>>1>Which wars /battles do you think deserve more attention or education?
I know Chinaboos might be getting annoying, but Chinese military history because there's so much and some of those battles like the crossing of the Yangtze are truly epic and that happened in the 1940s. It was the second largest theatre of World War II, began earlier than the invasion of Poland, and then continued in the form of the civil war which ended in 1949 and the impact on world history from a long-term perspective is enormous. And the history of it is very obscure to most people in the west.
I'd also add the Indian wars in the Americas. I bought a book yesterday that a friend recommended called the 'Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing in the Promised Land' which pits its approach against the official whitewashed version of Texas history. Texas was in a state of low-level warfare for 50 years and it ended with the annihilation and expulsion of the native tribes such as the Comanches. And it goes into the political economy of why this happened and the privatization and fencing-off of practically all land in the state, which is something you'll notice if you ever visit Texas. There's very few public lands unless you go to way out into the western region where the border looks like a pointy tip connecting to a stubby elbow-looking thing bordering Mexico.
>Is there a particular leader or theorist who's impressed you with their military acumen?
Seconded or thirded Mao. Harry "Pombo" Villegas, the commander of Cuban forces in Angola who fought alongside Che in various campaigns. Mikhail Frunze. Americans: John Boyd, William Odom; and Little Turtle, war chief of the Miami people.
>What armed conflicts do you anticipate in the 2020s and 2030s?
Dunno but I'm going to draw a big "danger" sign over Saudi Arabia. A brutal and stupid feudal system that has artificially reproduced itself long past its expiration date thanks to oil wealth which the world is trying to transition away from? The reason the country (if we can call it one) hasn't had a civil war already is probably because the Saud family exports their extremists to other countries (to go fight the infidels "over there" instead of fighting "us") while keeping the boot down on their Shia population which happens to live in the same place as most of the oil refineries. They also have loads and loads of U.S.-supplied weapons but can't even win wars next door. They have a very young population too. So, what could go wrong? My guess: a fuckton.
>What do you think is the future of war in an increasingly technologically advanced, post-nuclear world?
Extrapolate from current trends. I think the Nagorno-Karabakh war showed how devastating drones can be against an army that doesn't have countermeasures. I think the distinction between drones and missiles are collapsing so you'll have more "loitering munitions," i.e. "suicide" or "kamikaze" drones that loiter above the battlefield and then dive down and explode. Missiles launched from aircraft will function like drones and will be piloted remotely via satellite connections or A.I. systems so flying autonomous killbots. The Yemenis using ballistic missiles and drones to target Saudi infrastructure is worth studying. And all of this is going to set off a bunch of research into countermeasures like electronic interference to jam the signals. I think the Russians spend a lot of effort on this.
Also infowar psyop mindfuckery online. Propaganda and disinformation has always been a really important part of warfare. Also maybe new methods in terms of "managing" conflict like how hippie-leftist activists will "escalate to deescalate." One of the things you're taught in protest school is to learn how to start it, but also dial it back, which is an art in itself (the MAGA people on Jan. 6 never went to hippie protest school). But imagine using sentiment analysis and predictive behavior pulled from social media to predict the ebb and flow of conflicts. But those tools can also be used to create conflict and then measure which buttons to push. The Russians in Crimea did a good job of seizing an opportunity when it presented itself, and they knew the sentiment on the ground, and then very quickly moved in and it was practically bloodless, and then moved to deescalate the situation. Also watch these methods be used in color revolutions with corporate mercenaries funding astroturfed shill armies online to mindfuck people while mercenaries insert themselves in the targeted country to turn a non-violent protest movement into a violent one to crack a state wide open.