At the risk of being repetitive, I'll reiterate that we have left behind the age of conquest, and entered an era of limited, contained war. Now the rules have changed because of economic integration. Consider the United States, or Israel as examples.
If either of these unleashed their entire military force upon any present real or perceived enemies, the results would not favor the aggressor. This has nothing to do with who is macho or warriorlike, or compassionate or pacifistic. This has to do with the realities of possessing more destructive force than moral clout: Throw everything ruthlessly at the enemy, lay waste to everything and every one, and...
You lose.
Even the mighty USA can quickly implode if our global partners disassociate. Launching Total War is officially "out". We don't really know what's "in", but warfare must be limited and lawful so that the international order that all industrialized nations depend upon can be perpetuated.
Israel's present assault on Lebanon is not Total War, but it is close enough that the long-term results will bring Israel great harm. I won't go into hypotheticals, but if you think about it you may understand.
I am not offering you pollyanish, idealistic talk of world peace. I am describing an established pragmatic modern convention of warfare that is manifest in today's events, but that the depictions of Hollywood and major media are lagging far behind.
I'll try a silly analogy (which I usually wind up regretting): If it became commonplace for everyone to go into bars with grenades in their pockets, then the "rules" of barfights would change. Certain drunkards might bellow "I'll fuck y'all up cuz this is a TOTAL BARFIGHT". But before or after he might leap over the bar and pull the pin, the grenade-brandishing drunkard loses in his dispute, because bars obviously could not operate under those circumstances, and bargoers of every ilk would be rather intolerant about the excessive introduction of violence.
Developed nations are all acquiring planetary grenades, and it is discouraging the same old brawls. Even absent the nuclear option, limited warfare is the result of the reality that economies are globalized. No matter how offended or angry Americans might become toward Iraq or Syria or Iran or Sweden, we can't cut lose with all we've got and keep our economic Club Member's Credit Card. And in the moment we lose that, we're on the street. That's why Total War is now and evermore unthinkable for any sizeable nation to initiate.
Now, if you are strictly talking about a rogue nation doing it anyway (the idiot in the bar with a grenade) then the answer is obvious in terms of the response from the rest of the world. But all propaganda to the contrary, there really isn't much cause to worry about that.
If one of you Total War proponents would like to explore a specific example, such as why Israel should lay complete waste to Lebanon, or the USA should obliterate Iraq, then (as they say in some bars) "let's go, motherfucker".
