Jump to content

World Politics


deanb
 Share

Recommended Posts

Actually I've read that even though it seems like there's a lot of conflicts, in terms of the percentage of the world population directly impacted by military conflict each year the 21st century has been the most peaceful century ever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beautiful world that we got here in 2014. Ukraine, Israel and Syria/Iraq. There might be some that I'm missing but those three should be the big ones.

 

It actually really is. In terms of percentage of people fighting; there are less people engaged in warfare today than any other times in human history. Almost every war currently being fought is little more than a boarder skirmish or single nation civil war. We live in truly peaceful times.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I've read that even though it seems like there's a lot of conflicts, in terms of the percentage of the world population directly impacted by military conflict each year the 21st century has been the most peaceful century ever.

Well...it's only been 14 years.

 

Zombies should be arriving any second now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, WW3 could turn that number around real fast, but it's actually a trend that's held true since WW2.

 

If you take a more spread average, we've been trending towards less warfare since the 11th century, possibly earlier though reliable records are hard to come by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fewer wars, but when big ones occur, they are really goddamn huge.

I think this is were nuclear weapons (and other WMDs to an extent) come into play. We do still have conflicts but the big players don't want to actively duke it out themselves since it may involve families electing to drive towards mushroom clouds. Though... I personally feel Putin's Russia is using that fear to their advantage. That's another topic though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I thought that if you included WW1 and WW2 then the 20th century was one of the most violent in terms of % of population impacted.

 

That's what most people think, but actually no. Despite their size, both world wars where shockingly low for deathtoll. Often the same soldiers would be in the same trenches for months, and both sides occupied enemy cities leaving the civilian population relatively unscathed. This didn't happen in earlier wars. Even accounting for the holocaust, the dealth toll is shockingly low for the world wars compared to say Napoleonic times or the Viking invasions, where "burn down everything, and kill everyone except the women you intend to rape" was the norm.

 

People forget about the massive slaughters that happened in earlier times, more modern deaths resonate more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I think we're mostly talking about different kinds of statistics here:  people living in a city that's occupied are directly affected by the conflict, regardless of whether there are mass killings or anything like that.  In terms of % of people killed I'm sure you're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I think we're mostly talking about different kinds of statistics here:  people living in a city that's occupied are directly affected by the conflict, regardless of whether there are mass killings or anything like that.  In terms of % of people killed I'm sure you're right.

 

That's a little harder to judge. After all, are we directly affected by wars in Iraq because our taxes change? Where is the line drawn? As for if more people where affected by the world wars, I'm not sure but I know a few history graduates who'd probably be able to tell me. I'll get back to you on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe as a total percentage the English Civil War was our most devastating, with around 3.5-4% population loss, compared to 2% in WWI and 1% in WWII. But as noted it's largely because back in the day you'd raze the entire area, much like Mongols did (one of the highest death tolls alongside WWI and WWII). I wouldn't imagine there's any particular trend, modern military weapons, tactics and medicine means war is less likely to cause death, but due to nautural population growth is more likely to involve more people. Mongols killed less than the World Wars in raw number count, but by percentage the Mongol empire killed enough to slightly reverse global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So apparently now Russia is firing artillery into Ukraine.

 

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/492367793728520192

 

This is becoming worrying.

 

(Sorry to just linking a tweet, but I can't find an actual story about it yet.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

So I heard that Russians are going on vacation in Ukraine... in tanks. Apparently the local bear populations need AP shells to kill.

 

http://aco.nato.int/new-satellite-imagery-exposes-russian-combat-troops-inside-ukraine.aspx

Edited by MaliciousH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...