Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arya Stark
They underlying cause was that they had new tech they wanted to try out. They were itching for a reason. And they took the first one they got. Most people in Europe were happy about the start of WWI, that was until millions started dying.
Not really, Britain was more interested in Empire and had enjoyed numerous decades in what was known as Splendid isolation.
It was not until an naval arms race developed between Britain and Germany that Britain became concerned.
The German Kaiser had spent his childhood at Osborne House, the home of his Grandmother Queen Victoria and had always wanted Germany to have ships similar to the mighty Royal Navy fleet at Portsmouth.
Bilateral relationship with Germany worsened over many decades, with the Kaiser instructing German Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz in 1897 to create a fleet powerful enough to force Britain to make diplomatic concessions.
To this end Britain became concerned that it's Empire based on seaborne trade, and it's position of unchallenged naval dominance might be under threat, whilst as an island Britain itself also felt under threat.
The First World War was not something Britain relished becoming involved in, and it would have much preferred to stay out of European affairs and concentrate on it's vast trading Empire.
It was German expansionism, and it's threat to Britain and it's Empire that forced Britain's hand in relation to WW1, and the invasion of Belgium, which is just off the southern coast of England, was the final straw, with the prospect of a mighty German fleet off it's shores and an expanded German Empire in Europe being to dangerous to allow.
Britain also had a treaty with Belgium and France, known as the Treaty of London (1839), and in the event of an invasion Britain was duty bound to help defend Belgium and France.
As for weapons, in order to to break the deadlock of trench warfare on the Western Front, Britain and France developed the Tank, whilst heavy artillery also played a role, as did the first use of chemical weapons in relation to chlorine gas and mustard gas, whilst WW1 was the first war to feature aircraft.
The Royal Flying Corp was established in 1912, and in 1918, it would merge with the Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) which was formed in 1914, to form the Royal Air Force. The RNAS became to the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force in 1924 and the Fleet Air Arm was separated from the RAF in 1937 when it became part of the Royal Navy.
WW1 and WW2 had clear cut goals. In WW2 the Allies fought to stop the Axis powers of Italy, Japan and Germany. Once those countries were beaten down and surrendered Victory was declared. What was the end goal for America in the Middle East? After 20 years terrorism is just as much of a threat as it was before but in the case of Afghanistan they are now better armed.
The trouble is since 1945 we have not had clear cut goals to defeat the "bad guys" and it has gone poorly for us.
We all want to avoid war because it is a waste of life, resources and money.
War has certainly changed over the years but they are not obsolete. Putin is testing that in Ukraine.
WWI didn’t have clear cut goals. One century later and no one can really define what that war was all about.
The Allies were forced into WWII, but I think OP’s point is that those who start wars don’t achieve anything. Italy, Germany and Japan certainly didn’t. As I said, those who invade or intervene in other countries usually fail. That’s why the US failed in Vietnam. The most powerful army in the world cannot subdue a population that doesn’t want them there.
I don't think Kuwait or Saudi Arabia consider it a failure.
Also ignores the fact that we have secret treaties to keep things like oil prices *reasonable* in exchange for military protection etc.
There is certainly a military lobby but it's not the only game in town and is not as "all powerful" as people like to claim (Points to major military cuts in the 1990's).
The US has a host of "foreign entanglements" formed over the cold war, ignore those and you get a warped view of motivations.
I don't think the citizens of South Korea consider it a failure.
War is not obsolete. Total war is impracticable in the nuclear era among nuclear powers and the allies of nuclear powers. Instead, wars are fought by proxy in 3rd world countries, often having no permanent stable government anyway.
Defense contractors love it. They make a killing. The stock market loves it. Dictators and politicians love it, as it distracts people from demanding real solutions to real problems.
A win-win for everybody but the little people, which is almost everybody.
Then Geneva Convention made it almost impossible for a civilized nation to "win" a war. Powerful countries, like the US, play by the rules. In-humane countries don't. It's not a level playing field. It's like a top ranked tennis pro being forced to play with both of their hands tied behind their backs against a beginner.
If the US discarded all humanitarian concerns and really wanted to win any of the wars we've been involved in since the Geneva Convention, said wars would have been over in about 10 minutes.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall
Then Geneva Convention made it almost impossible for a civilized nation to "win" a war. Powerful countries, like the US, play by the rules. In-humane countries don't. It's not a level playing field. It's like a top ranked tennis pro being forced to play with both of their hands tied behind their backs against a beginner.
If the US discarded all humanitarian concerns and really wanted to win any of the wars we've been involved in since the Geneva Convention, said wars would have been over in about 10 minutes.
The US has never ratified some part of the Geneva Convention.
Whilst the United States is not a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) which founded the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 as a permanent international criminal court to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.
There are 123 states are members of the Court, however on May 6, 2002, the United States, in a position shared with Israel and Sudan, having previously signed the Rome Statute formally withdrew its signature and indicated that it did not intend to ratify the agreement.
The US is therefore not accountable in terms of the International Criminal Court and in terms of the Geneva Convention has sought to get around the bits it doesn't like by relabelling prisoners of war as enemy combatants as moving them to Guantanamo Bay detention camp, in order to circumnavigate the US constitution, with particular reference to the bit about Cruel and Unusual Punishments, as well as the Due Process Clause.
In terms of banning chemical, biological and other horrific weapons, I personally think the Geneva Convention is a step forward for humankind.
Last edited by Brave New World; 04-11-2022 at 05:52 AM..
The US has never ratified some part of the Geneva Convention.
Whilst the United States is not a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) which founded the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 as a permanent international criminal court to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.
There are 123 states are members of the Court, however on May 6, 2002, the United States, in a position shared with Israel and Sudan, having previously signed the Rome Statute formally withdrew its signature and indicated that it did not intend to ratify the agreement.
The US is therefore not accountable in terms of the International Criminal Court and in terms of the Geneva Convention has sought to get around the bits it doesn't like by relabelling prisoners of war as enemy combatants as moving them to Guantanamo Bay detention camp, in order to circumnavigate the US constitution, with particular reference to the bit about Cruel and Unusual Punishments, as well as the Due Process Clause.
In terms of banning chemical, biological and other horrific weapons, I personally think the Geneva Convention is a step forward for humankind.
Good info, thanks. I, too, think the Geneva Convention was a step forward for humankind. My only point is that countries that adhere to the tenets (even if they haven't official ratified it) of the Geneva Convention will always be at a disadvantage in a war with a country who openly ignores it.
I can't help but notice that every major ground war of the last 50 years has been a complete failure. It doesn't matter who does it. USA, Russia etc.
Define major?
The Balkan wars after the breakup of Yugoslavia redrew the borders in Eastern Europe, we now have independent Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro. The South Sudanese now have independence from Sudan. Depends whether you call these civil conflicts.
I suppose imperial warfare may look dead. I guess we'll see how Ukraine and Taiwan get on in the next few years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
