NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't have to remind people how bloody the 20th century was. We started this century with a war in Afghanistan and then Iraq, not really a good start.

In your informed opinion, can you speculate how this century will turn out? Are there trends or indications to point towards a century of relative peace or even more bloodshed? Insightful essays and kick-ass supporting examples earn cookies!

With the life expectancy hitting the 90s I suspect many of the younger forum posters will actually live long enough to see it turns out.

I'm going for the fourth option; even though I only have 400 posts my manhood is still gigantic.

I don't have to remind people how bloody the 20th century was. We started this century with a war in Afghanistan and then Iraq, not really a good start.

In your informed opinion, can you speculate how this century will turn out? Are there trends or indications to point towards a century of relative peace or even more bloodshed? Insightful essays and kick-ass supporting examples earn cookies!

With the life expectancy hitting the 90s I suspect many of the younger forum posters will actually live long enough to see it turns out.

Surprisingly enough, even though the news media presents the post-cold war era as being more chaotic, the number of wars has drastically declined since 1991 and this trend continues. It will most like continue to do so over the rest of the century. There have been no full scale wars between major powers since the end of WWII. There have been fewer than 10 interstate wars since 1991 (the exact number depends on what you consider an interstate war - for example, one source says the US/NATO war Afghanistan is not an interstate conflict because it's a case of "joining in an ongoing civil war between the Taliban (and their al Qaeda allies), against the Northern Alliance").

There are a number of reasons for this. First, the great states possession of nuclear weapons works as a major deterrent against wars. Second, the fallout from WWI, WWII, and the ending of the colonial period is winding down. Additionally, the cold war itself was the cause of many interstate conflicts, and the fallout from this is starting to wind down as well. Also, many states have accepted the systems of globalism, democracy, and capitalistism, which peomote peaceful relations. Linked to the last two, is the slow fading of ethnic and tribal warfare.

However, the potential for conflicts continues. Most of the ongoing wars and sub-war conflicts are ethnic/tribal and/or religious in nature, and these will continue for quite some time.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050530&s=easterbrook053005
http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/peace_and_conflict.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/wars/articles/20050814.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/wars/articles/20050923.aspx
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1018/p01s01-wogi.html


edit to add:
All this being said, I voted as bad. There are some issues on the horizon that may bring some serious conflicts, particularly the question of Chinese and Iranian nationalism. But mostly, I think those ethnic/tribal and religious conflicts are going to be very slow in fading. Africa in particular is going to be a hell hole for a long time, and there's really very little anyone can do about it. These conflicts will work themselves out - eventually - but it won't be pretty.

Daistallia 2104 said it good.

Hopefully wars between functioning states are over or will be once Bush and his nutjobs are out. I hope that developed nations will use diplomacy, improved international law, economic development and other influence to keep the peace. However, it is possible we will see decades of ethnic and tribal conflict in many places until things settle down. But they will settle down. I give examples of peace:

About 150 years ago the U.S. and Canada/U.K. were about to go to war over Vancover. Now such a war seem ridiculous.
The period since 1945 has been the longest period for over 2,000 years that a warring army has not crossed the Rhine. Now war between France and Germany seems impossible whereas 65 years ago they were mortal enemies.
The wall came down and the Soviet Union is now the, "Can I borrow some Euros?" union.
South American countries no longer go to war against each other.
Etc.

There are some issues on the horizon that may bring some serious conflicts, particularly the question of Chinese and Iranian nationalism.

I agree. If Chinese nationalism isn't strong enough to keep the country united the results could be disasterous.

I agree. If Chinese nationalism isn't strong enough to keep the country united the results could be disasterous.

It is the other way around. The conflict would be due to the imposing of "one China" nationalism of the CPC on non-Han Uighurs, Tibetans and although Han but non-Commie Taiwan.

Surprisingly enough, even though the news media presents the post-cold war era as being more chaotic, the number of wars has drastically declined since 1991 and this trend continues. It will most like continue to do so over the rest of the century. There have been no full scale wars between major powers since the end of WWII. There have been fewer than 10 interstate wars since 1991 (the exact number depends on what you consider an interstate war - for example, one source says the US/NATO war Afghanistan is not an interstate conflict because it's a case of "joining in an ongoing civil war between the Taliban (and their al Qaeda allies), against the Northern Alliance").

There are a number of reasons for this. First, the great states possession of nuclear weapons works as a major deterrent against wars. Second, the fallout from WWI, WWII, and the ending of the colonial period is winding down. Additionally, the cold war itself was the cause of many interstate conflicts, and the fallout from this is starting to wind down as well. Also, many states have accepted the systems of globalism, democracy, and capitalistism, which peomote peaceful relations. Linked to the last two, is the slow fading of ethnic and tribal warfare.

However, the potential for conflicts continues. Most of the ongoing wars and sub-war conflicts are ethnic/tribal and/or religious in nature, and these will continue for quite some time.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050530&s=easterbrook053005
http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/peace_and_conflict.asp
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/wars/articles/20050814.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/wars/articles/20050923.aspx
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1018/p01s01-wogi.html


edit to add:
All this being said, I voted as bad. There are some issues on the horizon that may bring some serious conflicts, particularly the question of Chinese and Iranian nationalism. But mostly, I think those ethnic/tribal and religious conflicts are going to be very slow in fading. Africa in particular is going to be a hell hole for a long time, and there's really very little anyone can do about it. These conflicts will work themselves out - eventually - but it won't be pretty.

Definitely a cookie for you :)

Something to discuss. Which region do you think is more volatile for violent conflict - Iran, North Korea or Taiwan? In addition, do you think that current trends will indicate long-term peace in the Balkans?

My answer would be -- it really depends. War will be more bloody if Iran launches nukes or the Kashmir situation explodes.

Then again, globalization could be an end of major conflicts, even in the third world.

It is the other way around. The conflict would be due to the imposing of "one China" nationalism of the CPC on non-Han Uighurs, Tibetans and although Han but non-Commie Taiwan.

China hasn't been communist for decades anymore... If it has really ever been. Their workers have never had any power. It's more fascist than communist system they're imposing there.

About the actual subject... I think this century will see the first full scale nuclear war, and the eventual destruction of mankind. Every century from the stone age onwards has introduced more and more effective weapons, and nuclear and biochemical weapons are the culmination of that process.
Teachings of the previous century are slowly being forgotten, first in countries that didn't have to suffer it themselves (current USA being the best example), but others will follow. Nationalism will rise once more. In what country, I do not know. But be it Russia, USA, China, India, Pakistan that starts once again to push its borders further, execute a crusade, grab natural resources or defend their national honour, surfing on this wave of mass psychosis of the people so cleverly guided and used by their leaders, this war will cause the abandonment of conventional means by the losing side, and the weaponry of doom will get used.

And that's it.

Our only hope is the melting of poles and other tremendous natural disasters that will increasingly rage all over this planet towards the end of the century. When that happens, people have other things to worry, and their national pride, terrorists and price of oil will be forgotten. For some time atleast.

Something to discuss. Which region do you think is more volatile for violent conflict - Iran, North Korea or Taiwan?

Of those three, Iran probably has the most potential for a near term violent conflict. It'll probabaly be a conflict with Israel. However, Iraq and the US are outside possibilities, especially with the recent border incursions Iran has made into Iraq. The DPRK has shown amazing stability. As for Taiwan, the indications are that the status quo will hold for quite some time.

In addition, do you think that current trends will indicate long-term peace in the Balkans?

It certainly seems so. Kosovo continues to be a problem, especially with the recent death of Ibrahim Rugova. Montenego's May 21 referendum on independence is a big question mark as well.


And as for the Chinese nationalism question, there are several potential conflicts. In addition to several intrastate conflicts and quasi-intrastate conflict of Taiwan, there are potential conflicts involving a collapse of the DPRK as well as Japan.

It is the other way around. The conflict would be due to the imposing of "one China" nationalism of the CPC on non-Han Uighurs, Tibetans and although Han but non-Commie Taiwan.

That's a funny way to look at it. More people always seem to die from internal conflict in China than Chinese involved external conflict. Compare the number of dead from the last Chinese civil war and consequences with the number of Tibetans, Vietminese and South Koreans they killed. Dead Chinese win hands down. I guess it's always easier to kill your own people than other countries people. I mean they're just there. You don't have to travel long distances. And they're always pissing you off by holding rallies in Tinamen square and joining exercise groups.

Of those three, Iran probably has the most potential for a near term violent conflict. It'll probabaly be a conflict with Israel.

While North Korea appears stable and that Taiwan and China seem more like an old married couple than actual enemies, I want to chime in and say that I think a lot of bad stuff we hear about Iran is a bit of a beat up. For example we've all heard that the Iranian Pres said that he wants to wipe Isreal off the map, but this idiom simply doesn't exist in Persian. A more acurate translation is supposedly much more mild in meaning. Not nice, but not crazy war talk.

All this being said, I voted as bad. There are some issues on the horizon that may bring some serious conflicts, particularly the question of Chinese and Iranian nationalism. But mostly, I think those ethnic/tribal and religious conflicts are going to be very slow in fading. Africa in particular is going to be a hell hole for a long time, and there's really very little anyone can do about it. These conflicts will work themselves out - eventually - but it won't be pretty.

I think you've forgotten to include the possibility of resource wars breaking out.

While North Korea appears stable and that Taiwan and China seem more like an old married couple than actual enemies, I want to chime in and say that I think a lot of bad stuff we hear about Iran is a bit of a beat up. For example we've all heard that the Iranian Pres said that he wants to wipe Isreal off the map, but this idiom simply doesn't exist in Persian. A more acurate translation is supposedly much more mild in meaning. Not nice, but not crazy war talk.

Agreed. I should have made it clearer that I don't expect any of those three to be involved in a conflict anytime soon.

I think you've forgotten to include the possibility of resource wars breaking out.

While possible, I don't think these are likely. The current trend is towards settling these issues peacefully.

China hasn't been communist for decades anymore... If it has really ever been. Their workers have never had any power. It's more fascist than communist system they're imposing there.

The first part of that is true for sure, the second part is relatively accurate.

About the actual subject... I think this century will see the first full scale nuclear war, and the eventual destruction of mankind. Every century from the stone age onwards has introduced more and more effective weapons, and nuclear and biochemical weapons are the culmination of that process.
Teachings of the previous century are slowly being forgotten, first in countries that didn't have to suffer it themselves (current USA being the best example), but others will follow. Nationalism will rise once more. In what country, I do not know. But be it Russia, USA, China, India, Pakistan that starts once again to push its borders further, execute a crusade, grab natural resources or defend their national honour, surfing on this wave of mass psychosis of the people so cleverly guided and used by their leaders, this war will cause the abandonment of conventional means by the losing side, and the weaponry of doom will get used.

And that's it.

Our only hope is the melting of poles and other tremendous natural disasters that will increasingly rage all over this planet towards the end of the century. When that happens, people have other things to worry, and their national pride, terrorists and price of oil will be forgotten. For some time atleast.

While there's a good possibility we'll see a nuclear weapon used, it's very unlikely to even be a state that uses it. As for the rest of that, the trends are pointing away from it.

I think you've forgotten to include the possibility of resource wars breaking out.

Like Iraq?

So far the U.S. government has spent $278 billion on Iraq and the amount keeps going up. When you factor in the dead and the limbless and the mentally unbalanced the costs are even higher. But still there is difficulty in getting Iraq to produce more oil than it did before the war.

This money could have been used to subsidies fuel efficent cars. With a $2,000 dollar subsidy the money spent on the Iraq invasion and occupation so far could help pay for 139 million efficent cars which could cut U.S. gasoline consumption by about 45% or more.

Actual fuel savings that could be achieved with that amount of money might actually be much higher if used carefully.

So while resource wars are possible, they probably won't make any sense when the money could instead be used to increase efficency and develop other sources of energy.

So while resource wars are possible, they probably won't make any sense when the money could instead be used to increase efficency and develop other sources of energy.

Water usage is the more likely source of conflict.

US vs World will be particularly mean. Or the US revolution.

US vs World will be particularly mean. Or the US revolution.

:::points, laughs:::

the economic motivations haven't gone away, nor is it a new thing that any sane person with half a brain would like to see war end.

but i think we are entering a century where war is going to be overshadowed by environmental concerns, and even economicly it's cost/benifit ratio will cease to be favored.

so like the whether of march comming in like a lion and going out like a lamb, i see war in the 21st centurly doing much the same.

before the century is half over people will be so malnourished (in what remains of what are 'super powers' now) and the diseconomies of excessive scale so colapsed and dessicrated, that instead of weapons of mass distruction, we'll be reduced to throwing stick and stones at each other, if we don't wise up and get better sense first.

=^^=
.../\...

Water usage is the more likely source of conflict.

We drink toilet water in some parts of Australia. That is we treat sewage and use it for drinking water. So again, improving efficency and recycling is likely to be cheaper than war. However it is certainly possible that arguements over water could start a fight between too groups that dislike each other anyway, but that's possible for anything. In South America they had a war that started over a soccer match.

the economic motivations haven't gone away, nor is it a new thing that any sane person with half a brain would like to see war end.

but i think we are entering a century where war is going to be overshadowed by environmental concerns, and even economicly it's cost/benifit ratio will cease to be favored.

so like the whether of march comming in like a lion and going out like a lamb, i see war in the 21st centurly doing much the same.

before the century is half over people will be so malnourished (in what remains of what are 'super powers' now) and the diseconomies of excessive scale so colapsed and dessicrated, that instead of weapons of mass distruction, we'll be reduced to throwing stick and stones at each other, if we don't wise up and get better sense first.

=^^=
.../\...

NS Generalites are such a bunch of pessimists. Just look at the poll.

We drink toilet water in some parts of Australia. That is we treat sewage and use it for drinking water. So again, improving efficency and recycling is likely to be cheaper than war. However it is certainly possible that arguements over water could start a fight between too groups that dislike each other anyway, but that's possible for anything. In South America they had a war that started over a soccer match.
We use world's cleanest water (well, cleaner than any posh mineral water) to flush our toilets around here. Pretty smart, huh?

We use world's cleanest water (well, cleaner than any posh mineral water) to flush our toilets around here. Pretty smart, huh?

Damn you, Finland! Damn you!


So uh, how much do you wanna sell that toilet water for?

While there is nothing to be particularly proud of so far in the 21st Century, just to put things in perspective the 20th Century started out with a far more deadly and destructive conflict...and I'd like to think it turned out all right all things considered.

Definitely a cookie for you :)

Something to discuss. Which region do you think is more volatile for violent conflict - Iran, North Korea or Taiwan? In addition, do you think that current trends will indicate long-term peace in the Balkans?

Africa is and probably will remain for sometime the most turbulent region:

Dictatorships
Failed Secular states
Rise in Christian and Muslim fundementalism
Abject poverty
Massive inter and intra state ethnic divisions
Abusive agrerian trade policies of the West
Rise in Chinese participation in our affairs
Too many resources waiting to be plucked out of the ground
Demographic instability (AIDS, war, emmigration to Europe, Americas, Australia/NZ and South Africa, high child mortality rates)
decaying education systems
More small arms per head than anywhere else in the world except pocket in America

African wars have always been bloody, but with the advent of easily accessable small arms in the 70s and 80s the blood shed went to new extremes; now African eleits are able to generate hatred more readily with communication technology such as cell phone and radic transmitions form anywhere in the world, the ethnic clensing is becoming all the more systemeatic.

Damn you, Finland! Damn you!


So uh, how much do you wanna sell that toilet water for?


Well, I pay 9€/month for unlimited access to this precious resource. So -hmmm- 1€/l and if you buy 9 litres you get one free :p

We drink toilet water in some parts of Australia. That is we treat sewage and use it for drinking water. So again, improving efficency and recycling is likely to be cheaper than war. However it is certainly possible that arguements over water could start a fight between too groups that dislike each other anyway, but that's possible for anything. In South America they had a war that started over a soccer match.

Like I said above, any war over resources is increasingly unlikely. Water is simply more likely. The Nile River and Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are two that are possible sources of conflict. As you point out, the greatest possibility for a water war is in an area where there are pre-existing tensions. Both of these river basins are in such areas. Water stress is likely to exacerbate said tensions.

Africa is and probably will remain for sometime the most turbulent region:

Dictatorships
Failed Secular states
Rise in Christian and Muslim fundementalism
Abject poverty
Massive inter and intra state ethnic divisions
Abusive agrerian trade policies of the West
Rise in Chinese participation in our affairs
Too many resources waiting to be plucked out of the ground
Demographic instability (AIDS, war, emmigration to Europe, Americas, Australia/NZ and South Africa, high child mortality rates)
decaying education systems
More small arms per head than anywhere else in the world except pocket in America

African wars have always been bloody, but with the advent of easily accessable small arms in the 70s and 80s the blood shed went to new extremes; now African eleits are able to generate hatred more readily with communication technology such as cell phone and radic transmitions form anywhere in the world, the ethnic clensing is becoming all the more systemeatic.

While I don't agree with every point, overall a good explanation.

Like I said above, any war over resources is increasingly unlikely. Water is simply more likely. The Nile River and Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are two that are possible sources of conflict. As you point out, the greatest possibility for a water war is in an area where there are pre-existing tensions. Both of these river basins are in such areas. Water stress is likely to exacerbate said tensions.
There are several new dam projects for the Nile. Mainly in Uganda, Kenya, ethiopia and Sudan. Surprisingly Egypt seems to be ok with this. Ten years ago they were still very protective over their "right" to control Nile.

It seems that the Egyptian leaders have understood that economic growth for the whole area is better for them too. Some of the projects will actually increase the amount of water in Nile. (edit: Jonglei canal)

While I do not discount the possibility that nuclear arms will be used, I voted as bad but with the hope that I am a pessimist and that none of my doomday-scenario´s will actually become reality.

There are several new dam projects for the Nile. Mainly in Uganda, Kenya, ethiopia and Sudan. Surprisingly Egypt seems to be ok with this. Ten years ago they were still very protective over their "right" to control Nile.

Which is one of the good reasons why it's increasingly unlikely. On the other hand, there have been on going low level conflicts over control of parts of the basin for a while. For example this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4201483.stm) local outbreak last year between the Kikuyu and Maasai in Kenya. It's part of an old argument. Somalia is also seeing conflicts over the control of water (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4723008.stm). But these are most likely not going to become interstate wars.

I don't have to remind people how bloody the 20th century was. We started this century with a war in Afghanistan and then Iraq, not really a good start.

In your informed opinion, can you speculate how this century will turn out? Are there trends or indications to point towards a century of relative peace or even more bloodshed? Insightful essays and kick-ass supporting examples earn cookies!

With the life expectancy hitting the 90s I suspect many of the younger forum posters will actually live long enough to see it turns out.
Hey! I plan to be here too! I'll just refuse to frakking leave! Mwahahaha! :D

I suspect that this century will be more of the same until 2012, when things are going to change, hopefully for the better.

I just can't imagine Two World Wars nor massed battles but then i think Nukes Aliens and Mad Max and it all makes sense.

We use world's cleanest water (well, cleaner than any posh mineral water) to flush our toilets around here. Pretty smart, huh?

98% of it is recycled and drank again. Or used for flushing. Your point?

98% of it is recycled and drank again. Or used for flushing. Your point?
We could handle our resources better but we won't bother because we have plenty of fresh water. It's insane to use world's cleanest water to flush toilets but that's what we do. It's way too expensive to change the structure anymore.

We could handle our resources better but we won't bother because we have plenty of fresh water. It's insane to use world's cleanest water to flush toilets but that's what we do. It's way too expensive to change the structure anymore.

We have the same sort of mind-set here in Michigan, but we're slowly beginning to handle our resources better. Also, we're very paranoid that Uncle Sam is going to force us to give our water to the Southwest at some point, so we're passing all kinds of water conservation laws.

We could handle our resources better but we won't bother because we have plenty of fresh water. It's insane to use world's cleanest water to flush toilets but that's what we do. It's way too expensive to change the structure anymore.

My point was, we waste wery little of that water. 2% to be accurate. The water you flush your toilet doesn't go to the Gulf of Finland, it goes to cleaning facility and from there... back to use.

My point was, we waste wery little of that water. 2% to be accurate. The water you flush your toilet doesn't go to the Gulf of Finland, it goes to cleaning facility and from there... back to use.
No shit!
But imaging if we has 2 set of pipes. One for really clean water and the second for not so clean water. We could recycle the very clean water to be used again e.g. in toilets before it goes to cleaning facility again.

Well it pretty much sounded like you didn't know...:rolleyes:
Anyways, with the current loss ratio of 2%, I'd say that's pretty much waste of money. And nature. With the cash used for doubling the lenght of pipe system, we could do other things that help the enviroment more. Like teach Russians how to clean their shit before dumping it to our coast. Besides, I don't know how much would it really help to have that system... how much water would it save. I doubt that percentage to be too high.

Well it pretty much sounded like you didn't know...:rolleyes:
Anyways, with the current loss ratio of 2%, I'd say that's pretty much waste of money. And nature. With the cash used for doubling the lenght of pipe system, we could do other things that help the enviroment more. Like teach Russians how to clean their shit before dumping it to our coast. Besides, I don't know how much would it really help to have that system... how much water would it save. I doubt that percentage to be too high.
That's why I wrote that It's too expensive to change the structure anymore.

Agreed about Russia.

But still :rolleyes: back at you (for :rolleyes: )

Bigger and better ways to achieve what was already vicious enough in the 20th century. Add to that the breakdown of distinction between civilian and combattant in targeting, and the 21st century is bound to be more bloody, vicious, and inhuman than the 20th. Soon enough, we'll be nostalgic about the bad old times of the first world war.

We were doing that already when WW2 took place, actually. There was no sparing of civilians in that war, by any main participant. Belgrad, Dresden, Hiroshima, East Prussia. War of same scale in the 21st century would differ only by the tools and numbers of casualties.

Bigger and better ways to achieve what was already vicious enough in the 20th century.

Quite the opposite. The trend is towards smaller and more precise. The 20th century gave us the potentially most destructive weapon ever, Tsar Bomba (http://atomicforum.50megs.com/tsar1.html). It wasn't used, and technology is headed in completely the opposite dircection.


Add to that the breakdown of distinction between civilian and combattant in targeting, and the 21st century is bound to be more bloody, vicious, and inhuman than the 20th. Soon enough, we'll be nostalgic about the bad old times of the first world war.

Open a history book. The distinction between civilian and combatant is quite new. The trend towards protecting non-combatants is increasing, not decreasing.

We were doing that already when WW2 took place, actually. There was no sparing of civilians in that war, by any main participant. Belgrad, Dresden, Hiroshima, East Prussia. War of same scale in the 21st century would differ only by the tools and numbers of casualties.

Assuming that there will ever be any wars on that scale again. I won't so it can't happen, but it's highly unlikely.

1. Quite the opposite. The trend is towards smaller and more precise. The 20th century gave us the potentially most destructive weapon ever, Tsar Bomba (http://atomicforum.50megs.com/tsar1.html). It wasn't used, and technology is headed in completely the opposite dircection.




2. Open a history book. The distinction between civilian and combatant is quite new. The trend towards protecting non-combatants is increasing, not decreasing.

1. wait and see for the next generation of genetical warfare. *shrug* it has become eminently feasible.

2. Check the record for 911. The trend just got reversed, 5 years ago.

I believe mankind will continue to wage war for several centuries to come simply because there is a large proportion of people on this world for whom it is in their best interests to engage in conflict, (i.e. Western governments, terrorists of many flavours, revolutionaries in oppressive states, etc.)

1. wait and see for the next generation of genetical warfare. *shrug* it has become eminently feasible.

Not really. Genetic warfare is not going to be anything more than a racist's wet dream for quite a long time.

2. Check the record for 911. The trend just got reversed, 5 years ago.

First, 9/11 was nothing on the scale of targeting civilians. Just to take a random famous example, look at the Mongolian sack of Baghdad in 1258. Even the worst, darkest years of the 20th century didn't see that level of targeting civilians. And that was standard operating procedure up until a few hundred years ago.
Like I said open a history book.

Second, even with the events of 9/11, the short term trend is towards less warfare. Have a look at the various article I posted on the first page.

The report finds that the total number of conflicts declined by 40 percent since the cold war ended. The average number of deaths per conflict has also declined dramatically, from 37,000 in 1950 to 600 in 2002. The study found 25 civil conflicts last year - the lowest number since 1976.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1018/p01s01-wogi.html

Note that POST 9/11 number....
That trend is continuing. If you had looked at the other articles, particularly the CIDCM "Peace and Conflict Series" articles, you'd see that the decline in the number of conflicts has continued.

Here's the 2005 report again: http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/PC05print.pdf

Resource scarcity will result in wars like this world has never seen. We'll come out of the century peacfully, though, because most of us will have died.

Resource scarcity will result in wars like this world has never seen. We'll come out of the century peacfully, though, because most of us will have died.

Not particularly likely.

I believe mankind will continue to wage war for several centuries to come simply because there is a large proportion of people on this world for whom it is in their best interests to engage in conflict, (i.e. Western governments, terrorists of many flavours, revolutionaries in oppressive states, etc.)

All spiecies require a checks on their populations: illnesses, preditors, environment, reproduction rates and scaresity in food.

Humans have discovered medicines, farming and housing, they have no natural preditors and dispite homosexuality, declining testostorone levels in the Western world and women's emancipation we are still reproducing at phenomenal levels. War is a human control mechanism, in many ways like fires in forests (see baby boom in 1920s and 40s). As long as we reproduce at the levels that we do and consume at the levels that we do there will be war.

I've been saying for a while now that the next set of wars will be the Resource Wars, and I'm figuring they'll start somewhere aroung 2025. It's not Oil; as a resource, that just isn't worth the expenditure of resources to take it, especially when you can do sneaky things like slant-drilling to grab a share anyway. I'm figuring stuff like Cobalt, Molybdenum, Rare Earths and other such relatively rare materials, which are both much more uncommon, and utterly vital for modern industry.
The big bunfight will be Antarctica. We now have the capacity to tap that continent's mineral wealth effectively, and some countries, notably Argentina, see it as their destiny to take control of a large chunk of that continent, if not all of it.
As long as it's just the militaries duking it out on the ice-shelf, that won't be so bad; but sooner or later, somebody will decide to expand one of these "limited" wars to full-on conflict (a scenario with a great deal of history, in fact). Or someone will use something unforgivable - a nuke, gengineered virii, high-level chem weaponry.
If that happens, someone goes down. Brutally.