FUTURE OF WARAs the World’s Conflicts Spread, Should You Be Digging a Bunker? How to Think About the Future of War
How concerned should we be about the possibility of future global chaos and disorder unlike anything most of us have experienced? If the many warnings currently circulating are to be believed, then the answer looks grim. The world might be in a moment of dramatic and uncertain transformation, congested with new actors, technologies, tactics and terrains. Moreover, there might be one timeless lesson from the history of war and international politics: Politicians and policymakers make strategic errors and miscalculations which can have unforeseen consequences.
How worried should European citizens be in countries that have come to expect unprecedented levels of security and safety? If the many warnings currently circulating are to be believed, then the answer looks grim.
Leaked documents from Germany’s defense ministry suggest that Berlin is expecting Russia to extend the war that began in Ukraine in 2022 into Europe by 2025, forcing a major conflict with NATO. There are concerns that Russia will “escalate to de-escalate”, launching an attack that will be so shocking that liberal states will accept the new world order that Vladimir Putin wants to create as his legacy.
Swedish politicians have warned their citizens to prepare for the possibility of war on their territory. Others – such as the historian Niall Ferguson – suggest that what we might be seeing is a series of global events that reveal a coordinated attempt to reshape the world order.
So, how concerned should we be about the possibility of future global chaos and disorder unlike anything most of us have experienced?
Deterrence and Interdependence
One place to begin any discussion about the prospect of war is with the theory and practice of deterrence. Simply put, states usually try to deter other states from acts of war and aggression. Many will argue that the reason “great powers” do not fight each other directly is because the costs are too high. The risks of nuclear confrontation, for example, are simply too horrific to contemplate.
But another aspect of international security is what we might call deterrence by entanglement. On this view, international “frenemies” may be too interconnected to launch attacks where their children might be studying, or where they have investments in property and infrastructure.
There are few geopolitical or territorial ambitions that are worth the international chaos of a world war or nuclear conflict. It would mean – for most in the west, at least – the destruction of a “good life” that was unimaginable to previous generations. While there might be wars on the “edges” of world order, few leaders wants to destroy their investments and the possibilities for enjoying the fruits of globalization.
