The peace of the world last year

The 90s seem to be recalled fondly by a lot of people. I saw them as more violent and turbulent than the following decade, to be disdained in a better millennium. But based on last year I think the 2010s-2020s will be worse than the 90s were.

I think this survey was slightly negligent◊, the New World would look better if Greenland and more of the Island Nations had been included but since I think most of the blue and green spots will be gold and and the golds brown before 2025 when Ghana launches its national defense satellites, its just as well.

Reasons for my pessimism go beyond colors on a map, but I think they reflect my feelings nicely. Supposedly I am too hostile or something on these forums(cannot get anyone to really discuss what the issue is) so being my first thread addressing it, I am not going argue here, no matter how anyone responds. What are our opinions on last year and our future to come?

edited 28th Jul '13 3:51:12 PM by Cider

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack

I think thing will get a little worse and then calm down. theres still trouble in syria and a couple places going on, but once that's settled*

I think everything will settle down for a while. Not completely in a good way though, as the pacific looks like it might be turning into a mini-cold war with China Vs ...well, everybody but russia and north korea actually.

edited 28th Jul '13 10:38:34 AM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack

There's always something going on somewhere, the definition of "peace" depends entirely on where you live and how what is going on currently effects you.

If war was raging all over the place, but the US wasn't involved in any way, and none of it was coming to US Soil, most Americans would hail that time period as being very peaceful, when that wouldn't necessarily be true.

All depends on how you're affected by it. Overall, this last decade has been very violent. A large scale attack on American soil, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, Mexican Cartels, the usual steady level of violence in many parts of Africa and South America, etc.

The new tens have been worse so far, with Sudan falling apart, the CAR going to Revolution, peace further fraying in the DRC, Mali, Libya, Egypt, drone attacks in Yemen and Somalia, and Syria.

At the same time, a lot of longstanding conflicts are winding down: the light at the end of the tunnel is there for FARC and Colombia, Nepal got out of their civil war neatly enough, Sri Lanka is pacified, the rebellion in Aceh ending, reform coming to Myanmar.

For each problem that emerges, more are being solved.

I've seen a study that documented that, for the last several hundred years, deaths by violence, including war, has been steadily decreasing.

See Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.

Actually, the past decade has been extremely peaceful, from a historical standpoint. Yes, there have been wars and conflict (when hasn't there been?), but they are much less catastrophic than ones in the past. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the civil conflicts in Syria or Libya, may seem horrific, but they're nowhere near as bad as the Vietnam War, or the Iran-Iraq War, or the Rwandan genocide — and that's only to mention conflicts in the past few decades, which itself has been quite peaceful when compared to, say, the Middle Ages. There hasn't even been an interstate war since the 2008 Russian-Georgian conflict.

Deaths from violent conflict have probably ticked up a bit in the past few years when compared to the 2007-2010 period, but even so they're still pretty low, historically.

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

I read somewhere that less people died, as a percentage of the total world population, in the 20th century than in any other.

Anyway - we're "due" our war next year. Let's see if we manage to mark that cetenary without a pan-European bloodfest

Schild und Schwert der Partei

As interesting as Europe dissolving into ww3 would be. I don't think it's likely. I think ww3 will be fought if and when Islamic nations can get together long enough to start it. ww4 will then be fought with sticks and stones.

edited 29th Jul '13 3:12:49 PM by soban

...see, now I'm picturing Russia and the United States lobbing trans-Pacific rocks at each other via catapult.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

The contenders for "next war between states" are probably either Syria-Turkey, Iran-multiple, Pakistan-India, North Korea-multiple or Sudan-South Sudan. Can anyone think of any tension situations I've missed?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

As a student of international relations and geopolitics I must say I don't find that any more plausible than Europe dissolving.

That would actually be a pretty damn effective weapon if you could get the accuracy right. Like a man-made astrooid stike.

I'm with you on the lack of likelihood of a European conflict (and the student of IR bit, woo!), who's gonna cause it? Serbia? Belarus?

As for the rock lobber, it would actually be a better weapon for the US to shoot across Europe, as a pacific shot has to cross not just the Pacific, but all of Siberia. Unless they shot up and across the North Pole.

edited 29th Jul '13 3:51:19 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I'd guess over the north pole. Then if the shot falls short you won't have accidentally ruined an ally.

Europe is essentially the last place on earth I'd guess for an interstate conflict. Between NATO and the EU, the place is tied together mighty tight.

If I had to bet on any global hotspot sparking into full blown war, I'd put my money on Syria-Turkey or South Sudan-Sudan. I would say Iran but I'm (cautiously) optimistic on that front.

Yeah, as those are all relatively recent hotspots while the other ones out there (Taiwan, Pakistan-India, Korea, the Gulf) are of the more stable "everyone wants to kill each other" variety.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I've seen the same thing, however such a benefit can be laid almost entirely on the advances in medicine and the treating of infectious diseases. The Spanish Flu was the last real major deadly outbreak, and since they we've eliminated or virtually eliminated so many different strains. Couple that with advances in battlefield medicine, so that most people injured in combat survived to at least go home, if not back to combat, since the US Civil War had more soldiers lost to infections than were actually killed by gunfire!

Why do you say Syria/Turkey? Just curious, because despite the crap along the border, I was not under the impression it was quite that serious. Also, I doubt that Pakistan/India will turn into a full-fledged war; while both of their leadership do seem keen to spout rhetoric and rattle sabers, they haven't had an actual clash of armed forces in years, since before they both developed nuclear weapons IIRC.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

@ Achaemenid

I think you're referring to the "3%" per year death by something (I forget if it was solely violence and violence-related issues such as famine in a war). In the middle ages it was something upwards to 10%. I believe it was per century.

It's been known for a long time. Stone age society wars typically end up with 30-100% death rates for a population. We just have all seen the two world wars and believe that to be the worst thing that ever happened without realising that only a few percent of the population died. In comparison, wars in the Roman Republic times typically got 50-60000 people killed in a society of less than a million, only to have yet another 50 000 die ten years later. Rome's population can plummet double percentage points in the span of a few decades before rebounding.

@ Thread

I'm not sure what there is to be pessimistic about. There will be pains in the mid-east for decades to come as they slowly blow away domestic, US and Soviet backed dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria (and the rest of the countries). But those are necessary pains.

If we look at South America, they went through the same thing after the US pulled out and in a similar example, Eastern Europe after the Soviets pulled out. Many of these places have been hurt and now they're growing into new more fair systems and it'll mean some blood shed will occur as they find their way. But it'll lead to an even better world in the future.

I'm not seeing anything but hope for the future but decade to decade is a highly tumultuous way to look at things. It's like saying you think there'll be no snow in winter by measuring the temperature in the summer.

Ironically enough, the last interstate conflict (Russia/Georgia) took place in Europe.

Other contenders for an interstate war could be Rwanda/Congo, Armenia/Azerbaijan, or even (as a dark horse) Myanmar/Bangladesh if violence against Muslims on Myanmar's western border gets too intense. Although my personal bet would be a regional Sunni/Shia conflict spanning across a number of states in the Middle East, which would be extra-complicated because, even if multiple state governments are involved, you could see large sectors of a state's population and territory fighting with external government against the home government.

edited 29th Jul '13 8:24:40 PM by BokhuraBurnes

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

I predict a culture war in Europe (UK and France mostly) between native Europeans and Muslim immigrants, (similar to Bangladesh) not so much fought by states but more fought through the people vigilante-style. Seems a lot of people are not happy that Arabic Muslim-on-Caucasian Christian violence is going more unpunished than the reverse.

Oh please, you know what I meant, even though apparently it's not in technical use anymore. It was easier than Anglo-Saxon/Gallic/Gaelic/Celtic, etc. You know very well I was not referring to the Caucus area as I said "UK AND FRANCE MOSTLY."

edited 29th Jul '13 9:06:35 PM by Sakan4k

on European you mean. The caucas is in russia.

I'm baaaaaaack

I think the reference was to the racial/ethnic subtype.

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

Can anyone think of any tension situations I've missed?

There's the China/Japan situation. Highly unlikely to come to war, but with all the nationalist propaganda flying around, there's always the risk of a slipup. And that'd probably be the worst in terms of global impact (unless Pakistan and India start using nukes).

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Not gonna happen </kneejerk>. What kind of numbers do you think these vigilantee groups would have?

I might have a blind eye and deaf ear for those incidents and that lot of people. Then again, I don't live in the most immigrant-heavy part of Europe.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

While I agree in that I don't think it'll come to anything, India and Pakistan were going at it in Kargil as recently as 1999, a year after Pakistan acquired nuclear weaponry. Border clashes have broken out several times since, and terrorist attacks by ISI-affiliated groups in 2001 and 2008 saw both countries hit red alert.

edited 30th Jul '13 1:08:03 PM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

, Is China-Japan that bad though? Every other example I gave has had border clashes and acts of live fire against each other, Pakistan-India normally has a few casualties a year I think, in fact the only one on my list that hasn't worked up a body count in direct conflict in the last few years in Saudi Arabia-Iran, which has got a massive body count though indirect conflict (Syria). And that's assuming that Iranian forces in Syrian haven't ever run into Saudi special forces and got in a fight.

@Blue Ninja 0, just a guess really, there's been spillover throughout the conflict and Turkey is the only one big enough to maybe actually kick back, though I agree it's an outlier case, especially as the connection to the Syrian Civil War means it could be hard to work out if a conflict would be a war war or an intervention war.

edited 30th Jul '13 3:59:53 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

China-Japan is way less of a hot-zone compared to the others listed here. Mostly it's political rhetoric, civilian protests and sometimes vandalism of stores when demonstrations gets out of control. Both countries are way too economically connected to make a fire fight desirable.

edited 30th Jul '13 3:59:57 PM by nightwyrm_zero