3 ms·
It seems to me that making wars longer and less decisive helps weaker parties. Would the Vietnamese have preferred a shorter and more decisive war against the U
by wat10000 1y ago
It seems to me that making wars longer and less decisive helps weaker parties. Would the Vietnamese have preferred a shorter and more decisive war against the US, or Ukraine against Russia?
Shorter and more decisive wars also encourages war. If there's the possibility of winning quickly and thoroughly then you might choose to start a war. If you know it's going to be a bloody and tedious affair no matter what, you probably won't.
The modern world is remarkably peaceful compared to centuries past. We're at the point where having an active war of conquest in Europe is utterly shocking. Imagine going back to 1925 and saying "I can't believe a European country is taking parts of another European country by force, it's nuts, nobody does that!" They used to call that "Tuesday." The same is true in much of the rest of the world. And why? A lot of it is because it just doesn't work very well anymore. Russia has had very little return for 3+ years of invading Ukraine. Israel has spent two years invading Gaza so far and annexing the territory looks unlikely regardless of the military outcome. War used to be something a country might plausibly benefit from starting in some situations. It's really hard to make that case now, and that's how I want it to be.
- potato3732842 1y agoPeople really don't have an appreciation for how destructive dragging a "classical" army across the countryside actually is since it hasn't happened much since the advent of the railroad. There's a reason it was considered newsworthy and bold when Sherman did it and he was incredibly restrained because he was operating in his own country.