How will populations change with modern war?
Discussion
I’ve been pondering for quite some time now about how the population demographics of Western countries will change with wars that are not fought as a war of attrition of people but instead technology.
What I mean by this, is that for all of time (until fairly recently at least), a lot of wars were fought (although not necessarily won) with a terrible amount of cannon fodder. I don’t think it’s contentious to say that a huge number of these heroes that gave their lives for whatever battle they were fighting were typically weighted at the lower end of the socio-economic scale.
From my (admittedly limited) understanding, wars today fought by western countries are typically fought with technological weapons instead resulting in a lower number of needless deaths.
What I’m interested in is how this will change our countries and societies? Both positively and negatively.
What I mean by this, is that for all of time (until fairly recently at least), a lot of wars were fought (although not necessarily won) with a terrible amount of cannon fodder. I don’t think it’s contentious to say that a huge number of these heroes that gave their lives for whatever battle they were fighting were typically weighted at the lower end of the socio-economic scale.
From my (admittedly limited) understanding, wars today fought by western countries are typically fought with technological weapons instead resulting in a lower number of needless deaths.
What I’m interested in is how this will change our countries and societies? Both positively and negatively.
Cold said:
Russian losses in the ongoing war in Ukraine are being estimated at around 125-130k personnel so far. War still kills people.
Battle of the Somme did 2.5 times that in 1/3 of the time and that was just one battle not even the whole war.Russia lost 27 000 000 in WW2. They still have a population of 143 000 000 today
Its no where near a deadly as it used to be.
sherman said:
Battle of the Somme did 2.5 times that in 1/3 of the time and that was just one battle not even the whole war.
Russia lost 27 000 000 in WW2. They still have a population of 143 000 000 today
Its no where near a deadly as it used to be.
It’s nowhere near the same scale. 3.5 million men fought on the Somme in 5 months. According to wiki about a quarter of that has been involved in the invasion of Ukraine in a year Russia lost 27 000 000 in WW2. They still have a population of 143 000 000 today
Its no where near a deadly as it used to be.
fiatpower said:
sherman said:
Battle of the Somme did 2.5 times that in 1/3 of the time and that was just one battle not even the whole war.
Russia lost 27 000 000 in WW2. They still have a population of 143 000 000 today
Its no where near a deadly as it used to be.
It’s nowhere near the same scale. 3.5 million men fought on the Somme in 5 months. According to wiki about a quarter of that has been involved in the invasion of Ukraine in a year Russia lost 27 000 000 in WW2. They still have a population of 143 000 000 today
Its no where near a deadly as it used to be.
fiatpower said:
sherman said:
Battle of the Somme did 2.5 times that in 1/3 of the time and that was just one battle not even the whole war.
Russia lost 27 000 000 in WW2. They still have a population of 143 000 000 today
Its no where near a deadly as it used to be.
It’s nowhere near the same scale. 3.5 million men fought on the Somme in 5 months. According to wiki about a quarter of that has been involved in the invasion of Ukraine in a year Russia lost 27 000 000 in WW2. They still have a population of 143 000 000 today
Its no where near a deadly as it used to be.
The Somme is rightly considered the nadir of industrialised warfare (although frankly Verdun was worse). Actual UK death rate across the whole battle was 100,000 and - believe it or not - it wasn’t considered an absolute disaster at the time. The famous ‘first day’ which remains the worst day for casualties in the entire history of the British Army was c.19,400.
Russian casualty rate currently is horrific, unsustainable and throughly akin to the Great War.
The Russian bandstanding around the Great Patriotic War has some substance but ignores a) how many deaths were deliberately apportionable to Stalin and b) the enormous vacuum on German resources and capability driven by the West. Compounding this is the funding and direct supply to the Soviet’s by the US and the British that propped up the Soviet war effort.
Make no mistake, this is an equal tragedy.
A couple of other factors are the exodus from Ukraine of women and children, and the exodus of the wealthier and more educated males from Russia. Clearly a lot of the Ukrainians will return, however some, either through being widowed and finding new partners, or simply preferring life in their host countries, may not. As for the Russians, until the existing regime changes, it is doubtful many will choose to return all the time they can afford to live elsewhere.
In both Russia and Ukraine, there is going to be a whole generation with very high levels of post traumatic stress disorder. This may result in high levels of relationship break up and some of the spouses seeking what they perceive as an easier life with new partners outside of their native countries.
In both Russia and Ukraine, there is going to be a whole generation with very high levels of post traumatic stress disorder. This may result in high levels of relationship break up and some of the spouses seeking what they perceive as an easier life with new partners outside of their native countries.
Edited by GliderRider on Wednesday 25th January 05:10
I would expect people who were not born here to return to their country of origin either to be with family or avoid any possible conscriptions.
If it was a war with China for example I would expect Chinese citizens living here to be detained.
There would be some very difficult decisions for todays progressive politicians to make which I don’t think they would be capable of making.
We’ve been training our women for combat roles but would we really deploy them on the front line?
If it was a war with China for example I would expect Chinese citizens living here to be detained.
There would be some very difficult decisions for todays progressive politicians to make which I don’t think they would be capable of making.
We’ve been training our women for combat roles but would we really deploy them on the front line?
Edited by LaterLosers on Wednesday 25th January 07:20
It's an interesting question. I expect the death toll itself isn't going to lead to much direct demographic change. The bigger impact might come from the general public's reaction after the conflict. E.g. do you get a baby boom in a wave of post-conflict euphoria? Do you get people delaying having kids because of a prolonged recession? And I expect the signal would quickly get lost in the longer term demographic trends caused by economic and medical development.
sherman said:
fiatpower said:
sherman said:
Battle of the Somme did 2.5 times that in 1/3 of the time and that was just one battle not even the whole war.
Russia lost 27 000 000 in WW2. They still have a population of 143 000 000 today
Its no where near a deadly as it used to be.
It’s nowhere near the same scale. 3.5 million men fought on the Somme in 5 months. According to wiki about a quarter of that has been involved in the invasion of Ukraine in a year Russia lost 27 000 000 in WW2. They still have a population of 143 000 000 today
Its no where near a deadly as it used to be.
Regards weaponry, when you get hit, ever since bullets/cannons have been invented, chances were the wound would be bad/lethal, especially with lack of antibiotics.
Napoleon altered his countries demographic, France lost so many men in the Napoleonic wars, they were still short in WW2 (obviously WW1 didnt help).
LaterLosers said:
I would expect people who were not born here to return to their country of origin either to be with family or avoid any possible conscriptions.
If it was a war with China for example I would expect Chinese citizens living here to be detained.
There would be some very difficult decisions for todays progressive politicians to make which I don’t think they would be capable of making.
We’ve been training our women for combat roles but would we really deploy them on the front line?
What ae you on about?If it was a war with China for example I would expect Chinese citizens living here to be detained.
There would be some very difficult decisions for todays progressive politicians to make which I don’t think they would be capable of making.
We’ve been training our women for combat roles but would we really deploy them on the front line?
Edited by LaterLosers on Wednesday 25th January 07:20
GreatGranny said:
LaterLosers said:
I would expect people who were not born here to return to their country of origin either to be with family or avoid any possible conscriptions.
If it was a war with China for example I would expect Chinese citizens living here to be detained.
There would be some very difficult decisions for todays progressive politicians to make which I don’t think they would be capable of making.
We’ve been training our women for combat roles but would we really deploy them on the front line?
What ae you on about?If it was a war with China for example I would expect Chinese citizens living here to be detained.
There would be some very difficult decisions for todays progressive politicians to make which I don’t think they would be capable of making.
We’ve been training our women for combat roles but would we really deploy them on the front line?
Edited by LaterLosers on Wednesday 25th January 07:20
I am just stating what I think would happen in this country to our population if we went to war with another major power.
It would be a good way of seeing if our ‘progress’ over the last thirty odd years since our last war has made us a stronger or weaker nation.
The Moose said:
Russia also isn’t the West and they have a different attitude to life that countries that are traditionally considered the West…
If they are on one side of the conflict the game will absolutely end up playing the same way. Any hope of a civilised war will be out of the window, especially if it goes outside of a regional spat and ends up involving most of the countries in the world. Which is a genuine risk should NATO and Russia not shake hands and calm down a bit. I suspect, but I'm not strategist or planner that an adversary to the west would focus as we have seen in Ukraine on knocking out infrastructure. We have a very soft population, just knocking out the internet will paralyse a fair portion of them. Add in heat, light and running water, shops running low on food and banks unable to get money in to people's hands and we have a problem. A lot of the advancements we have made, are exactly what you don't want in a return to dark ages situation, even temporarily, so many people cannot make a decision without a mobile phone, are completely reliant on electronic banking as they don't believe in cash, have highly electrified lives. Knock out electricity you zap all that. In the 40s it was still common to grow your own veg, catching rabbits was not unusual, most villages likely still had a well, houses had open fires for heating. You could live without utilities in a reasonably comfortable way.
A fortnight of that and the population is either going to be rioting in the streets requiring the army to deal with issues at home, or be curled up in a corner unable and unwilling to deal with stage 2 which would be an attack reliant on weight of numbers.
Russia to use an example has poor history of dealing with motivated dug in people defending their own country, but look at most of the people in this country, can you really see them strapping on their man pants and fighting back. I reckon most of them would be speaking russian if they were promised the electricity would be turned back on.
LaterLosers said:
The notion that war has somehow changed and it it will be fought differently is wrong as shown in Ukraine.
The battlefield absolutely has changed.Ukraine has shown us that the use of technological advancements by them has been a huge force multiplier and enabled the 'underdog' to be far more effectual. The Russians failure to progress and develop their doctrine and provide adequate G4 (logistical) support from decades ago has proven to be a major failing.
I thought mass death warfare was a relatively recent thing (with exceptions) enabled by industrialisation?
Taff107 said:
The battlefield absolutely has changed.
Ukraine has shown us that the use of technological advancements by them has been a huge force multiplier and enabled the 'underdog' to be far more effectual. The Russians failure to progress and develop their doctrine and provide adequate G4 (logistical) support from decades ago has proven to be a major failing.
It does show that for all Russia's flaunting of supposedly western equivalent high tech weaponry in recent times such as stealth aircraft etc that they are nowhere in terms of ability to command/deploy tactically/intelligently.Ukraine has shown us that the use of technological advancements by them has been a huge force multiplier and enabled the 'underdog' to be far more effectual. The Russians failure to progress and develop their doctrine and provide adequate G4 (logistical) support from decades ago has proven to be a major failing.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff