It's the equivalent of a powerful army from the 1990's fighting a powerful army from the 2000's.
We have had no lightning II equivalent jets. Nor have we had the most advanced artillery or missiles in use excepted in possibly extremely limited scope.
The tanks being used are also not the cutting edge of today but rather limited number of what would be considered decent in the 2010's.
At most the western intel may be using 2020's capabilities but beyond that every thing else is far under powered compared to what is actually possible with the newest tech yet we are all impressed because we haven't actually seen a proper modern war in quite some time.
The Afghanistan war was stagnant for about a decade at least.
The last big modern war that I am aware of with the newest tech of that time was the 2003 Iraq war which was fought with far better logistics, gear, and trained troops than what we see in the current war.
On the power scale I would put the current conflict as the equivalent of fighting 1990's to early 2000's NATO.
This is not the true power level of modern warfare and it is likely that we will not get to see how strong a modern military actually is for another decade or two at the very least.
This war is missing drone swarms, robot gun dogs, cutting edge war jets, newest war tanks, the new guns replacing the AR rifles or whatever they are called, AR headsets, mosaic warfare strategies, fast deployment iron domes, etc. Those are just the things that are currently possible that we are not seeing in this war from the top of my head. There aren't even any disruptive warfare technologies being used on the ground like sound or laser weapons on a mass scale.
In conclusion - You still haven't experienced true modern warfare.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I've always imagined that there's an element to industrialized warfare that must consider the enemies ability to learn and adapt to new tactics and weaponry. If you're miles ahead of everyone else like America is, what's the point of using the best and newest technology you have to stomp around in a circus wars like Ukraine and Iraq? If 20-30 year old weapon systems are enough to fight Russia to at least a stand still, what's the point of showing off the newest and best shit in your arsenal?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Pretty much yeah. In the old days you had the excuse of to increase military funding, but the issue now is that not war is more profitable than war and the military industrial complex is already for lack of a better word, "satiated" with constant funding.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
t. Literally everyone and their mother before WW1.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Wrong. The issue with the pre WW1 notion of the world is that it considers only the west as the entire world. The west which was far smaller in the early 20th century than it is today.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The West was the only world that mattered in WW1 and your point wasn't about nonsense like the democratic peace principle which would have seen the rest of the world matter but that "War won't happen because war is now too expensive and economically pointless in the wider sphere of geopolitics" something that was the prevailing view before WW1.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
True, but this time we are even more interconnected. Plus there is no gun to be set off. Or rather the guns are very limited in scope.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine sets off a west - Russia conflict at worst but nobody sides with Russia to provide them troops.
The Taiwan invasion would be a China- US conflict with a 50-50 chance of EU participating so it is possibly a world war flashpoint.
The Pakistan - India war if one proper one breaks out would be a limited geographical nuclear war with two dead nations. Again not a big WW just a tragedy.
The kind of rhetoric that leads to mass warfare between multiple nations does not currently exist. The US citizen thinks fascism is when I don't want somebody to hang dong around my sister.
The EU has limited right wing rhetoric to immigrants and protesting against ones own government rather than each others governments except for in Hungary. Even Poland calms down when money is involved.
The Chinese are the old school imperialistic mindset gang and the only real flashpoint but the likelihood is quite high that they just missed their high war enthusiasm window which will continue to close further as Chinese population declines.
To start a global war you need a spark or some area of tension already in place which escalates far more than anticipated. Such a flashpoint ceased to exist once Europe was united to stop further future wars as no other continent has a similar power dynamic where multiple nations think themselves ruler of the continent and thus from it the world.
The US already owns its part of the world and already controls what the EU does.
The EU already has projects in its own backyard to work on and is making progress.
China is the only one that is stuck in place and the high risk. However Russian losses have likely cooled them down for another decade.
So there ya go, the flashpoint doesn't exist right now for WW3. Maybe by 2050's to 60's. Don't see it happening before that.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Good job bobby, here's a star
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context