It is important to read first the Methodology for the presentation of the “War Cycle” in order to understand how the results are presented and what they mean
At the world level, major wars have been recorded.
This list is to be completed. The proposed method to achieve this is as follows: it must be conducted by someone other than the author. This person will identify about 20 historians with a global view of the world and ask them to identify the 30 most important international/global wars since 1900, ranking them from the most important to the least important. It would be better if these historians did not know what this data will be used for, to avoid distorting the result.
Then, you have to put all these elements together, and sort to list the most important international/global wars, then take the first 20 and redo this graph and the gap calculations. There shouldn’t be many changes once the list is redone, but this list of the world context will be considered more objective.
Since 2001, the data are not significant at the world level. Why and how can this be compensated for?
If you take the 6 wars that have been retained since the attack of September 11, 2001, 3 have differences of 0 to 50% and 3 others of 50 to 100%. This calculation of the differences in the dates of the outbreak of war is therefore not significant to confirm, during this period, that there is indeed a cyclical phenomenon having an influence on the outbreak of wars.
The author does not deny it and knows that when war becomes permanent the phenomenon is not visible only from the dates of the outbreak of wars. You have another example of a permanent war period: during the Napoleonic wars, it was not possible to clearly distinguish peaks of war amplification. War is permanent, and identifying this or that battle as significant of an amplification peak is a matter for the crystal ball.
However, the cyclical phenomenon remains visible:
- in 2012 it was indicated that the war in Syria would turn into a regional war during the period of war amplification. This is indeed what happened.
- War outbreak modeling indicates that if the war started in the attenuation period there is usually an escalation or extension of the war during the amplification period. This has led to the prediction of the likely transformation of the Syrian civil war into a regional war, which did take place in 2014.
- The case of the war in Iraq, which began in 2003 and which contradicts the cycle of wars if we take the date of the outbreak of the war, has made it possible to highlight this phenomenon of “survival”. Thanks to the data extracted from the US army by wikileaks and processed by the media, this has made it possible to materialize the “Cycle of Wars” by tens of thousands of points. This is a very exceptional result which can be consulted in the “materialization of the War Cycle” section.
- On the recurring Arab-Israeli, Indo-Pakistani and European conflicts, the predictions of war or tensions have been confirmed, even if additional wars have appeared.
The knowledge of this reality in the event of a war that has become permanent thus makes it possible to compensate for it and to make analyses adapted to the circumstances.
These data show the limits of the demonstration by the dates of the outbreak of the wars alone. This is not enough: this is what led to the materialization of the “War Cycle” by thousands of points, which brings elements of complementary demonstration of the “War Cycle”.
updated on April 29, 2019
Note of 21 October 2020: the war in Nagorno-Karabakh (Armenia-Azerbaijan) which resumed on 27 September 2020 is taking place during a period of mitigation. It means probably there could be one or more wars to come, which will be particularly hard over the next 10 years.
French to English translation on October 21, 2020