The Great Game

John Robb has this little article that hacks up the term 4th generation warfare and explains why interstate warfare between great powers is unthinkable (or at least unthinkably stupid)

[The] argument that [interstate] warfare could be divided into three successive generations of state vs. state warfare. These were:

• The 1st generation. Mobilization. Decisive battles. Linearity of approach to maximize firepower and control.
• The 2nd generation. Firepower. The defensive. Attrition. Rail logistics. Indirect fire. Industrial scale mobilization and command structures. Trench warfare.
• The 3rd generation. Maneuver. The offensive. Disorientation. Aircraft. Motorized transport. More fluid command structures. Blitzkrieg.

The Lost Generation

As per the framework, states that used the most recent form of warfare could reliably defeat those states that still clung to the previous generation. This continued to hold true until the final thrust at the end of WW2 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved that nuclear warfare was the new salient generation. Lind and his cohorts ignore this generation of warfare, since with its advent the generational advancement of inter-state warfare breaks down. The technologies of this "lost" generation of warfare quickly progressed to MIRVed (multiple independent re-entry vehicles) ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) that could mobilize for global war in minutes, maneuver to enemy rear areas in fractions of an hour, and unleash firepower that could destroy the entire urban infrastructure of a state. At that point, the trends of interstate warfare reached their logical conclusion in their negation. The well founded fear of this form of warfare made hot war between the great powers unthinkable.