No, but I have a larger argument that this is actually going to be the new normal for warfare.
I'll put it simply because I don't want to derail too much, but in the future, geographic proximity will no longer be a necessary component for warfare. Instead, If two nations go to war, all nations will have to be wary of each factions partisans or irregular forces launching irregular attacks on the other faction's strategic interests.
For example, if Israel and Syria go to war, you may get:
A Mossad raid of Syrain financiers in Canada
Syrian partisans in Denmark may storm the Israeli Embassy
A port in Brazil may be seized by Syrian special forces to steal an Israeli ship.
Due to the world's economic interconnectedness, a country's economic sphere of influence, even for small countries may be extremely broad. This means that fighting over those strategic interests may take place anywhere in the world.
What we are seeing now with both Israeli and Palestinian supporters attacking each other in the street is a political version of what you can expect to see become more formalized as part of world-wide asymmetric warfare.
This actually does mean that countries, even like the US, are at risk of partly losing control over their own domestic security without a robust militia system. If the Boston Harbor was seized by any foreign military forces, even temporarily it would be embarrassing. The police themselves would not be well trained or equipped enough to dislodge a proper irregular force, and it's likely the irregulars would not be there long enough to provoke a slow conventional military response.
Panama is actually a good example of a nation that is extremely wary of this because every nation uses it's canal. They have a small but highly professional force that is keenly aware of subterfuge from all possible countries, even the US. The world will slowly become more like a Panama, or a pre-civil war US with significant regional militias to act in quick response to irregular warfare threats.
No, but I have a larger argument that this is actually going to be the new normal for warfare.
I'll put it simply because I don't want to derail too much, but in the future, geographic proximity will no longer be a necessary component for warfare. Instead, If two nations go to war, all nations will have to be wary of each factions partisans or irregular forces launching irregular attacks on the other faction's strategic interests.
For example, if Israel and Syria go to war, you may get:
Due to the world's economic interconnectedness, a country's economic sphere of influence, even for small countries may be extremely broad. This means that fighting over those strategic interests may take place anywhere in the world.
What we are seeing now with both Israeli and Palestinian supporters attacking each other in the street is a political version of what you can expect to see become more formalized as part of world-wide asymmetric warfare.
This actually does mean that countries, even like the US, are at risk of partly losing control over their own domestic security without a robust militia system. If the Boston Harbor was seized by any foreign military forces, even temporarily it would be embarrassing. The police themselves would not be well trained or equipped enough to dislodge a proper irregular force, and it's likely the irregulars would not be there long enough to provoke a slow conventional military response.
Panama is actually a good example of a nation that is extremely wary of this because every nation uses it's canal. They have a small but highly professional force that is keenly aware of subterfuge from all possible countries, even the US. The world will slowly become more like a Panama, or a pre-civil war US with significant regional militias to act in quick response to irregular warfare threats.