Conventional War: Is It Still Doable?

[Brickjectivity]

The Great War which became WWI was a war to end all wars. Then came WWII in which the first atomic bombs fell. It was thought that fear of the atomic bomb might end conventional wars, but that proved wrong. What about now, though? Has conventional warfare with guns become ineffective in the face of drones and missiles and such? Does a border ever move?

I'm not a Historian, so I must say 'Sorry' for starting a debate here. I feel like I suddenly notice that in recent wars that borders don't seem to change unless land is ceded. We are seeing Russia send wave upon wave of soldiers, yet the lines change very little. In Yemen there is a standoff seemingly without end. North and South Korea. India and China. Nobody is winning? Do the guns and tanks still matter?

What does the future hold when it comes to gaining territory through land battles? I'm thinking perhaps robots will change the game, but I don't know. Maybe they'll have the opposite effect and keep land from changing hands. Maybe its not the technology though. Maybe its the political climate and the influence of the West which preserves borders.

 

[Stevicus]

The Great War which became WWI was a war to end all wars. Then came WWII in which the first atomic bombs fell. It was thought that fear of the atomic bomb might end conventional wars, but that proved wrong. What about now, though? Has conventional warfare with guns become ineffective in the face of drones and missiles and such? Does a border ever move?

I'm not a Historian, so I must say 'Sorry' for starting a debate here. I feel like I suddenly notice that in recent wars that borders don't seem to change unless land is ceded. We are seeing Russia send wave upon wave of soldiers, yet the lines change very little. In Yemen there is a standoff seemingly without end. North and South Korea. India and China. Nobody is winning? Do the guns and tanks still matter?

What does the future hold when it comes to gaining territory through land battles? I'm thinking perhaps robots will change the game, but I don't know. Maybe they'll have the opposite effect and keep land from changing hands. Maybe its not the technology though. Maybe its the political climate and the influence of the West which preserves borders.

One thing that should be noted is that, since WW1, the concept of aggressive warfare and gaining territory in that manner was effectively outlawed when most of the world signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact. That principle was further reinforced in the UN Charter. So, the idea of simply invading a country to gain territory simply isn't done like it used to be. A country has to have plausibly valid casus belli, and even then, outright annexation is out of the question. The U.S. invaded Grenada in 1983 because of a supposedly communist government, but once they put in another government, Grenada was given self-rule again. Same with Panama in 1989 and Iraq in 1991 and 2003. We couldn't just take these countries and turn them into U.S. colonies. That would also be out of the question.

On the other hand, the global commitment to preserving the sovereignty and independence of nearly 200 nations around the world increases the number of random elements. Most of the conflicts we've seen since WW2 involve the "small fry" countries, not the major powers. This might have been avoided had FDR lived to propose his plan for maintaining global peace and stability:

Four Policemen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The idea was that the U.S., U.K., U.S.S.R., and China would maintain order in their own regions and keep a peaceful balance of power in the world.

 

[Augustus]

The Great War which became WWI was a war to end all wars. Then came WWII in which the first atomic bombs fell. It was thought that fear of the atomic bomb might end conventional wars, but that proved wrong. What about now, though? Has conventional warfare with guns become ineffective in the face of drones and missiles and such? Does a border ever move?

I'm not a Historian, so I must say 'Sorry' for starting a debate here. I feel like I suddenly notice that in recent wars that borders don't seem to change unless land is ceded. We are seeing Russia send wave upon wave of soldiers, yet the lines change very little. In Yemen there is a standoff seemingly without end. North and South Korea. India and China. Nobody is winning? Do the guns and tanks still matter?

What does the future hold when it comes to gaining territory through land battles? I'm thinking perhaps robots will change the game, but I don't know. Maybe they'll have the opposite effect and keep land from changing hands. Maybe its not the technology though. Maybe its the political climate and the influence of the West which preserves borders.

It has become a lot cheaper to conduct effective defensive operations.

Expensive heavy weapons, aircraft and ships are vulnerable to cheap drones and will become increasingly vulnerable unless people find new ways of defending them (and shooting down a $10,000 drone with a $1million missile is not sustainable). Logistics are also vulnerable, especially things like fuel and ammo.

Surveillance drones mean it is harder to catch people unaware as you can see troop movements and build ups. They also make it easier to target these with conventional weapons.

Just like the machine gun made defending positions much easier, same with new technology.

Conventional wars can still be won, but it certainly helps to level the playing field significantly and increase the costs of offensive war.

 

[Heyo]

The Great War which became WWI was a war to end all wars. Then came WWII in which the first atomic bombs fell. It was thought that fear of the atomic bomb might end conventional wars, but that proved wrong. What about now, though? Has conventional warfare with guns become ineffective in the face of drones and missiles and such? Does a border ever move?

I'm not a Historian, so I must say 'Sorry' for starting a debate here. I feel like I suddenly notice that in recent wars that borders don't seem to change unless land is ceded. We are seeing Russia send wave upon wave of soldiers, yet the lines change very little. In Yemen there is a standoff seemingly without end. North and South Korea. India and China. Nobody is winning? Do the guns and tanks still matter?

What does the future hold when it comes to gaining territory through land battles? I'm thinking perhaps robots will change the game, but I don't know. Maybe they'll have the opposite effect and keep land from changing hands. Maybe its not the technology though. Maybe its the political climate and the influence of the West which preserves borders.

International law and weapons technology have already been mentioned, and they are among the main reasons. Another reason is the existence of the UN and that every country has a vote in the assembly. Therefore, empires, like the US and the former USSR, prefer to have "friendly governments" installed in adjacent or important countries. That also has the benefit that they don't have to care about the country and its citizens. That's a lesson learned from the colonial empires, who were not too happy that the people from the colonies were citizens of their country.

But borders do change, just not by war between nations. Some countries split, peacefully, like Czechia and Slovenia, or with a civil war like Yugoslavia. And, as an oddball, there is Crimea, which Russia just annexed without a war.

That raises the question: "Why go to war or even have an army, anyway?". Multiple reasons. First is the afore mentioned regime change. Not everywhere is it possible to do that by covert operations. Second, it may be international law to give a country back to its people, but there is no guarantee that a possible invader will abide by that law. So better have at least a defence army.
Third, there are people who earn their living with war. Arms manufacturers, contractors, politicians. They don't care who "wins" a war, as they already make their money before and during. In fact, they prefer wars which don't end.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I came across this some time back - rather large but shows the various alliances forming and disbanding over the progress of WWII along with most of the major incidents - and as to which we might be seeing the same as to any future WWIII - which we might be in already. Are nations going to regret their alliances now (or just standing back) - as they once might have done during and after WWII?