My theory on why wars haven't taken off in recent years
Why are there no total wars today? State debt, lack of social support and the deterrent power of modern weaponry explain the end of large-scale conflict.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Why total wars are no longer viable in the 21st century
At 08:15 on 6 August 1945, humanity learned that total war could wipe out cities in seconds. Eight decades later, despite growing geopolitical tensions, no large-scale conflict between powers has been repeated. The explanation is not sarracena: it is fiscal, social and technological. States, drowning in debts they can barely pay, lack the capacity to finance long and costly wars. At the same time, public opinion no longer swallows the traditional war narrative, and modern weaponry turns any direct confrontation into a bet on mutual annihilation.
The cost of war in times of runaway debt
The money printer worked when debt was manageable and the rest of the world absorbed the inflation. Today, major states barely generate enough revenue to cover the interest on their own debt. Financing a war means multiplying military spending, hiring soldiers, maintaining logistics and replacing destroyed equipment, all in an environment where every euro printed generates domestic inflation. The result is that wars have become prohibitive: even the powers with the greatest borrowing capacity prefer asymmetric and brief conflicts, where the cost does not destabilise their finances.
The veto power of public opinion
Elites need explicit consent to mobilise the population towards war. For decades, television and cinema were effective tools for building that support. But those audiences have fragmented; the official narrative no longer lands. Most people share the same everyday problems —work, housing, inflation— and are not willing to die in a war whose benefits they do not perceive. Those who try to impose conscription run into a passive resistance that turns any call-up into a massive political problem.
Armament as total deterrence
There are no wars like there used to be because today's destructive capacity makes a real and sustained combat phase impossible. Within minutes, entire arsenals can wipe out territories and populations. Wars are fought to control resources and territories, not to disintegrate them. That is why today's conflicts are skirmishes or massacres on a limited scale, remotely directed by great powers with minimal involvement of their own troops. What the media call war is nothing more than a low-intensity surgical operation.
The question that remains in the air is whether this era of armed peace is sustainable, or whether, when the debt can no longer be refinanced, someone will decide that total war is the only way out. For now, bankrupt states and sceptical societies have achieved what no peace treaty managed: making wars fail to take off.
Related discussions in the forum
At 08:15 on 6 August 1945, humanity learned that total war could wipe out cities in seconds. Eight decades later, despite growing geopolitical tensions, no large-scale conflict between powers has been repeated. The explanation is not sarracena: it is fiscal, social and technological. States, drowning in debts they can barely pay, lack the capacity to finance long and costly wars. At the same time, public opinion no longer swallows the traditional war narrative, and modern weaponry turns any direct confrontation into a bet on mutual annihilation.
The cost of war in times of runaway debt
The money printer worked when debt was manageable and the rest of the world absorbed the inflation. Today, major states barely generate enough revenue to cover the interest on their own debt. Financing a war means multiplying military spending, hiring soldiers, maintaining logistics and replacing destroyed equipment, all in an environment where every euro printed generates domestic inflation. The result is that wars have become prohibitive: even the powers with the greatest borrowing capacity prefer asymmetric and brief conflicts, where the cost does not destabilise their finances.
The veto power of public opinion
Elites need explicit consent to mobilise the population towards war. For decades, television and cinema were effective tools for building that support. But those audiences have fragmented; the official narrative no longer lands. Most people share the same everyday problems —work, housing, inflation— and are not willing to die in a war whose benefits they do not perceive. Those who try to impose conscription run into a passive resistance that turns any call-up into a massive political problem.
Armament as total deterrence
There are no wars like there used to be because today's destructive capacity makes a real and sustained combat phase impossible. Within minutes, entire arsenals can wipe out territories and populations. Wars are fought to control resources and territories, not to disintegrate them. That is why today's conflicts are skirmishes or massacres on a limited scale, remotely directed by great powers with minimal involvement of their own troops. What the media call war is nothing more than a low-intensity surgical operation.
The question that remains in the air is whether this era of armed peace is sustainable, or whether, when the debt can no longer be refinanced, someone will decide that total war is the only way out. For now, bankrupt states and sceptical societies have achieved what no peace treaty managed: making wars fail to take off.
Related discussions in the forum
- War in Iran or AI to manipulate us? · 45 replies
- The flat earth is true. · 10514 replies
- 70% of the population does not detect patterns: that's why they call those who see the matrix "crazy" · 11 replies
- All diseases are caused by candida · 825 replies
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (8 replies).
More summaries
-
Theory: Greys as mass-produced biological robots
A UFOlogy theory suggests that the Greys are mass-produced biological robots, disposable workers: asexual and lacking a digestive system.
-
Organic Portals: The Theory That Says 80% Have No Soul
Between 50% and 85% of the population are soulless 'organic portals'. The theory, its esoteric sources, and why it fascinates in the digital age.
-
Aging is satanic: the theory that sees cemeteries as data centers
A fringe movement claims aging is satanic and that cemeteries are data centers for AIs. The theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but it reveals real anxieties.
-
Mel Gibson Falsely Accused of Calling for Ellen DeGeneres' Execution
Mel Gibson and Ellen DeGeneres: a disreputable outlet claims the actor sought the death penalty for the presenter over cannibalism, without any evidence.
-
A chat with a progressive: porn pay, dignity and a wrong Bizum
A camera operator earns 500 euros for half an hour of filming, and another was offered 30,000 for a movie. The conversation turned into a clash over dignity and freedom.
-
Sergio Monor and programming language: a symposium on the zodiac
Spanish science communicator Sergio Monor claims that non-human entities program reality through language. A symposium gathers these theses about the zodiac.