[hnbad]

Russia literally complained about Ukraine putting its military installations in civilian centers rather than putting them in the middle of nowhere (where they'd be more exposed and easier to destroy). "Human shields" have been a consistent talking point by Israel in its attacks on Gaza despite IDF infrastructure likewise being in civilian areas.

Most wars today don't occur in trenches in the middle of nowhere. Actually the most recent thing I can think of is medieval battlefields but even then a major component of warfare were sieges which targeted entire cities because it didn't make sense to have your military fortress out in the sticks where it was easy to cut off the supply lines. Even World War 1 doesn't count because the "middle of nowhere" where the trenches were were often only uninhabited because of the war.

That said, we won't see wars of Terminator-style killing machines pitted against each other just like we don't see genuine tank-on-tank duels anymore. It's far cheaper to put some explosives on a UAV and call it a day. Any evenly matched war between nations capable of producing battle robots is likely one between nations with access to nuclear bombs. If Indian border conflicts are any indication, those wars are more likely to be fought with literal sticks to avoid any action that could trigger a nuclear first strike.

[catlikesshrimp]

There will be no serious international wars anymore. The loser would go nuclear.

I think we will now have asymmetric wars.

Africa doesn't count because those countries don't have nuclear bombs

[dragonwriter]

> There will be no serious international wars anymore.

The Russo-Ukrainian war seems pretty serious.

> The loser would go nuclear.

If annihilation was viewed better than even unconditional surrender, unconditional surrender would never have happened in the past. But it has, and thus if there is a credible marginal threat of nuclear retaliation for a nuclear strike, there is very good reason to suspect that the loser in major convential war would not go nuclear. The risk of nuclear escalation of course impacts the calculus of war involving one or more nuclear powers, but a firm statement that “the loser will go nuclear” does not seem justified, except perhaps in the case where the otherwise winning side is not, and would not (at least in the perception of the losing nuclear power) in the event of nuclear attack be protected by, a nuclear power.

> Africa doesn't count because those countries don't have nuclear bombs

The vast majority of non-African countries also don't have nuclear bombs.

[riku_iki]

> The loser would go nuclear.

it depends if loss will be significant enough to justify mutual annihilation. Assume Russia attacked Finland, and NATO started military operation and lost. It will be very unlikely France, Brits and Americans will launch nukes for Finland loss.

[catlikesshrimp]

Thanks for pointing out that such conflict must be considered serious. Maybe 500,000 Russians and 70,000 Ukranians have died.

Instead of "serious" I wanted to say "With serious possibility of escalation" I mentioned Asymmetric conflicts, as the two conflicts occupying our international News (Gaza & Ukraine) are good examples

I don't have any foundation to have an opinion on an invasion to Finland. I would expect there was a possibility of escalation as that is the only purpose of belonging to NATO. I would expect nobody to escalate over a Taiwan Invasion.

I think China won't seriously threaten Indian borders, just based on having nuclear weapons or not. (An opinion hanging of a spider threat)

[riku_iki]

> I would expect nobody to escalate over a Taiwan Invasion.

there is semiconductor industry on the table. I think there is high chance NATO will be suppressing invasion forces through launching anti ship missiles from aircrafts and cruisers as well as secretly supplying them to Taiwan.