Toward the End of Wars

(This paper was originally written in 2016, before the onset of trade war between US and China, and way before the wars in Ukraine and in Gaza, and thus reflects the optimistic mood prevalent in those times, brutally overturned during and after the Corona pandemic.)

　In the 21st century, there is an ever increasing need to clamp down on wars in East Asia, because, despite every effort to keep it under control, there are no guarantees that a very tense situation, with military forces positioned close to one another, would not escalate into a more serious military conflict involving unacceptable risks and hazards.

　For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 is said to have brought the US and the Soviet Union to the brink of disaster and mutual annihilation by potentially triggering a nuclear war.

　Here, following a historical review, are listed some of the basic factors prescribing the relationship between nations, and some suggestions for achieving the end of wars, especially in East Asia.

　I. Historic Overview

　1. Prior to the industrial revolution from the latter half of the 18th century, wars were waged with weapons of limited destruction, gunpowder being the symbol of modernism, and cannon the most powerful of weapons.

　 Given the rather slow pace of and limited damage from warfare, as long as people were geographically distant from the fields of battle, life might continue much on a "business as usual" basis.

　2. World War I gave rise to the concept of trench warfare and “weapons of mass destruction,” including chemical weapons, inflicting horrific damage and suffering not only to the military on the front lines, the high seas, and in airspace, but to civilians traveling by sea as well.

　World leaders, including US President Woodrow Wilson, decided WWI should be the last world war ever to be fought, and conceived of the League of Nations. This was established in 1920, in order to ensure that international disputes would be settled in a peaceful manner. Ironically, however, the US was not able to join, as Congress did not give approval. In 1928, the Treaty for the Renunciation of War (Kellogg-Briand Pact, proposed by the US and France), was signed by nations including Japan, Italy and Germany.

　3. However, all these efforts failed to prevent nations from waging aggressive war, and World War II broke out in 1939.

　 WWII was characterized by the concept of “total war,” with the advent of mass bombing, not only to destroy enemy lines, military facilities and factories, but also to annihilate cities for the sake of demoralizing adversaries, and to make them lose their will to continue fighting. Thus, civilian casualties soared to reach hitherto unimaginable numbers

　 In June, 1945, the Charter of the United Nations was signed in San Francisco, and came into force in October. This new organization was conceived to be successor to the League of Nations, with strong determination to make it a more workable organ for maintaining peace and security. The original members were chiefly those termed the “allied powers” in World War II.

　4. Meanwhile, the use of nuclear weapons for the first time against Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) in August, 1945, changed the concept of war forever, as a total of 300 thousand people were estimated to have lost their lives, to the shock of all countries concerned, including the US.

　 The drastically increased cruelty of war, including use of weapons of mass destruction, led to conclusion of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to protect civilians, women, the sick and wounded, and prisoners of war. Civilian targets were outlawed. This helped sharpen focus on the definition of “war crimes.”

　5. During the Cold War that followed, East-West rivalry led to a mutual military buildup between the US and the Soviet Union, including nuclear weapons and their means of delivery (artillery, missiles, bombers and submarines), with new military hardware constantly being developed, innovated and deployed.

(1) This led to a race to launch ever-more powerful rockets to place satellites into orbit and for space exploration, i.e. the U.S. project to land man on the moon, achieved in 1969, and in the oceans, the launching of new, quieter and less detectable submarines, including atomic-powered subs, to enable navies to voyage, explore and stay indefinitely underwater without being noticed.

(2) Nuclear powers adopted the “Mutually Assured Destruction” doctrine that assured mutual deterrence and balance of power between the US and the Soviet Union.

(3) In Asia, apart from border skirmishes between countries such as India and Pakistan, or China and Vietnam, hot conflict was limited to the Korean Peninsula or Vietnam, both involving divided nations, pitted against each other in surrogate wars involving 2 opposing ideological camps.

(4) With this “balance of terror” in the background, those nations not victimized in surrogate wars profited from the “tense but stable” international environment, expanded their economies through trade and investment, and raised their standards of living.

　6. However, this Cold War “balance of terror” involved the following risks and hazards:

(1) Despite every effort to keep the situation under control, there were no guarantees that a very tense situation, with military forces juxtaposed against one another, would not escalate into a more serious military conflict involving unacceptable risks and hazards.

　For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 is said to have brought the US and the Soviet Union to the brink of disaster and mutual annihilation by potentially triggering a nuclear war.

(2) The proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in countries other than the P5 seemed a real possibility, as Israel was deemed to have acquired nuclear capability in the late 1960’s.

　7. Thus people began to realize that discretion, consultations and diplomatic efforts had to prevail to avert needless exchange of fire, mayhem and destruction of human lives and livelihood; arms control and disarmament became a major issue, especially among nuclear-armed nations, leading to the age of “detente.”

(1) In 1970, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into force, and the only nations allowed to possess nuclear weapons were specified as the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council, namely the US, the USSR, China, the UK and France.

　Since then, however, other nations including India, Pakistan and North Korea are seen to have acquired nuclear weapons, outside this framework.

(2) In 1972, US and the Soviet Union concluded treaties to limit strategic arms (START I) and to control anti-ballistic missiles (ABM).

　8. In 1975, the Vietnam War came to its conclusion. In 1978, Deng Hsiao-ping came to power in China and started to promote the “socialist market economy.” In 1979, Vietnam invaded Cambodia, and the Soviet Union started its military intervention in Afghanistan.

　9. In 1977, the 2 Additional Protocols to the 4 Geneva Conventions were adopted, to provide further measures of restraint during war for humanitarian considerations, including protection of civilians from "collateral damage."

　10. Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union in 1985 and launched Perestroika the following year. In 1989, the Soviet Union withdrew her forces from Afghanistan; Vietnam withdrew from Cambodia. The same year, the US and Soviet Union held a summit meeting in Malta, where the Cold War was declared to be over. In 1990, Germany was reunited. In December, 1991, the Soviet Union was dismantled.

　11. In September, 1991, South Korea and North Korea became members of the UN. In November, China and Vietnam normalized relations. In 1992, the Chemical Weapons Convention was signed, with the aim of abolishing all chemical weapons within 10 years. In 1998, India conducted its 2nd nuclear test, and Pakistan conducted its 1st nuclear test.

　II. End of Wars in East Asia

　It is to be noted that, since the year 2000, cross-border warfare has become increasingly rare in East Asia, and the greatest concern in the region has been North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. This may reflect a strong and common recognition that in the 21st century, armed conflict must no longer take place in the region, for the following reasons:

　1. With the Cold War fading into the past, there is no more reason for East-West conflict or surrogate wars to be staged in East Asia based on ideological differences between Communist states with centrally planned economies and capitalist democracies.

　2. With both India and Pakistan possessing nuclear weapons, the greatest religious rivalry in the region has met with stalemate, and given North Korea’s nuclear program, there has been effective discouragement to further religious conflict in the region.

　After all, nuclear weapons are now at the disposal of Christian (US, Russia), Hindu (India), Islamic (Pakistan), and Communist nations (China, North Korea), not to speak of lingering memories of nuclear devastation in Japan at the end of WWII.

　3. In 2004, China and Russia successfully concluded negotiations on the border dispute concerning the Damansky Islands, settling the longstanding problem triggered by skirmishes in 1969. Since then, the 2 countries have enjoyed improved relations, and this has helped to enhance stability and set the tone for international relations in East Asia.

　4. Wide media coverage through the internet on the horrors of war is discouraging nation-states from resorting to war or military intervention in 3rd countries without a UN Security Council resolution.

　People recognize that the scale of damage and destruction from military intervention may reach unacceptable levels from the outset, and lead to waves of retaliation and to escalation, inciting other parties to intervene as well, raising fears of another world war.

　5. In the 20th century, countries such as Japan, Taiwan and Singapore successfully industrialized and achieved high standards of living, leading the way to economic take-off in the Asia-Pacific region.

　 After the turn of the century, countries such as Brazil, Russia, India and China became new centers of growth, not to mention South Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia. Thus, in East Asia, the emphasis has been on speedy economic growth and creating wealth through investment, manufacturing and tourism.

　All nations in the region should agree without hesitation that peace and stability should have highest priority.

　6. In 2010, China’s GDP was valued at $5.87 trillion, surpassing Japan’s $5.47 trillion, and the Chinese economy became the world’s 2nd largest after the US.

　China is expected to become the world’s largest economic power within the next few decades. This has been forecasted to be in 2030, according to a 2011 World Bank forecast and in 2020, according to a 2011 Standard Chartered Bank report.

　Thus, the world’s largest (US), 2nd largest (China) and 3rd largest economies (Japan) are in East Asia, and full advantage should be taken of the situation, and not ruin it all with military conflict.

　7. With the spread of globalization in countries such as China and in Russia, it has become more difficult for countries to intervene in world affairs without UN Security Resolutions.

　If economic sanctions are imposed by the world community, including by such economic giants as the US, Japan and EU, the targeted economies will feel the immediate consequences in stock prices, the exchange rate, foreign investment and tourism, and this will have nefarious and lasting effects on the national economy.

　8. In wealthy democracies with high living standards and large military budgets, if compatriots become war casualties or victims, the emotional, spiritual and economic costs* are highlighted in the media, and there will be public outcries on the way the war is being waged.

　 With deeper understanding on the emotional and spiritual problems facing war veterans after combat duty, including PTSD and suicide, the extent of human damage is known to be much greater than the number of front-line casualties and wounded put together.

　 Legislatures may decide to suspend financial outlays for continued military intervention and, over the longer term, anti-war sentiment will be reflected in national elections. (The Vietnam War is often cited as an example of “how democracy defeated the US.”)

　9. With issues of gender equality and equal opportunities for men and women high on the global agenda, it is clearly in the interests of all women who wish to advance the feminist cause, aiming for more balanced gender relations, that wars should come to an end, and that peace should continue without interruption.

　This is because it is normally during peace and stability that women find opportunities for better education, employment and for improving their social status, i.e. for upward social mobility.

　10. Since the 2nd decade of the 21st century, climate change has started waves of natural disasters on an unprecedented scale, including the Great Tohoku Earthquake in Japan in March, 2011.

　 Governments need to muster all available resources, including military and medical manpower, to deal with large-scale earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, deluges and forest fires, with all the aid and assistance they can receive from neighboring and other friendly states.

　 Accordingly, nation-states should try more than ever to avoid military conflict, as priorities now lie with natural disasters and meteorological emergencies, not military intervention.

　III. Conflict Prevention and Political Settlement

　In recent years, one of the more highly illuminated issues in East Asia has been China’s overtures to expand its presence and influence in the South China Sea by fencing in particular islands, land reclamation and the building of permanent installations. Given the recent ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration generally in favor of the case presented by the Philippines and China’s negative reaction so far, diplomatic efforts are being pursued in haste by the parties concerned, in search of a peaceful settlement.

　Here are some ideas possibly of use for those in search of a compromise solution, i.e. a win-win formula that may save face (which is particularly important in the East Asian region) for all parties concerned:

　1. Politics over Economics

(1)It is a well-known lesson from history that, in a high incidence of cases, large-scale wars start as a result of a build-up of foreign military forces abroad and overseas, and a very common motivation in this regard happens to be the maintenance and expansion of economic interests.

(2)In this context, it is advisable for people with expertise in the politico-military area, with more knowledge and experience on the risks, hazards and pitfalls associated with an increased military presence outside one’s territory, to try to persuade and curb in the tendencies of economics-oriented people, who may instinctively think of spreading military bases and installations abroad without inhibition, much in the way firms and enterprises may try to set up and create a network of overseas branches, offices and affiliated companies, in order to strengthen one’s position in capitalistic competition, i.e. in the international race to increase sales, market share and economic clout.

(3)In short, politico-military people should give strong advice to economics people, that the rules of the free market pertaining to economic success, including in the fishing industry, are different from those rules to be observed for military balance and political stability, and that one should behave accordingly, with commensurate discipline and restraint outside one’s territory, in 3rd countries as well as on the high seas.

　2. Harmony and Co-existence

(1)People in East Asia may describe their region as being very diverse, with different religions, philosophies, ethnic groups and races co-existing side by side, hopefully without acrimonious debate or argument over each group’s legitimacy.

(2)This may call for a fuzzy sort of community, that tries not to delve too much into analysis and classification, for fear of inviting division and conflict. Here, the world should not be a place where dichotomy rules, in the way things tend to be sorted out in the Occident, true to the Western tradition with historical roots in the Middle East.

(3)The distinction between good and bad, light and darkness, heaven and hell, and eternal conflict between their representatives on earth has been important in Western philosophy. One of the reasons for such a perception may even be attributed to the different functions of the left and right hemispheres of the brain. Monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam have served to promote such points of view.

(4)One may point out that even the East Asians have their own brand of dichotomy in the form of Ying and Yang philosophy, but this may emphasize more of a balance between the 2 forces, and in any case, people in the region may instinctively prefer a more pluralistic picture of reality, which may be more conducive to peaceful coexistence among diverse groups of people.

　3. Overtaking and the Overtaken

　It seems very much a recognizable trend in the behavior of nations that, in times of peace, whenever there are prospects forecasted for a relative change in the economic status of 2 nations as measured in GDP, where nation B is about to overtake nation A, relations between them will tend to be thorny on account of a sense of disbelief in nation A, leading to an urgent emotional need to somehow stop or delay nation B’s economic expansion, because it will eventually lead to nation B’s rise in the economic ranking of nations, at the expense of nation A.

　Between 2 individuals, it may be regarded as a typical case of jealousy and hate, and vindictiveness on account of an impending change in status, be it in income, social ranking or sport, but among nations, the consequences may be more serious and far-reaching, especially if they are geographic neighbors.

　Nation A may resort to unusual measures to try to rein in or contain nation B, and this in turn will cause displeasure and provoke retaliatory measures from nation B, leading to a vicious, possibly escalating spiral of events.

　In East Asia, China has obviously become nation B for many of its neighbors (and non-neighbors), and all nations should beware of falling into the trap awaiting nation A, i.e. resorting to ill-considered policy measures to curb in nation B, out of sheer jealousy and wishful thinking, and a longing for the past, as such measures may lead, in the end, to unwanted disputes, conflicts, and waves of retaliation.

　4. Nouveau Capitalist States Beware

(1) According to the contentions in Marxist and Leninist theories, capitalism will inevitably result in the diversification of income and standards of living, leading to social stratification marked by separate social classes and irreconcilable conflict of interests, that may involve exploitation of some social classes by others.

　 Outwardly, this will lead to imperialism and expansionism, driven on by the search for overseas markets and natural resources.

　 Accordingly, the best solution would be to overthrow the old regime, discard the market-oriented economy and introduce centralized planning, and try to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of income. This way, even imperialist tendencies should be curbed.

(2) It is known that, during the Cold War, even before central planning in the Soviet Union was shown to be no match against capitalist economies, especially in terms of incentive and innovation, governments in the “Western camp” sought to take the lessons of Marxist-Leninist theories and the Soviet experience.

　 Perhaps these theorists had made the right observations, but not provided the right answers. If there was no viable substitute for capitalism and the free market economy, governments had to be aware of the shortcomings and inherent problems, and try to make up for them when formulating policies.

　Such thinking has led to the notion of the welfare state and, in foreign policy, the adoption of policies more in concordance and harmony with neighbors and other nations, in a spirit of peaceful coexistence, as symbolized by the UN.

(3) In the light of such experience, states that have experienced a spell of centralized planning in the running of their economies should be aware of a particular problem.

　 That is, if and when they discard the socialist economy and revert to a more market-oriented economy, it may feel as if they were starting to run a completely new national economy. With the passage of time, they may fall into the very traps of capitalism recognized by the Marxist-Leninists.

　 This may include the unequal distribution of income and (of course) imperialism, or expansionist tendencies that are certain to bring opprobrium from other nations. 　With the temptations of imperialism, they may not be able to formulate policies according to the higher standards set in the 21st century.

(4) If and when such trends are recognizable, governments should make all efforts to make up for the lost decades of experience coinciding with their spell of centralized planning, and try to catch up with other capitalist states in haste, in domestic policies as well as in foreign policy, in order to be more in step with the community of nations, in a spirit of peaceful coexistence.

　5. Liberal Democracies Beware

(1) Given the IT revolution and recent developments including social networking and the smartphone, it has become apparent that, in the 21st century, states that regulate, censor and clamp down on speech and information in cyberspace may have a growing edge and advantage over more liberal states that attach importance to freedom of speech and information as fundamental values (ensured in their constitution and other legal instruments), so that use of the internet and cyberspace as a means to disseminate and gather information is largely off limits from state control.

(a) From the citizens’ point of view, the internet has turned out to be of immeasurable value, empowering the common people to express their views, disseminate information and link with other people very easily. However, as political views and information of greater diversity are aired and made available to the public, there may arise greater uncertainty and instability in national politics, so that it will be increasingly difficult to achieve and to maintain steady governance.

(b) Cyberspace is now used to advertise and disseminate information, including old, inaccurate or false information, to influence people’s opinion without resorting to journalism and the established media, and to incite people to join political groups, public demonstrations, boycotts, and strikes.

　It is well known how the internet was employed during the Arab Spring movement to mobilize and bond people into anti-government demonstrations that eventually led to the overthrow of longtime political leaders.

(c) For the non-liberal states, including dictatorships and communist regimes, that practice censorship of speech and public information to control dissidents and to discourage formation of undesirable political groups, they may not find it difficult to extend controls over the internet to prevent the flow and dissemination of information embarrassing to and critical of the central government or the ruling party.

　In the case of the communist states, the comparatively large number of civil servants working for the government and in state enterprises will find it in their interest to censor the internet in self-defense, and this factor must work to their advantage when they try to keep information under control.

　For these reasons, the non-liberal states, especially the communist regimes, should be more protected from sways in public opinion as fomented and amplified on the internet, compared to liberal democracies that uphold freedom in cyberspace as a natural extension of freedom of speech and expression and of political pluralism, and do not practice censorship of political opinion per se.

(d) Taken a step further, non-liberal states, from their vantage point of a cyber-environment well-protected from adverse information, criticism and political agitation, may turn their attention to the liberal democracies, to find ways to manipulate public opinion over the internet from the comfort of their own territory. If this is effectively conducted, political swings in the liberal democracies may be artificially aggravated and magnified by foreign governments.

(e) In the liberal democracies, leading political figures are prone to using the social media e.g. Facebook, "X," YouTube, to express their views and feelings to the public very easily and at will, but this means their impulses and caprices may be disclosed without sufficient preparation or time to measure how they may be received by the public and what reactions there may be.

　This may lead to excessive transparency, and if “familiarity breeds contempt” has a ring of truth in it, the public may find it increasingly difficult to be respectful of their leaders, who may be inviting criticism for flaunting their impressions without aides to monitor or control them.

　Again, in case there are non-liberal states looking for weaknesses to exploit on the part of rival governments of more liberal orientation, the internet must be a sure place of finding ammunition.

(2) The rapid rise of countries such as China in the 21st century must be the result of a combination of factors, including economies with lower wages attractive to foreign investment, but if political stability and predictability are also important, this may partly be due to their ability to censor the internet.

　In the liberal democracies, the political effects of rampant IT and ubiquitous networking including the social media and the smartphone, cannot be overlooked, as they contribute not to diminish but to aggravate controversies and to amplify swings in public opinion, thus destabilizing and increasing entropy in national politics, and this may include the effects of false information.

　Communist states may be at an advantage because of their ability to control the internet, and if this trend is left to continue, liberal democracies that prize freedom of speech and expression may be faced with formidable woes before too long, suffering from comparative instability in the political climate, if only because of the freedom allowed in cyberspace.

(3) In conclusion, while freedom of speech and expression must have prepared the background and made significant contributions to the IT revolution as well as development and expansion of the IT industry, it may be time for the liberal democracies to reflect upon the macroscopic problems and long term issues, and begin searching for measures to counter provocation from sources that try to agitate citizens and to destabilize politics through use of false information.

(4) Such lines of thinking may draw circumspect views from those who fear new arguments that may lead to political repression a-la- 1984, but it may be time to consider more seriously the growing disadvantage vis-a-vis regimes that do not share liberal values and traditions, and benefit from more political stability by means of insulating the effects of the continuing IT revolution.

　6. Tolerance and Magnanimity

(1) In this era of climactic adversity, there should be a spirit of peaceful coexistence among nations of all races, religions and ideologies, and in this context, the problems that the book The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington (Touchstone, 1996) presented cannot be overemphasized.

　 Whatever the original intentions of the author, the publication seemed to predict a pronounced rivalry among different religions in the world after the Cold War, and some world leaders (not only in nations of the former western camp, but also in nations known to adhere to beliefs other than Christianity) apparently took it seriously enough to prepare for such an eventuality, and this must have created a self-fulfilling prophecy out of the contentions therein.

　This contributed to an atmosphere of strong religious tension, especially between Christendom and the Islamic world, and eventually led to the catastrophic terrorist attack of 9.11 and the series of wars against terrorism.

(2) Ironically enough, as Communist ideas first spread, were experimented upon, then failed in the Christian world e.g. the Soviet Union, it gained a strong foothold in East Asia. In this region, there are nations that not only retain political systems based on Communism, but even thrive and flourish economically, as in the case of China and Vietnam. This must be because they discarded centrally planned economies in favor of market-oriented, capitalist systems and invited foreign investment.

　Nowadays in this region, the Communist nation to be watched with a sense of vigilance is North Korea, because of its development and possession of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, especially in US, China is regarded with a strong sense of rivalry and suspicion, and this has led to the trade war that culminated in the summer of 2018.

(3) However, whatever significance Communist ideology may have had or meant in US, the self-proclaimed champion of freedom in the Western world, especially in the decades following WWII, they must now recognize that in the 21st century, with extreme climate change and frequent natural disasters on a cataclysmic scale, ideological differences must be relegated and cast aside as having lower priority, and attach heavier weight to sustainable and peaceful co-existence.

　If Communism, with its atheistic tendencies, can be construed as a religion, then tolerance of all religions must include tolerance of Communism as well, and countries such as North Korea and China should be regarded and evaluated on the basis of their individual merits and demerits, and not on a bias against Communism, because Communism too, must be subject to change all the time.

　In this sense, while the ideas contained in Samuel Huntington’s famous book should be largely refuted as being irresponsible, the bias against Communism, too, must be subject to scrutiny as outmoded and possibly out of touch. After all, countries such as China and Vietnam are still nations in the process of development.

(Chart 1)

　20th Century Chronology following WWII

(1945) Nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki;End of WWII

(1946) Iron Curtain speech (Winston Churchill)

(1947) Truman Doctrine

(1948~49) 1st Middle East War

(1949) USSR acquires nuclear weapons

(1950~53) Korean War

(1951) Peace Treaty with Japan (San Francisco)

(1956) 2nd Middle East War

(1960) Vietnam War begins

(1964) China acquires nuclear weapons

(1967) 3rd Middle East War

(1969)　　 　 Israel believed to have acquired nuclear weapons

(1970) Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

(1972) US-USSR conclude START I and ABM Treaties

(1973) 4th Middle East War; 1st Oil Crisis

(1974) India conducts 1st nuclear test

(1975) End of Vietnam War

(1979) Iranian Revolution and 2nd Oil Crisis; Vietnam invades Cambodia

(1979) China/Vietnam border skirmish

(1979) USSR intervenes in Afghanistan

(1980) China/Vietnam border skirmish

(1980~88) Iran-Iraq War

(1989) USSR withdraws from Afghanistan; Vietnam withdraws from Cambodia

(1991) Gulf War; Breakdown of Soviet Union

(1992) End of Cold War

(1992~95) Bosnian War (NATO intervention in 1995)

(1998) India conducts 2nd nuclear test;　Pakistan detonates nuclear devices

(Chart 2)

　Wars in the 21st Century

(2001~) War on Terrorism (Afghanistan)

(2003~) Iraq War

(2006) North Korea conducts 1st nuclear test

(2009) North Korea’s 2nd nuclear test

(2011) Great Earthquake in Japan (Tohoku area); Fukushima nuclear crisis

(2011) NATO Military Intervention in Libya

(2011~) US troops start withdrawal from Afghanistan

(2011.12) End of War in Iraq

(2012.12) End of Mayan calendar (“End of the World”)

　 (Era of drastic climate change and natural disasters begins.)

(2013.2) North Korea conducts 3rd nuclear test

(2014.9) US carries out attack on ISIS, in Iraq and Syria