Is conventional warfare between major world powers realistic?

[tramendous]

The introduction of nuclear weapons at the end of WW2 made conventional warfare between major world powers obsolete in my opinion. That is, that it was not worthwhile for big world powers to fight each-other openly. However, with countries like the US, it actually spends more now on military spending than it did in WW2

I think if conventional warfare was viable, we would have seen the cold war go hot without the use of nuclear weapons. nothing of the sort came about however. Yet i still see a big focus by countries on things like having a surface fleet, buying more and better tanks/aircraft when realistically none of their actual opponents that they will do any fighting against have an airforce or tanks etc.

Is the US overdoing it with their military spending or is writing off conventional warfare being naive in the same way that people writing off the possibility of war just before WW1? we saw in WW1 chemical weapon being used but WW2 saw no such weapons being used. could nukes end up being the same thing?

 

[aus101]

I agree, and my country is spending billions on subs which, imo, should never need be used. MAD makes direct action between nuclear powers really a no go, though if both powers just refused to use them then conventional warfare could take place, I guess.

 

[SammyPops]

Between MAD/nuclear umbrella, no.

 

[tramendous]

Between MAD/nuclear umbrella, no.

so then why spend so much on developing conventional forces and why isn't there a big public backlash against it. i find it strange that governments will cutback on things like space programs but then sink money into projects like the F-35

 

[SammyPops]

so then why spend so much on developing conventional forces and why isn't there a big public backlash against it. i find it strange that governments will cutback on things like space programs but then sink money into projects like the F-35

b/c there is still room for small conflicts such as iraq war, but OP stated major nations.

plus, the warfare state. a lot of people make a lot or many and have lots of jobs due to the military industrial complex.

 

[Harmonica]

No - plain and simple.

 

[IDL]

Most warfare objectives can be achieved through non-convensional means

Subversion, propaganda, economic warfare, using proxy groups, fomenting unrest, etc. This type of warfare is in use at all times.

That is not to say that having muscle as a show of force does not play into a lot of geo-political strategy though.

There are some geo-political objectives though that require conventional warfare in some form though, such as major redrawing of borders and regime changes (although that can be done through fomenting revolutions also).

If there was a large scale convensional war, you can bet that it was planned well in advance.