5 ms·

> War happens when one party thinks that the other party is weak enough to be attacked. Citation needed. Besides what does it even mean? Is weakness on one par

> War happens when one party thinks that the other party is weak enough to be attacked. Citation needed. Besides what does it even mean? Is weakness on one part a necessary or a sufficient condition for war, or is it meant in some other sense?

PrimalDual 3y ago
Here is an example of how people in the military making policy decisions think about it[1]. This guy in particular worked as national security advisor. My take is that it comes from nations avoiding war if they don’t think they can win anything from it. Weakness simply means you cannot stop the enemy from accomplishing their goals. Weakness is definitely not sufficient or necessary. Instead it is the perception of weakness from one party (accurate or not) that may incite violence. A better one liner would be “weakness is provocative”. [1]https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/17/us-miliitary-strategy-geopolitics-restraint-russia-china-ukraine-war/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/17/us-miliitary-strategy-g...
ilammy 3y ago
> Besides what does it even mean? That one side believes they can win. It’s a bit tautological. In order for you to prevail you must be stronger than your opponent in one or more critical areas. If you think you can win then you believe to know the weakness of your opponent. Depending on your morals the causation here could easily be turned: once you see what you believe to be a weak opponent, you go for the win.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Also, what is winning? To the Kremlin, staying in power in Russia is more important than number of square feet gained in the Ukraine. If continuing the war means staying in power at home, then the war continues.
23B1 3y ago
the citation is history
- geysersam 3y ago
  Unless you define strength as the cumulative effect of all factors preventing a country from finding itself in a war, you are wrong.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    you asked for a citation and I provided one
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      “Science” is not a citation. You need to actually spell out what in history supports your view point.
      - 23B1 3y ago
        Do you own work bud
photonthug 3y ago
I thought meaning was pretty clear in OP but I can't understand what you're saying/asking. Perceived weakness entices aggressors of course, unless you think it's normal that states are picking fights they know they will lose. Rather than asking for citations of simple logical conclusions it might be better to try and throw out your idea of decent counterexamples. Like, you might say Hamas isn't fighting because of perceived weakness, and in a sense they know they will lose. You can explain this in the perceived weakness framework only if the real war is a PR war where you hope to get allies for the shooting war.
- geysersam 3y ago
  > Perceived weakness entices aggressors of course It's true of course. We don't even need to look at the world to know that it's true. There's a word for that, tautology. It's just not an effective description of the real world. It's a very useful idea for selling guns though.
  - photonthug 3y ago
    No idea what you're getting at. If you admit this is pure logic and we don't need to look at the world then why ask for citations? If you have no faith in logic and also don't want to look at the world, what could anyone cite anyway? Honestly not sure how you think anyone can know anything
- fmajid 3y ago
  At some level Japan knew it would lose to the US in WW2, but the alternative of effectively surrender was too unpalatable to consider. Here's the analysis by a US Army historian: https://web.archive.org/web/20170830024001/http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/PUB905.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170830024001/http://ssi.armywa...
  - photonthug 3y ago
    I've heard that Yamamoto believed Japan could not win, but felt duty bound to serve anyway after it became clear the fight would happen with or without him. He seemed to also understand Pearl harbor would incite and not crush fighting spirit. First I've heard that leadership in general could have believed they would lose the fight they were starting. But politicians are weird, and I guess many of them would rather lose (elections, wars) rather than lose control (of parties, or countries). This has it's own kind of perverted logic but political thinking isn't military thinking

PrimalDual 3y ago

Here is an example of how people in the military making policy decisions think about it[1]. This guy in particular worked as national security advisor. My take is that it comes from nations avoiding war if they don’t think they can win anything from it. Weakness simply means you cannot stop the enemy from accomplishing their goals. Weakness is definitely not sufficient or necessary. Instead it is the perception of weakness from one party (accurate or not) that may incite violence. A better one liner would be “weakness is provocative”. [1]https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/17/us-miliitary-strategy-geopolitics-restraint-russia-china-ukraine-war/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/17/us-miliitary-strategy-g...

ilammy 3y ago

> Besides what does it even mean? That one side believes they can win. It’s a bit tautological. In order for you to prevail you must be stronger than your opponent in one or more critical areas. If you think you can win then you believe to know the weakness of your opponent. Depending on your morals the causation here could easily be turned: once you see what you believe to be a weak opponent, you go for the win.

actionfromafar 3y ago
Also, what is winning? To the Kremlin, staying in power in Russia is more important than number of square feet gained in the Ukraine. If continuing the war means staying in power at home, then the war continues.

23B1 3y ago

the citation is history

geysersam 3y ago
Unless you define strength as the cumulative effect of all factors preventing a country from finding itself in a war, you are wrong.
- 23B1 3y ago
  you asked for a citation and I provided one
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    “Science” is not a citation. You need to actually spell out what in history supports your view point.
    - 23B1 3y ago
      Do you own work bud

photonthug 3y ago

I thought meaning was pretty clear in OP but I can't understand what you're saying/asking. Perceived weakness entices aggressors of course, unless you think it's normal that states are picking fights they know they will lose. Rather than asking for citations of simple logical conclusions it might be better to try and throw out your idea of decent counterexamples. Like, you might say Hamas isn't fighting because of perceived weakness, and in a sense they know they will lose. You can explain this in the perceived weakness framework only if the real war is a PR war where you hope to get allies for the shooting war.

geysersam 3y ago
> Perceived weakness entices aggressors of course It's true of course. We don't even need to look at the world to know that it's true. There's a word for that, tautology. It's just not an effective description of the real world. It's a very useful idea for selling guns though.
- photonthug 3y ago
  No idea what you're getting at. If you admit this is pure logic and we don't need to look at the world then why ask for citations? If you have no faith in logic and also don't want to look at the world, what could anyone cite anyway? Honestly not sure how you think anyone can know anything
fmajid 3y ago
At some level Japan knew it would lose to the US in WW2, but the alternative of effectively surrender was too unpalatable to consider. Here's the analysis by a US Army historian: https://web.archive.org/web/20170830024001/http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/PUB905.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170830024001/http://ssi.armywa...
- photonthug 3y ago
  I've heard that Yamamoto believed Japan could not win, but felt duty bound to serve anyway after it became clear the fight would happen with or without him. He seemed to also understand Pearl harbor would incite and not crush fighting spirit. First I've heard that leadership in general could have believed they would lose the fight they were starting. But politicians are weird, and I guess many of them would rather lose (elections, wars) rather than lose control (of parties, or countries). This has it's own kind of perverted logic but political thinking isn't military thinking