War: No longer to conquer?

Well, the modern conflicts are in countries that are actually not worth managing or owning. Just get the oil and leave the rest of it to fester, oh did I release the long term plans again, damn.

As for Tibet and China, like Tibet can do anything about it? We should assist them, a good ruck with China will battle prove a lot of our kit and reverse the spending cuts.
Russia Japan. Not sure Japan is truly interested in getting it back? What’s Kan up to? Diverting attention away from the disaster into something which the Japanese people feel strongly about(Against) the Russians? But, the Northern territories people themselves want to stay with Russia, so I read.

But this is exactly what war has come down to, territorial disputes on a small scale. If Russia were ever to trade blows with Japan, neither nation is at risk of fighting for its survival. Japan does not want to conquer Russia and vice versa.

Well, the modern conflicts are in countries that are actually not worth managing or owning. Just get the oil and leave the rest of it to fester, oh did I release the long term plans again, damn.

As for Tibet and China, like Tibet can do anything about it? We should assist them, a good ruck with China will battle prove a lot of our kit and reverse the spending cuts.
Russia Japan. Not sure Japan is truly interested in getting it back? What’s Kan up to? Diverting attention away from the disaster into something which the Japanese people feel strongly about(Against) the Russians? But, the Northern territories people themselves want to stay with Russia, so I read.

“Do you think then that wars to conquer and destroy other nations are no longer existant?”

Taking the OP’s question I would still say the answer is no. Old conflicts may be in stalemate but the participants are not actively engaged in conflict, so far as I am aware. Kashmir might fall into that category, although the protagonists are not India and Pakistan per se.

I think the next major conflict is going to come in the middle east when the oil, finally starts to dry up. By then the west will have developed alternatives or found new oil sources. What else does the dessert have to offer? Lots of very rich nations faced with no economy and no source of income.

The wars we are involved in now are just continuation of old problems. People seem to think we are getting involved in new conflicts when in reality we have been at war for several hundred years. Just look at the Afganistan memorial in Reading dated during the 1800’s.

Then of course there is a war from invaders not of this earth. Definitely sci-fi but not impossible that we could face invaders from outer space!

But these are not “wars of possession” in 2011. Russia and Japan are not at war, China’s “issues”, whatever that means, is that China occupies Tibet but the two countries are not at war. And the Cold War ended 20 years ago, as you mentioned, so is not relevant to the thread debate, is it?

My point was even though conquering isn’t realistic…some nations still try.
And were trying as recently as 1990 (the end of the Cold War), not THAT long ago.
To make my point very clear…even though most enlightened nations don’t do it, the international community still needs to be on guard for nations with bad intentions.

Isn’t China trying to conquer Tibet? They may not be at war, but I’m sure many would see China’s efforts as attempts at conquering.
Or course Japan and Russia are not at war (at least as I write this :D) but unlike the other allies, Russia never restored occupied land to Japan.
If that’s not conquering part of another nation, I’m not sure what the definition might be.

I.M.H.O. I think this Post should read, “Why do we allow the U.K. to be dragged into every conflict going?”
I also think that when called upon to defend another Country for any reason, they should pay for us to help them, not us, the Tax payer! we are not a bottomless pit. There again, I may be wrong, and we do get paid.

Lincoln .7

But these are not “wars of possession” in 2011. Russia and Japan are not at war, China’s “issues”, whatever that means, is that China occupies Tibet but the two countries are not at war. And the Cold War ended 20 years ago, as you mentioned, so is not relevant to the thread debate, is it?

I have trouble seeing nations such as Russia or China stomping across Europe or S.E. Asia wiping out the independence of nation after nation(the nations of Russia and China are just given as examples due to their common roles in novels as invading forces hell bent or world domination).

You can’t say those two countries haven’t tried…:rolleyes:
Russia is still holding terrirory taken from Japan in WWII…a unique situation, IIRC.
Tibet has issues with China…and some troubles with India about territory.
And that’s ignoring the Soviet Union basically holding Eastern Europe and the Baltic States hostage between 1945-1990.

No, sadly the concept isn’t dead among the more repressive governments of the world.

Agreed, however that doesn’t mean some nations haven’t tried this recently. As mentioned, the 1991 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was (I believe) an attempt to occupy this small nation and eventually integrate it as part of Iraq itself.
However, I have trouble seeing nations such as Russia or China stomping across Europe or S.E. Asia wiping out the independence of nation after nation(the nations of Russia and China are just given as examples due to their common roles in novels as invading forces hell bent or world domination).

While colonial powers no longer exist, there are a few nations which have internationally recognised breakaway republics, such as for example Taiwan (recognised by the U.N.???) and (to give a seperate example) Bangladesh, formerly east Pakistan.

The idea of an invasion and integration of such breakaway republics is not as far fetched is it?

That option hasn’t been realistic for a long time.

If it was, neither Germany or Japan would exist today.
And there would still be colonial empires…since a colony is basically an economic conquering (IMHO).

Or perhaps even realistic.