Enviroment of Terror

Robert Lalani

The start of the nuclear age has brought an end to most massive scale conflicts. Enemy combatants no longer wear uniforms to identify their allegiances and instead use a guerrilla warfare tactics. This is due to the fact that the United States and other western powers are far more technologically advanced to those of less stabilized countries where terrorism is more likely to take place. The causes of war have shifted from one of nations and territory to one of ideological differences. Al-Qaeda and other terrorist cells operate around the world and across boarders. In order to combat this tactics have shifted. Information has always been valuable in warfare however as the world enters the “age of terrorism” it has become doubly so.

In Zero Dark Thirty the main objective of the United States was to find and eliminate the leadership of Al-Qaeda.  Without fundamental support structure, extremist would have a hard time operating. Any organization needs resources and leadership and without a command structure this would be almost impossible. However, even if the United States dismantled Al-Qaeda would this bring an end to terrorism? I don’t think so; in the lapse of Al-Qaeda other terrorist originations took their place. In order to fundamentally solve this crisis there needs to be a systematic change in the environment that breeds it.

The Diminishing Geological Impact of War

I believe the majority of war is slowly reducing its mark on the ground. Wars no longer have these week-long and even month-long battles stretched out across a scarred and entrenched landscapes as in past conflicts. Think how much different the world, in particular Europe would look, if previous wars were fought like they are today. Perhaps so many virgin forests and historic villages would have been preserved rather than reduced to rubble by haphazard bomb dropping.

World War I:                                                       

 Iraq War:
                         

I'm not asserting that war today is somehow eco-friendly but rather that the natural repercussions of conflict are slowly being reduced by the use of more advanced technology and more refined targets. The biggest problem with my argument of course is the question of nuclear weapons which are in fact designed to destroy everything in a 100 mile radius. But these are weapons of destruction rather than war. They are really quite needless in fighting a war so perhaps as technology becomes more advanced, even WMD's will become obsolete.