 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Has it been free of war in the last 100 years at any point, or is it longer than that? I only ask as we seem to be heading into a war in Syria.
When was the last time the world was free of war?
Never!
never will be either.....war is business.
I would've thought you'd have to go back a few thousand years!
Would the Pax Romana be the last time there was relative peace?
Before there were humans
Before there were humans
Plus one
Obviously nature was still kicking the crap out if itself for a meal
Would the Pax Romana be the last time there was relative peace?
Not a chance, unless your limiting the world to Europe. Even then I'd be doing some serious chin scratching.
iirc the appearance of written records coincides with the appearance of war and slavery in written records?
That Sargon chap probably.
I'd read somewhere that in all of human history there have only been 260 'war free' years.
Don't know when the last one was though and can't remember where I read the above stat.
The last (and only year in the last 100 years IIRC) that a British serviceman didn't die in combat was 1967.
1967 was the end of Aden ? Did none of our troops get killed.?
May be 1968 as only year since WW2 with no combat deaths. Post Aden and pre Northern Ireland.
1968 - Vietnam was in full swing
Arrse says 1968 is the year for no British combat deaths and they should know .
Cheery thread dude 😀
Ahh, wrong year by one.
I was going to say it didn't matter, but it would have o the poor bugger(s) who was killed that year.
Cheery thread dude
A very valid question though...
Syria is an awful situation but should we get yet more involved in the Middle East? Can we? Dare we? What is the Russian stance? There's a big question mark over this one, as with all the others, surely...
The Pax Romana was just Latin for pay your taxes or we feed you to the lions. There were continuous border wars and revolts . I fear that the answer to your question is not since we have been able to define what war is.
Arrse says 1968 is the year for no British combat deaths and they should know .
Contrary to popular belief there are places in the world which are not classed as Britain.
And not all British servicemen deaths are recorded because quite often we're not supposed to be there. We're just giving a hand in a non-official capacity. Supporting who the British government think the good guys are.
How about at the end ow WW1 and WW2? There must have been a week,or so where everyone stopped, no? What war continued after VJ Day?
Haha VJ day! kyuk!
What war continued after VJ Day?
That would be the Russian Civil War.
Russian civl war? In 1945?
Aye - that'll be the beer kicking in. Wrong World War.
Which world were you on?
How about at the end ow WW1 and WW2?
Russia was having further ding dongs during and after WW2
Ili Rebellion - Russia, Mongolia and China having a rammy from 1944 to 1949
Russia was also having another rammy with the Forest Brothers in the Balkans and dealing with insurgancy in the Ukraine
There was also the Jewish insurgency in Palestine which british forces were also involved it - fighting on the losing side
December 1949.
A joyous feeling of love peace and harmony enveloped the world.
Its interesting to read the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts ]current list of conflicts[/url] - theres really rather a lot of them - surprising that one of the bloodiest is the Mexican Drug War.
Its a popular holiday destination but its nearly four times as war-y as Iraq and more than ten times as war-y as Libya.
ernie_lynch - Member
December 1949.
Not likely. The French were still embroiled in conflict in Indochina (later Vietnam) during this period...I think the Vietnam war (in one form or another) runs from 46-75.
OK, November 1951 then.
Sorry I mean 1954.
No wait, 1957.
Or perhaps 1959 ?
How about 1309 ?
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
It was at this point when it all started going pete tong
1968 as only year since WW2 with no combat deaths
Operational, not combat.
/pedant
just before that guy lost his rib?
It all depends on what you mean by war, though. The "classical" (by which we probably mean 19th century so not classical at all) concept of interstate war wouldn't exist before the rise of states, and is probably all over now. Are there any actual interstate wars still going? Maybe in the African Great Lakes? Georgia and Russia would be the last one in Europe presumably? There are a few unresolved conflicts (Korea, Cyprus, Israel/neighbours) but not many interstate wars. That's probably a good thing.
If you mean something more than that by war, well, it's a different answer.
There was also the Jewish insurgency in Palestine which british forces were also involved it - fighting on the losing side
It wasn't really a war, though - that only erupted after the Brits surprised everyone by picking up and buggering off home.
war
/wôr/
Noun
A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
Verb
Engage in a war.
Synonyms
noun. warfare - battle - fight - struggle - combat - strife
verb. fight - combat - battle - make war
I'm going with this definition, and so did google. I'd say there's a few going on.
Although I'll freely admit that many small scale conflicts blur the lines.
Damn this small scale conflicts not fitting nice easy definitions.
It's a political question, not a linguistic one really.
I'm still going with that definition, war is two significantly large groups trying to murder/kill each other. Lack of a state, and lack of desire to create a state are no inhibitors.
From the end of the Napoleon wars (1815) to the Crimea war ( 1855) there were few major wars and post Crimea to about the turn if the century there were very few armed conflicts involving major state powers*
* not to say there wasn't 'war' by definition, just that they were limited and relatively short
two significantly large groups trying to murder/kill each other
How is significance calculated? 😀
I would argue the linguistic definitions as well as the political definitions are important. Often these form part of the national or cultural memes about how we define ourselves.
Also the definitions add legitimacy to 'legal' as to 'illegal' armed conflict - for example no one would try to legally argue that crew of a Sherman tank killed when it was hit in Normandy in 1944 were murdered compared to those RMP lads who were killed in that Iraqi police station a few years back.
Please note that I am not saying what is 'right' in the moral sense but it is important that these definitions are understood else (legally, politically, linguistically) else the next time you argue over your parking space with your neighbour... you get my drift.
How is significance calculated?
By a variety of differing means. The UN iirc goes with 1000 deaths per annum. Others go with combat deaths only.
As far as I'm aware there is no universally accepted definition.
legally argue that crew of a Sherman tank killed when it was hit in Normandy in 1944 were murdered compared to those RMP lads who were killed in that Iraqi police station a few years back.
Legally no, but philosophically? It all looks like murder to me, regardless of whether it's state sanctioned and/or a necessity of self defense and ethically acceptable.
From the end of the Napoleon wars (1815) to the Crimea war ( 1855) there were few major wars and post Crimea to about the turn if the century there were very few armed conflicts involving major state powers*
The Americans were pretty much in a permanent state of war between 1815 and 1855.
It all looks like murder to me, regardless of whether it's state sanctioned and/or a necessity of self defense and ethically acceptable.
But that's an absurdity - the whole point of the word murder is that it contains an element of opprobrium or moral condemnation. If it were a legally or philosophically neutral word, it would just mean the same as "homicide".
Arrse says 1968 is the year for no British combat deaths and they should know .
Yup, they SHOULD. However ARRSE, or to be more precise a serving NCO, also says that NATO .5.56 ball doesn't fragment (in fact NEVER fragments) under certain ranges/above certain velocites, and they should know that too!
5th indeed
There were wars nearly every year I between those dates. But significant numbers of people in the world were not affected by war, an unusual state at that time.
But that's an absurdity - the whole point of the word murder is that it contains an element of opprobrium or moral condemnation. If it were a legally or philosophically neutral word, it would just mean the same as "homicide".
Its all absurd.
I'll post later when not at work. But just to clarify, it's my perception of the matter rather than a statement of fact.