New world war?

Well, actually, European nations were fighting each other and 'locals' across the globe before WW1 (originally called 'The Great War', of course)...

Heck, people travelled to the ends of the known world (and occaisionally beyond) and fought the locals quite often in the Medieval era (Crusades to the Middle East & Russia, the Mongols to Japan and to Europe, Vikings to America, etc etc.

'WW1' was simply on a much larger scale, and more people died.

 

Actually some historians tend to qualify the seven years war as well as the napoleonic wars as having been world wars, as they were fought all over the world.

 

None of the abovementioned wars were fought with sticks and stones though. Most of them were in fact fought with highly specialized technology and tactics, which the people involved had spent centuries perfecting.

 

It all matters how you interpret things

 

But not highly advanced communication methods...

 

Do you think cavemen can train pigeons?

But seriously, I do consider the technology used in the wars mentioned above high enough to rule out the use of sticks and stones in actual combat. If you can build seaworthy galleons, would you equip it with a ramming stick?

 

Um, but they did...

 

The only vessels I know of that had ramming equipment were galleys, and galleys didn't handle non-Mediterranean waters at all well.

 

Ahem, sorry, I mis-read 'galleon' as 'galley'
My bad.

However, all you need is a galleon crewed by elite stick-fighting men...

 

Why can't you agree that the concept we know as "World War" cannot be mated with such truly atone age weaponry as sticks and stones?

 

Because it is fun

Which is very naughty of me, I know.

 

Bad pedantic master! Very bad!

 

Even with all cannons, spanish galeons were supposed to get close to enemy ships so the infantry (from "tercios", not marines) boarded it.
Good infantry, bad tactic. :-?

 

Many battleships, including HMS DREADNOUGHT, had ram bows. This became fashionable in the late 19th century, probably inspired by events in the American Civil War, where both sides had ram-equipped vessels in commission. Gotcha, Roel!

 

Would the fight against terrorism be considered a world war , but at a much lesser scale ?

 

I don't think so.

I find the whole term "war on terrorism" somewhat irritating.
Terrorism is not a country, nor is it a group of persons, it is a method to reach a certain political goal by creating fear.
"war on terrorism " sounds like if in WW2, allied generals had claimed to make "war on blitzkrieg" or something like that.

Terrorists are best fought by intelligence services and police, not by armies, so I think the word war is inapropriate.

Generaly, the best ally of islamic terrorists are certain western politicians and a certain press that constantly make them the best publicity and give them power and weight they are far from really having in the muslim countries and in the world as a whole....

 

armies vs terrorists

when there are countries that support terrorists armies may be needed to solve the problem. armies have beaten underground groups before and can do so again with the right tactics and support. there is no one weapon that will solve the problem by itself. police, intell, military, social programs, diplomic means, and others all are needed and a part of the answer.

while the name war on terrorism may not be accurate what else would you call it? after all we've had the war of the roses and other goofy war names so i guess calling it the war on terrorism works

 

It's the War on Al-Quaeda really, isn't it? I mean, the US isn't sending troops into Ireland to stop them from supporting the IRA, if such suspicions exist (I'm not sure). The War on Al-Quaeda seems like an honest, straightforward and complete name for it.

 

Theres a war on drugs meaning their trying to get rid of drugs , same applies to terrorism , is it easier to understand ? , a war dosen't have to be on a state of authority, or one group of people. It's fairly simple.

 

Well, I agree with Castelot on this one, a war "on" something has to imply that whatever the war is "on" is actively fighting back. Therefore it has to be a group, or a country or a movement. Drugs themselves don't fight back, the drug lords and countries that protect them do. Therefore the "war on drugs" should really be called the "war on drug lords". Terrorism itself doesn't fight back, it's a weapon being used by those the US is fighting.