Punos_Rey

I actually think wars are going to become more common Sylla, at least when it comes down to resources if things like Peak Oil do turn out to be true and hit us in the face big time. Though you're right on the economic implications, tell that to any US Politician.

I also think wars will become less "human" with more usage of drone strikes and other unmanned vehicles. So I do think we'll see less and less troop invasions in the future wars.

But yeah for the immediate horizon I do believe we'll see further military excursions in the Middle East, Africa, and the Asian pacific. Central Africa with its oil reserves will be an especially enticing target(helped in no short part by the KONY 2012 idiocy).

Apicius

To pick up from another thread, it will still be about logistics, as it has always been. Regardless of what remote drones may be capable of, if you are able to produce more of them than your opponent, and can bring them to bear, you will likely win.

Instant translation already exists, and has for some time - regardless of word order. Google translate: red dog -> chien rouge. Search for 'iPhone translation' for more.

But we're all so much more interconnected now - especially economically - but also socially. Technology is not only making more dangerous weapons, it's also bringing us closer. This is causing conflict on its own, but in the way that the American Civil War brought conflict. A conflict that needed to be resolved.

But, barring some sort of massive disaster that reshapes the global economy, we're unlikely to see much more than the asymmetric warfare we see today.

Ceasar

War is becoming less and less likely between large countries due to the interlaced world economy and presence of nuclear weapons in all major nations. Plus our modern liberal governments constantly cry at the prospect of war.

But military wise, I imagine something similar to Crysis eventually evolving. We are already developing battlesuits, although they are still relatively useless. The navy already uses railguns (MAC cannons).

MrKap

International crime. As the population grows, and governments potentially stabilize or collapse, there will be less emphasis between warring governments and a larger focus on economic, industrial and political sabotage.

Instead of rebel factions building armies, they will instead fight much smaller, diplomatic wars. Things like toppling governments by installing destabilizing political opponents. Assassinations of key leaders who hold as much if not more clout than some governments, in some areas.

There will be less focus on civilian unrest, and a larger focus on capturing the largest and most developed criminals.

Mafia, Cartels, Warlords, ect... Full Scale invasions, or nuclear wars, will become less prevalent as world leaders discover the negative long term effects of such actions.

The last few centuries has been a stalemate in terms of full blown warfare. One country invades, it's goal isn't assume control of a country, but rather to stabilize it.

WeisSaul

I think total war is a thing of the past, but limited warfare is something that is likely going to become the way nation fight. Wars will have body counts ranging from the hundreds to the thousands, rather than tens of thousands to the millions. In the globablized economy, you'll want to defeat your enemy and achieve your goals while not tanking their entire economy because hurting their economy will either directly or indirectly damage your own.

Naval warfare and aerial warfare will continually become more and more integrated, and as such the idea that navies and airforces will be separate departments will eventually be seen as a dated concept. There will be a navy airforce integrated and designed for the navy, and there will be an army airforce integrated and designed for the army.

Drones will become more and more prominent. This is already being seen with predators, reapers, and hummingbirds. Information based combat using space based satellites and ground based hummingbirds to feed the soldiers massive amounts of information. The average soldier will have to be a bit smarter than today's, considering all of the information he'll need to use.

Land warfare will be fought with elite infantry in power suits using tanks primarily as mobile artillery/support rather than a means of direct confrontation. The army air force will provide cover fire and strategic bombing to support the land based infantry, and snipers will become especially important. Cloaking technology is already in the works and is beginning to be implemented onto vehicles. Snipers will likely have cloaking style suits to provide far superior support and to take out enemy power-suit infantry. Essentially, the infantryman will become the primary land based combatant rather than the armored division.

Naval warfare will be fought through a far more integrated network of space based observation systems, air force, drones, and ships. Odds are capital ships will increase in prominence as naval combat requires more and more information and needs to use drones and air forces more and more. Naval warfare will likely be more like air warfare at sea, and the rail guns and torpedoes are just to eliminate your enemy's airstrip, missile capability, and source of information. Just like land based warfare's primary means of fighting, armor, has shifted to a more advanced means of tactics, elite infantry, sea based combat will shift from the waters to the skies above.

These are all just my hypotheses. Warfare will become more sophisticated and more strategic, and will be focused less on the destruction of your enemy, and more on the achievement of your strategic goals and forcing the submission of your opposition into accepting your terms and making them accept your order of things. You will not conquer or destoy your enemies, but knock them off balance, stabilize them, and put them in their place, which is wherever you want them to be.

Cold wars will also become more and more prominent. Think of Iran and Israel today. They beat their chests, make alliances, make public statements, and force the other to act or react, while neither really wants a war. That type of confrontation is likely going to become more and more likely as well. At the end of these cold wars there will either be a limited military conflict, a destabilization-stabilization-put them in your place scenario, or a mutual agreement.

If two great powers fight one another in the future, one great power won't kill the other's sphere of influence ergo rip apart their empire, for that would create a power vacuum that could allow another great power to take advantage of and challenge the formerly victorious great power. Instead, great powers will shrink enemies' spheres of influence and use them as countermeasures against other enemies, playing them against each other, and creating a sense of controlled chaos and with it stability. Those relationships will end up as mini cold wars and I think I've explained where those go already.

Katophract

I think the idea that total war is dead is a naive idea. The same arguments were proposed before WWI. Never underestimate the stupidity of mankind. We'll always find a way to mess things up. If a big war does break out, it'll likely be shorter and bloodier than the other big wars.

I also see a lot of asymmetric warfare going on between super powers and the countries they exploit...er...I mean stabilize.

Dr Realism

The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw countries with rising populations coupled with new technologies courtesy of the Industrial Revolution. During the twenty-first century the world's population has started to level off and will drop. (yes I know it is going up to 9 billion but that apparently that is just inertia. Birth Rates around the world have dropped). The rich and powerful countries do not have enough kids to kill off in a war like they did before when people had three or four sons. Countries had men to spare before but now with aging populations, using your sons as cannon fodder isn't a good idea. In China, where most people only have one son to support them, the government will have problems if they send people's economy and support off to war to die.
The last decade has been quite telling for Europe's future. Governments send a couple soldiers into Afghanistan or what not. One or two die and the people demand a pull out. The US has a higher tolerance but that is fading. For the first time, War is brought into people's living rooms back home and they can see what is going on first hand. Not like in WW2 where the government can just show the propaganda news. And another thing is the spending. People resent spending money on War when they can't go to the hospital back home. And with more and more old people as voters, that money is going to be transfered by ballot from War to Social Security and Medical Expenses.

You'll notice that the biggest war in recent times was in the Heart of Africa involving nations with very high birth rates, Uganda, Republic of Congo, Rwanda. Lots of young people, few old people.

This is why Navies will be more of the way of the future for developed countries.
They are useful in both Peace Time and War Time. They require fewer personel and they can be used for power projection, diplomacy, show of force, disaster relief, etc.

Belloc

Hmmmn the predominance of naval warfare among the first world eh? Interesting thesis there Dr Realism.

Dr Realism

I think WeisSaul has got it right on a lot of things.

Naval warfare and aerial warfare will continually become more and more integrated, and as such the idea that navies and airforces will be separate departments will
Eventually be seen as a dated concept. There will be a navy airforce integrated and designed for the navy, and there will be an army airforce integrated and designed for the army.
Oddly the Marine Corps has basically been a Ground/Naval/Air/SpecOps Force since WW2.

Dr Realism

The British used that strategy successfully as do the Americans. Let someone else carry the burden on the ground while risking little yourself by keeping to the sky and sea. Look at the casualties of wars and see who absorbed most of the casualties and who absorbed most of the benefits.
Britain got quite a lot out of the Napoleonic Peace while letting everyone else face the majority of France's army.
Same in WW1 and WW2.
Who stayed on top? UK and US. Who got their countries destroyed and lost lots of people? China, Russia, France, Austria, Germany. Your allies take the hits and you take the spoils.