fight and kill. That's their job. It costs many lives, but there's always someone somewhere that has to stir up trouble and abuse their people and other nations who want to stop it.

The Middle East has been fighting wars since the world began, so I doubt if anything or any nation can change that. I think the world needs to let them fight their own battles and stay out of it. If they come to US soil, then defend it, otherwise eventually they will run out of people to fight and maybe it will end.

[DieselDaisy]

One of the reasons for the discrepancy between World War Two Anglo-American casualties and the casualties experienced by the Soviet Union and Germany/Japan - besides the obvious geo-strategic reasons - is, western democratic governments were not willing to sustain the huge amount of manpower wastage, totalitarian regimes were prepared to sustain.

Edited June 9, 2015 by DieselDaisy