Future Conflict Eco-Systems in the Midst of Climate/Resource Pressures

[AusPTE]

I'm currently reading Col Hammes' "The Sling and the Stone" and though I'm not totally convinced that you can define warfare through generational parameters (nod to Clausewitz's idea of "war's inherent chaos") I certainly agree that the prevalence of state-v-non-state wars since WWII is a significant change.

The way warfare is waged is certainly changing and key to discussions on modern warfare (I find myself in agreement with Hammes on this) is the rise of the non-state actor as a result of globalisation and expanding networks of communication.

On the issue of the rise of non-state actors, I'm wondering how far along this phenomenon is going to develop. Are we going to see states completely usurped from their position of primacy in the international system? Will they continue to have a monopoly over violence? Is conflict going to continue to de-centralise wherein mankind returns to pre-Westphalian conflicts of multiple warring gangs and factions?

Combine this with increased climate and resource pressures. Will increased desertification exacerbate the risk of ethnic conflict within states as we have seen in Darfur? Will so-called "climate refugees" and the movements of climate-affected peoples across porous globalised borders create factionalised conflicts over resources and land? How is all this going to fit into a world that is running out of oil?
It's never a good idea to get your Zen out of Hollywood but is "Mad Max" what we're going to see once we run out of oil?

If we go off the generational model (which I still have issues with anyway) is 5th generation warfare going to be wars of climate and resources fought between powerful sub-national factions within post-globalised "token states".
What will the role of state militaries be in the milieu of this? Peacekeeping? Fighting the "Three Block War".

Doesn't sound like much fun for anyone. Thankfully these are all extreme hypotheticals.

[William F. Owen]

The way warfare is waged is certainly changing and key to discussions on modern warfare (I find myself in agreement with Hammes on this) is the rise of the non-state actor as a result of globalisation and expanding networks of communication.

War cannot change and warfare does not change quickly or in ways we cannot comprehend. Almost nothing seen in warfare today is really new.

On the issue of the rise of non-state actors, I'm wondering how far along this phenomenon is going to develop. Are we going to see states completely usurped from their position of primacy in the international system? Will they continue to have a monopoly over violence? Is conflict going to continue to de-centralise wherein mankind returns to pre-Westphalian conflicts of multiple warring gangs and factions?

So you think there is something to 4GW. I think 4GW is without evidence and poorly reasons. I know TX and we have agreed to disagree.

Combine this with increased climate and resource pressures.

Wars are created by politics. Nothing else. No climate, not religion or globalisation. Clausewitz explains it all very well. Nothing about War has changed in 3,000 years.

[slapout9]

Wars are created by politics. Nothing else. No climate, not religion or globalisation. Clausewitz explains it all very well. Nothing about War has changed in 3,000 years.

I think they are more expensive today than they used to be.

[M-A Lagrange]

Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen
Wars are created by politics. Nothing else. No climate, not religion or globalisation. Clausewitz explains it all very well. Nothing about War has changed in 3,000 years.

I think they are more expensive today than they used to be.

If you look at the money: yes. if you look at the gross national cost, may be not.

[Ken White]

If you look at the money: yes. if you look at the gross national cost, may be not.

...and that is potentially dangerous.

[AusPTE]

Wars are created by politics. Nothing else. No climate, not religion or globalisation. Clausewitz explains it all very well.

I'd agree with Clausewitz in that war is politics by other means. But what is politics? It is certainly not a free-standing bloc detached from everything around it. War might be shaped by politics but the political environment is shaped by social, economic, cultural and environmental events that are taking place simultaneously.

Eg: If a society can no longer grow crops because of increasing desertification the people will migrate in search of arable land. The areas they move into then become overpopulated, which in turn exacerbates pre-existing political tensions and ethnic pressures.

Yes, it was the pre-existing political and ethnic pressures (politics) that were the ultimate cause of the conflict but it was the other factors (overpopulation, economic stress, loss of agriculture) that forced the political problems past the tipping point and made war inevitable.

"Other phenomenon" (eg: globalisation, climate, religion) drives politics which creates conflict.

Nothing about War has changed in 3,000 years.

I would say the advent of gunpowder (which is not a political but a technological event) has changed the way war is waged. Nuclear energy (another technological advance) certainly deterred state-state wars between countries with nuclear weapons. The Internet (one aspect of globalisation) has given a larger voice to individuals and allowed violent non-state actors to add new dimensions to war other than the purely physical (social, psychological).

The fundamental purpose of war has not changed. The way it is waged certainly has. I think you may be confusing "method" with "purpose".