War: What IS it good for? -

  • There is a bug with the post editor. Images pasted from other websites from your clipboard will automatically use the [img] tag instead of uploading a copy as an attachment. Please manually save the image, upload it to the site, and then insert it as a thumbnail instead if you experience this.

    The [img] should essentially never be used outside of chat. It does not save disk space on the server because we use an image proxy to protect your IP address and to ensure people do not rely on bad third party services like Imgur for image hosting. I hope to have a fix from XF soon. I REALLY WISH THEY'D HOTFIX THIS SO I CAN REMOVE THIS NOTICE.


Give me asspats, I stole an exceptional individual's garbage
Christorical Figure
Black Sonichu said:
The part of the war I find most peculiar is the fact that US forces won most engagements with the NVA and Vietcong, and still lost in the end. While the losses on the NVA/VC side were many times greater than the US/South Vietnamese side, the communist forces never quit. It was a war of attrition, and apparently the communists were willing to throw far more troops away than the American and South Vietnamese forces were.
Tactical triumph does not guarantee final victory, especially when the geopolitics of the region are not favorable to you. Look at British campaigns during the American Revolutionary War.
Black Sonichu said:
Kim Jong Un has been looking at China as a model to emulate for North Korea's economy. Personally, I think it's a miracle that country hasn't collapsed. Or perhaps it's because Kim's only ally, China, is helping out a lot to maintain a buffer zone with the democratic South.
Kim Jong Un and his hardline generals aren't looking for more than modest economic reform, because they know that China-modeled economic reforms in North Korea would induce internal instability. Jang-Sung-Taek was the main proponent of economic reform, and believed that it was a necessary risk to save North Korea. And he ended up getting killed for that belief, and his attendant power-play. And yes, part of the reason North Korea hasn't collapsed is because China is propping them up, politically, and in other ways.

Black Sonichu said:
Another thing to look out for is that North Korea has nuclear weapons now, but it is unknown what the strength of their warheads may be, or the capability of their missiles to accurately deliver such a payload at an effective range. They have all the conventional artillery they need to take the southern half of the peninsula, and North Korean forces are believed to own some stockpiles of chemical and biological agents as well.
North Korea cannot reunify the Korean peninsula by using force. It's tactically impossible for them to do so. What they could do is devastate South Korea. Of course, then we would retaliate against the North in kind.
Black Sonichu said:
Of course, the irony of North Korea being propped up by China is in the fact that it's in China's best interest to keep the peninsula divided, so no matter how much Pyongyang wishes it, China will not allow the South to be invaded and annexed.
China doesn't want United States troops, or United States allied troops, on its border. North Korea is just a buffer zone from the Chinese point of view. The Pyongyang regime isn't trying to invade and conquer the South right now. It's just trying to survive.
Black Sonichu said:
While a second war in Korea is a possibility, it is also somewhat unlikely at this given time. Actually, come to think of it, the Korean War never officially ended, there's simply a cease fire at the moment.
The geopolitical situation in Korea is a time bomb. Conflict is inevitable, and it may come sooner than you think.
When you're standing there, looking out across the DMZ into the dark forests and misty valleys of North Korea, it's as if you're a world away from the bright lights and busy streets of Seoul. Something big is coming, and nobody knows exactly when.


Give me asspats, I stole an exceptional individual's garbage
Christorical Figure
If we can use an H-bomb--and as you said it's no checker game; it's real, it's war and nobody is fooling around--isn't it sort of ridiculous to go crawling around in the weeds, throwing knives and maybe getting yourself killed . . . and even losing the war . . . when you've got a real weapon you can use to win? What's the point in a whole lot of men risking their lives with obsolete weapons when one professor type can do so much more just by pushing a button?'
Zim didn't answer at once, which wasn't like him at all. Then he said softly, 'Are you happy in the Infantry, Hendrick? You can resign, you know.'
Hendrick muttered something; Zim said, 'Speak up!'
'I'm not itching to resign, sir. I'm going to sweat out my term.'
'I see. Well, the question you asked is one that a sergeant isn't really qualified to answer . . . and one that you shouldn't ask me. You're supposed to know the answer before you join up. Or you should. Did your school have a course in History and Moral Philosophy?'
'What? Sure--yes, sir.'
'Then you've heard the answer. But I'll give you my own--unofficial--views on it. If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cuts its head off?'
'Why . . . no, sir!'

"Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy with an H-Bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how--or why--he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people--"older and wiser heads," as they say--supply the control. Which is as it should be. That's the best answer I can give you. If it doesn't satisfy you, I'll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can't convince you--then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers


In the tenth month, the dreadful horrors arise
True & Honest Fan
What was the most justified war? Which was the least justified war?

There seems to be constant wars in some areas of the world, over resources, land, ideology. Most conflict between large nations seems to be fought out over proxy conflicts. The US aids a coup in Ukraine, Russia stages a supposed revolt in crimea. That sort of thing.

But there are also still just open wars. Of course the military industrial complex needs a reason to constantly ramp up production and if there are no rockets being fired, how can you sell them? You can do anything with bayonets except sit on them.

Any type of conflict is going to be messier than any good & evil narrative that may be accompanied with the propaganda, or a clear instigator on one side or the other.

Which wars have you studied? Are dear in your heart? Which were justified and which less so?