Talk:War

Answers

Since the mere existence of "generations" in modern warfare is subject to ongoing debate, I prefer to delete these links to other non-existing CZ entries. They could be re-inserted later, when basic facts about modern warfare would be laid down in this entry and ongoing debates introduced. For now, I think it's better not to take position on this debate and to replace the subcategories with more neutral ones.

Fair enough.

Even if it may prove useful to distinguish, until 19th century, warfare in Europe and in the Asian, African or American continents, don't you think maintaining such a separation in the "modern" era looses its meaning?

It is true that in the modern era there has been much cross-pollination between various cultures in the practices of war, but each still has distinct military philosophies and doctrines which characterize the way they fight.

During the Cold War, the Soviets fought with very different doctrines than Europe and the US. The current conflicts in the Middle East are being fought in ways entirely different than Western armies are used to fighting. As China accelerates development of its military forces, the development of its military doctrine is very distinct from the way most Western nations think about warfare, shaped as they are by very long and separate histories of military thought. Modern warfare is not the same all over the world.--David Marcoe 01:16, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for your answers. Well I agree with the fact that modern warfare can be waged in different ways, but my opinion - unexpressed in my first comment - is that such differences can be attributed to "local-national ways of war", but can hardly be common to such things as whole continents. I mean, more than a western - or an eastern, etc. - way of modern war, there are differing strategic cultures/national styles which influence the way in which polities use force in order to achieve their ends. If you take a look at World War 2, are there more differences between the German way of war and the Japanese one, or between the Japanese and the Chinese ? You're right to point that culture matters, but in my opinion its influence is the greatest at the national level.

More generally, I retrospectively think that most of our discussion deals more with warfare than with war itself... What I meant in my previous comment "Isn't 'Modern Warfare' the same all over the World ?" is that "Modern war" has a distinct nature which, in my opinion, can be found in every war wherever it took place during the last two centuries. That doesn't mean "Modern Warfare" cannot be waged in different ways. Maybe the entry should contain only broad considerations about the evolution of war in historical terms, leaving the question of how war is concretely waged to an entry named "Warfare" ? What would you think about it ? --Corentin 12:14, 15 April 2007 (CDT), updated on 16 April 2007.

Generations in Modern Warfare

Since the mere existence of "generations" in modern warfare is subject to ongoing debate, I prefer to delete these links to other non-existing CZ entries. They could be re-inserted later, when basic facts about modern warfare would be laid down in this entry and ongoing debates introduced. For now, I think it's better not to take position on this debate and to replace the subcategories with more neutral ones. --Corentin 18:05, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Isn't 'Modern Warfare' the same all over the World ?

Even if it may prove useful to distinguish, until 19th century, warfare in Europe and in the Asian, African or American continents, don't you think maintaining such a separation in the "modern" era looses its meaning ? --Corentin 18:34, 12 April 2007 (CDT)