Socio-Economic Factors Influencing the Last War

HeatDeath · 04-01-2016, 01:50 AM

I just watched a couple of episodes of Apocalypse WWI. Its depiction of the world of the early 20th century, la Belle Epoque, and especially the international politics of the years immediately before hostilities broke out, feels like it belongs on a different planet. It's frankly frightening and depressing, and I can't recommend it enough.

As I started to develop an understanding of the core dynamic behind the apocalyptic nature of WW1, I started thinking about the similarly apocalyptic dynamic implied by the cratered wasteland that is the Ogre map (and the accompanying implication that this map represents a typical European battlefield of the Last War). The comparison has frequently been made by many people here, including myself, between WW1 and the Last War. I've come to realize that this comparison, while tempting, is true only on a superficial level, and that while the socioeconomic contexts of both wars result in similarly extreme environmental devastation, the contexts themselves are fascinatingly different.

WW1 Core Dynamic: Rapidly advancing offensive weaponry technology has combined with stagnant military doctrine and complete disregard of the leaders and officers for the lives of their men, to create human suffering on an unimaginable scale. Casualties are enormous because there is no meaningful defensive technology that can protect an individual soldier on the move against the typical weapons of the day. Once the defenders have dug in, most battles are futile slaughters because (until the invention of the tank) attacking units are massively vulnerable to even the most basic prepared defenses. The extreme environmental damage of the Western Front is a byproduct of both sides digging in tightly to take advantage of the overwhelming defensive power of prepared defenses, and consequently the same piece of land is fought over often enough to utterly devastate it.

Last War Core Dynamic: Rapidly advancing offensive weaponry technology, combined with rapidly advancing defensive technology (motivated by a plausible continuation of the modern overwhelming desire of Western nations to minimize human battlefield casualties) has lead to environmental destruction on an unimaginable scale. Casualties remain high only because offensive technology has stabilized at a slightly higher level than the defensive technology (though defensive technology remains much much more effective relative to the offensive weaponry of the day than it is today.) The extreme environmental damage seen is a byproduct of the sheer power of the offensive weapons being used, but does not necessarily imply the static front line of WW1's Western Front.

WW1 lasted for slightly over four years, and ended with the complete economic collapse of several of the nation states involved. The Last War, on the other hand, lasted for over 20. There is obviously a key difference between the economies of La Belle Epoque Europe and the superstates of the mid 21st century. But what?

I submit that the difference is this: The North American Combine and the Paneuropean Federation are post-scarcity societies, their economies based heavily on nanotechnology-equipped factories that can manufacture effectively unlimited masses of tanks and powersuits for little more then the price of the raw materials stock. Like modern Western Civilization, they place an enormous premium on the minimization of human battlefield casualties. Both armies spare literally no expense in providing the best defensive technology possible to their soldiers. In stark contrast to WW1, where soldiers were lucky to receive socks and rations, every infantryman gets an advanced powersuit or a tank to sit in. Additionally, both factions invest heavily in cybertanks, to remove the requirement for human presence on the battlefield altogether. [Yes, I am disregarding the "militia" rules from Ogre Battlefields and Ogre Miniatures. They're awkward, no one uses them, and they didn't make it into ODE anyways. :) ] This in turn necessitates the use of heavy nuclear explosives on a massive scale, because nothing less is reasonably likely to destroy or even mission-kill the opponent's power-armor and vehicles. Their use is further motivated by the reasonable fear that the other side might develop and deploy battlefield nanotechnology (which in addition to being potentially militarily overwhelming, may very well render the land itself permanently contaminated and useless), nanotechnology being, as we understand it today, very powerful, but very vulnerable to extreme heat and radiation. These in turn generate enormous environmental devastation and [presumed] civilian casualties. However, unlike Belle Epoque Europe, the enormous environmental devastation and civilian casualties do not meaningfully affect the industrial capability of the region. They do however, strongly motivate the population to continue to support the war effort, for both self preservation and angry vengeance. We begin to see why the war could last so long.

What are they fighting over? They are fighting over the only thing their post-scarcity industrial economies cannot create more of - control of land. The invading armies are not the slightest bit concerned about the condition of the land when they get it - the nanotechnological industrial base will allow for relatively straightforward reseeding of crops and forests (and removal of dust and fallout from the atmosphere), once control of the land is secured. The extermination of the civilian population of the region is apparently considered an acceptable means to achieve control of the land.

So what happens when two post-scarcity societies go to war over land, caring enormously about human battlefield casualties and almost not at all over environmental devastation of the contested territory or civilian casualties?

Welcome to the Last War.

[tl;dr: The Combine wants PanEuropean land. A nanotechnology-based industrial infrastructure manufactures fighting vehicles, power-armor, and cybertanks for almost no cost, for both sides. They care enormously about minimizing human battlefield casualties, but have almost no concern for environmental damage or civilian casualties. Defensive technology is sufficiently advanced that heavy nuclear weapons are required to produce mission kills and actual kills on the battlefield, and PanEurope's similarly post-scarcity economy allows them to manufacture enormous amounts of military equipment, again with no perceptible drain on the civilian economy. PanEuropean civilians are motivated by anger and desire for vengeance to defeat the Combine. These factors generate the main characteristics we see in the Last War: an extremely long war generating enormous environmental devastation.]

04-01-2016, 01:50 AM	#1
HeatDeath Join Date: May 2012	Socio-Economic Factors Influencing the Last War I just watched a couple of episodes of Apocalypse WWI. Its depiction of the world of the early 20th century, la Belle Epoque, and especially the international politics of the years immediately before hostilities broke out, feels like it belongs on a different planet. It's frankly frightening and depressing, and I can't recommend it enough. As I started to develop an understanding of the core dynamic behind the apocalyptic nature of WW1, I started thinking about the similarly apocalyptic dynamic implied by the cratered wasteland that is the Ogre map (and the accompanying implication that this map represents a typical European battlefield of the Last War). The comparison has frequently been made by many people here, including myself, between WW1 and the Last War. I've come to realize that this comparison, while tempting, is true only on a superficial level, and that while the socioeconomic contexts of both wars result in similarly extreme environmental devastation, the contexts themselves are fascinatingly different. WW1 Core Dynamic: Rapidly advancing offensive weaponry technology has combined with stagnant military doctrine and complete disregard of the leaders and officers for the lives of their men, to create human suffering on an unimaginable scale. Casualties are enormous because there is no meaningful defensive technology that can protect an individual soldier on the move against the typical weapons of the day. Once the defenders have dug in, most battles are futile slaughters because (until the invention of the tank) attacking units are massively vulnerable to even the most basic prepared defenses. The extreme environmental damage of the Western Front is a byproduct of both sides digging in tightly to take advantage of the overwhelming defensive power of prepared defenses, and consequently the same piece of land is fought over often enough to utterly devastate it. Last War Core Dynamic: Rapidly advancing offensive weaponry technology, combined with rapidly advancing defensive technology (motivated by a plausible continuation of the modern overwhelming desire of Western nations to minimize human battlefield casualties) has lead to environmental destruction on an unimaginable scale. Casualties remain high only because offensive technology has stabilized at a slightly higher level than the defensive technology (though defensive technology remains much much more effective relative to the offensive weaponry of the day than it is today.) The extreme environmental damage seen is a byproduct of the sheer power of the offensive weapons being used, but does not necessarily imply the static front line of WW1's Western Front. WW1 lasted for slightly over four years, and ended with the complete economic collapse of several of the nation states involved. The Last War, on the other hand, lasted for over 20. There is obviously a key difference between the economies of La Belle Epoque Europe and the superstates of the mid 21st century. But what? I submit that the difference is this: The North American Combine and the Paneuropean Federation are post-scarcity societies, their economies based heavily on nanotechnology-equipped factories that can manufacture effectively unlimited masses of tanks and powersuits for little more then the price of the raw materials stock. Like modern Western Civilization, they place an enormous premium on the minimization of human battlefield casualties. Both armies spare literally no expense in providing the best defensive technology possible to their soldiers. In stark contrast to WW1, where soldiers were lucky to receive socks and rations, every infantryman gets an advanced powersuit or a tank to sit in. Additionally, both factions invest heavily in cybertanks, to remove the requirement for human presence on the battlefield altogether. [Yes, I am disregarding the "militia" rules from Ogre Battlefields and Ogre Miniatures. They're awkward, no one uses them, and they didn't make it into ODE anyways. :) ] This in turn necessitates the use of heavy nuclear explosives on a massive scale, because nothing less is reasonably likely to destroy or even mission-kill the opponent's power-armor and vehicles. Their use is further motivated by the reasonable fear that the other side might develop and deploy battlefield nanotechnology (which in addition to being potentially militarily overwhelming, may very well render the land itself permanently contaminated and useless), nanotechnology being, as we understand it today, very powerful, but very vulnerable to extreme heat and radiation. These in turn generate enormous environmental devastation and [presumed] civilian casualties. However, unlike Belle Epoque Europe, the enormous environmental devastation and civilian casualties do not meaningfully affect the industrial capability of the region. They do however, strongly motivate the population to continue to support the war effort, for both self preservation and angry vengeance. We begin to see why the war could last so long. What are they fighting over? They are fighting over the only thing their post-scarcity industrial economies cannot create more of - control of land. The invading armies are not the slightest bit concerned about the condition of the land when they get it - the nanotechnological industrial base will allow for relatively straightforward reseeding of crops and forests (and removal of dust and fallout from the atmosphere), once control of the land is secured. The extermination of the civilian population of the region is apparently considered an acceptable means to achieve control of the land. So what happens when two post-scarcity societies go to war over land, caring enormously about human battlefield casualties and almost not at all over environmental devastation of the contested territory or civilian casualties? Welcome to the Last War. [tl;dr: The Combine wants PanEuropean land. A nanotechnology-based industrial infrastructure manufactures fighting vehicles, power-armor, and cybertanks for almost no cost, for both sides. They care enormously about minimizing human battlefield casualties, but have almost no concern for environmental damage or civilian casualties. Defensive technology is sufficiently advanced that heavy nuclear weapons are required to produce mission kills and actual kills on the battlefield, and PanEurope's similarly post-scarcity economy allows them to manufacture enormous amounts of military equipment, again with no perceptible drain on the civilian economy. PanEuropean civilians are motivated by anger and desire for vengeance to defeat the Combine. These factors generate the main characteristics we see in the Last War: an extremely long war generating enormous environmental devastation.]