In the coming articles on this blog, I address the question: Is the next systemic crisis necessarily a systemic war? That is ‘war’ as we know it. I argue that it certainly cannot be excluded that the coming crisis may well have a different appearance.
This photo shows the Allied landings in Normandy, June 1944. It’s mass character – its sheer size, and amount of military capabilities that were deployed – is not necessarily the ‘appearance’ of a next systemic crisis or war.
During the period 1495-1945, the System produced four accelerating war cycles that accompanied a finite-time singularity dynamic that reached its critical point (the singularity in finite-time) in 1939 (the Second World War, 1939-1945). It should be reminded (as I explain in other articles) that the war dynamics of the System during the period 1495-1945 originated mainly in Europe.
Typically, during systemic wars, tensions that had accumulated in the System during preceding relatively stable periods, were put to work to design and implement a next international order. The ‘new’ (upgraded) international order that was then implemented, allowed for relative stability and further (population) growth and development.
The fourth systemic war (the Second World War, 1939-1945) in fact constituted a phase transition: By means of the fourth systemic war non-anarchistic structures were implemented in Europe (the fundament for the European Union), and a first global international order at a global scale of the System (the United Nations). By implementing non-anarchistic structures in Europe, the self-destructive war momentum in Europe was (finally) broken.
The research shows that the (now) global System, is producing a fifth war cycle (starting in 1945), that could well be the first cycle of a second (now global) finite-time singularity dynamic that could be instrumental in the (future) implementation of non-anarchistic structures at a global scale of the System. In the end (but of course the sooner the better, end preferably not by means of war), we (humankind) must find a global understanding to avoid self-destruction, and to be able to peacefully and responsibly exploit the riches of our planet.
For what issues, (systemic) wars are fought, is to a certain degree a matter of contingency. How these wars are fought, is (also) dependent on several ‘conditions’, including the structure of the System, the societies of states that constitute the System, the connectivity of the System, and available technologies and capabilities.
Over time, during the period 1495-1945, populations had become more empowered and systemic wars become more total. Following the Second World War, the empowerment trend continued and was further reinforced by the Internet, social media, and increasing global mobility.
Until now, when the System became critical, and was consequentially in a crisis, crisis always was synonym with systemic war, when armies clashed, and tried to destroy each other to achieve dominance, and political leverage.
However, several ‘indicators’ suggest that the next critical period, when the System will be in crisis (until now in all cases implying systemic war), such a crisis could manifest itself differently; at least not in the manner as the last systemic crisis, the Second World War.
It is important to note – in the light of above question – that at present the structure of the System, societies etc. is fundamentally different than in – let’s say – the 1930’s.
To be continued.