4 ms·
If the simulation is reasonably predictive and the spoils of war not too severe then the loser won't start the war because they would npt expect to gain enough.
by indrax 10y ago
If the simulation is reasonably predictive and the spoils of war not too severe then the loser won't start the war because they would npt expect to gain enough.
This is what democracy is, a coarse estimate of who has the most soldiers. A 90% majority can do what they want, a 51% majority needs to compromise a little.
- PeterisP 10y agoJust as the purpose of a war isn't to determine who's stronger but an extension of diplomacy with violence as a tool, a simulation isn't needed to determine who's weaker, countries already have a good idea on that. If the results are reasonably predictable and the request is not too severe, then you don't need a simulation, game or coin toss, ordinary diplomacy does that well; this is how events like Sudatenland takeover in last century or Crimea takeover in this century happened without a fight. However, in an actual war many things matter more than the numbers or fighting power. For example, it is clear that ISIS is much weaker than the full USA military, however, because defeating ISIS in an actual land war would cause significant casualties to USA, they can go on - a clear simulation result showing that they would lose won't ever be enough for them to concede defeat since they can (and will) simply call it as a bluff and claim that USA is not willing to pay the blood price. So you can't settle a conflict like this with a simulation; the loser always has the backup plan of telling "make me, if you dare" instead of accepting the loss. Agreeing to a result of simulations that both sides believe isn't settling undecided disputes nonviolently, it's just old fashioned diplomacy or ultimatum/surrender.