2007-02-05 07:23:17 · 19 answers · asked by JUJFJU H 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Ask george bush...he is well on his way to starting one...
2007-02-05 07:25:30 · answer #1 · answered by PigPen 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There may be some truth in the food idea. The Royal Navy (and I believe the RCN as well) had "messes." This was a group of men who would eat together. One would be sent to the galley for the food, which would be brought back to the "mess," where it would be shared out. I think the Army may have done something like this, at least in the field. Even in my time in the military, this would happen sometimes. Normally, there would be someone in charge of each mess (like a Leading Seaman - equivalent to a Corporal) who would ensure that it was evenly distributed. Officers were also supposed to check the messing (feeding) of the men (other ranks - not officers) on a regular basis. This is something the Duty Officer did, and when I retired (2002), they still were doing this. However, this is the British (and Canadian) tradition - I do not know what country you are asking about, but perhaps things were different wherever you are from.
2016-05-24 19:01:36 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No the only countries that have such armies also have nuclear weapons so they can never clash directly without wiping themselves out. Thus no more WW1/2 style wars. All the non-nuke countries have militaries way too small to fight in this fashion nor could they afford to field such armies.
2007-02-05 09:13:23 · answer #3 · answered by brian L 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
probably not...now with the technology and strategies, wars are more apt to be fought with surprise. For example, take the war in Iraq right now. No offense to the troops over there, god bless, but most of the lives that are lost are through suicide bombers and car bombs vs the traditional style where the armies meet in a large field and alternate shots like the civil war of the US
2007-02-05 07:33:00 · answer #4 · answered by Dave 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A conventional war is very feasible. So many country's are afraid of mutual destruction from atomic arms that it makes it very possible for warfare to be limited to conventional means. The world's great powers are building and investing their resources into high tech military's which seems to implicate the intention to fight against eachother in a conventional means. Our stealth fighters, are superior air to air fighters etc are being designed solely to compete against other world powers.
2007-02-05 07:54:24 · answer #5 · answered by trigunmarksman 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. because another war like that would result in annihilation because of the types of weapons now available.
The Bible promises that the meek will inherit the earth so annhilation cannot happen!
Psalms 37:10-11
2007-02-05 07:28:27 · answer #6 · answered by Honey W 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No.. Conventional war is over. Modern artillery and bombing is too accurate and deadly for something like this to make sense any more, even without bringing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons into the scenario.
2007-02-05 07:32:16 · answer #7 · answered by days_o_work 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
what do you mean by fight it out? if you mean the the war will be mainly held in hand to hand combat, then probably not, because a lot of war nowadays would most likely consist of usage and/or threats of nuclear war, thus possibly making hand to hand combat old news.
2007-02-05 07:26:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, technology has advance to the level that this will not happen again, unless we throw ourselves into a nuclear stone age.
2007-02-05 07:26:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Albert Einstein said, I'm paraphrasing,
I don't know what weapons we will use in WWIII but I know what weapons we will use in WW IV, sticks and stones.
something to think about
lets hope not.
2007-02-05 07:32:50 · answer #10 · answered by kingrottenboy 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but probably not by the major powers.
2007-02-05 07:25:26 · answer #11 · answered by S K 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋