3 ms·

War is a special case of competition, ie competition through violence, violent competition of nations or large body actors. But calling perpetual competition w

• gumby 7y ago
  I specifically don't mean perpetual "competition" so thanks for flagging that I was not clear. I consider competition to be not just commercial competition, colonial (ugh) competition, spying and the like. Spying in fact can avert war (well understood in game theory, hence the overflight treaties). But when spend time specifically probing and actually attacking, say, your perceived opponents' infrastructure (e.g. "cyberattack" of another country's electronic grid) I consider that warfare. Student was unambiguously an act of war, though Iran was too weak to respond (also: clever!). In particular Iran posed no threat to the US, but attacking its nuclear capabilities served US geopolitical interests (Iran did and does threaten US allies). If you destroy or degrade someone's capabilities remotely instead of sending a high explosive, do you not consider that perpetual war? Developing such capabilities is not, inherently, war, nor is probing for weaknesses. But if the US considers Russia an adversary (a small economy, large land and population next to various allies) I can see how someone could consider it reasonable to make it harder for its government to function. I disagree, and do consider it warfare.