How to best win a war

[Roman]

Is it better to kill all the civilians or destroy all their stuff? Let's leave nukes out, since they do both.


On your mark, get set, DISCUSS!!!!!!!

[iceaura]

Why are you fighting this war ?

[Roman]

Doesn't matter why, you just need to win.

[iceaura]

Unless you know why you are fighting, you don't know what "win" means.

Lince you are talking about killing civilians and breaking their stuff, let's assume you are attacking some country and win if you conquer it and keep it.

Then the pros all say the same thing: kill anyone who raises a hand against you and no one else, be careful not to wreck anyone's stuff, or steal from anyone you have not killed along with his heirs for just cause. "A man will easier forgive the loss of his father than the loss of his patrimony" (Machiavelli).

In other words, don't kill civilians without cause, don't wreck anything you don't have to.

You want to impose fear, but to avoid at all costs being despised. Hence: ruthless justice.

If, on the other hand, you do for some reason have to destroy or want to steal a lot of stuff, then be sure and kill the owners and any heirs. Stupid to make an enemy and then let them live.

[Roman]

Win means to remove the opposing nation's ability to oppose you- whether this is through occupying and controlling them, or scaring them into not attacking and paying tribute, or breaking their spirit into signing a peace accord.

[cosmictraveler]

Two words..."Neutron Bomb".

[skaught]

Both. To utterly annihilate your enemy, you should both kill him, and erase all evidence of him ever existing.

[Challenger78]

Two words..."Neutron Bomb".

Isn't that a nuke ?

[Oli]

Isn't that a nuke ?

What?
No. No. And emphatically no...

[cosmictraveler]

Isn't that a nuke ?



A neutron bomb is a type of tactical nuclear weapon developed specifically to release a relatively large portion of its energy as energetic neutron radiation. This contrasts with standard thermo-nuclear weapons, which are designed to capture the intense neutron radiation inside the bomb to increase its overall yield. The technical term for the neutron bomb is "enhanced radiation weapon" (ERW). In terms of explosive yield, ERWs are about one-tenth that of a conventional fission type weapon.[1] While significantly less in explosive power, they are still much more potent than any conventional bomb, so it should be understood damage to material is reduced and not eliminated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

[pjdude1219]

Isn't that a nuke ?

the nuetron bomb is a very republican weapon it kills people but leaves everything else intact

[Challenger78]

It's a type of tactical nuclear weapon. Ok.

Personally, Dispatch or depopulate the citizens. People are a lot harder to kill then equipment, and they fight back. (this is of course, survival here, not some resource war).

[Oli]

It's a type of tactical nuclear weapon. Ok.
Only in that it uses similar components.
Enhanced Radiation Reduced Blast.
Not (so) much of an explosion.

[lepustimidus]

Kill all the civilians, then move settlers from your own country in to colonise the land.

[Enmos]

You can also just wish them away.. then colonize the country with the infrastructure intact.

[Enmos]

Is it better to kill all the civilians or destroy all their stuff? Let's leave nukes out, since they do both.


On your mark, get set, DISCUSS!!!!!!!

If you destroy all their stuff first they won't be able to put up a fight.
So, first destroy their stuff; then kill the civilians.

[Oli]

But if you kill the people and leave their stuff then it becomes YOUR stuff.

[Enmos]

But if you kill the people and leave their stuff then it becomes YOUR stuff.

Yea, but they can use that stuff to put up a fight.

[Oli]

Dead people can't fight.
Duh! :)

[Enmos]

Why can't we just use nukes ?

[Oli]

Because it messes up what's left when we want to use it.

[Enmos]

You can use Hydrogen bombs..

[lepustimidus]

That's no fun!

I'd much rather send my ravaging army in with machetes or sledgehammers.

[Oli]

You can use Hydrogen bombs..

They don't leave anything behind...

[Enmos]

Why do we attack again ?

[Enmos]

They don't leave anything behind...

Heh.. :D
Not so much radiation though..

[Oli]

Because they deserve to be attacked.
We are us, therefore the good guys.
And if we're the good guys and they aren't us then obviously they must be the bad guys.
Simple.

[Enmos]

Because they deserve to be attacked.
We are us, therefore the good guys.
And if we're the good guys and they aren't us then obviously they must be the bad guys.
Simple.

Hmm ok, good enough for me.

[Joaquin]

Nerve gas is the way forward.

[nietzschefan]

Two words..."Neutron Bomb".

*Snap* beat me to it.

Machiavelli was a manipulator not a conqueror. Passive vs aggressive.

[Enmos]

Human specific virus.

[nietzschefan]

Human specific virus.

That kind of thing can sometimes bite you in the ass.

[lepustimidus]

But there's nothing more satisfying than looking your opponent in the eyes as you supersledge them, Fallout style!

[Enmos]

That kind of thing can sometimes bite you in the ass.

That's the idea.. ;)

[nietzschefan]

But there's nothing more satisfying than looking your opponent in the eyes as you supersledge them, Fallout style!

heh, was thinking of Fallout while reading this thread and seeing all the WHY? WHY responses.

The Answer is exceedingly simple. Whomever does this - the answer is simple. Because they can.

From the Fallout preamble:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mcJAI6oRYY

[Echo3Romeo]

Only in that it uses similar components.
Enhanced Radiation Reduced Blast.
Not (so) much of an explosion.
An ERW is an incomplete nuclear weapon. You get all the yield of the first two stages: the fission primary (0.1-2KT or so) and the fusion secondary (tens to hundreds of KT). The only difference is that you don't get the U-238 tamper's neutron confinement effect, which almost all modern 2.5 staged weapons use for greater efficiency of the fusion secondary, as well as a final addition to aggregate yield when the tamper itself undergoes fast fission. The blast and thermal pulse of an ERW would be tremendous; far greater than any conventional weapon, and more than enough to obliterate the better parts of a soft target like a city.

The original idea was to use them against enemy tanks, which, being mostly airtight and heavily armored, are hardened against the blast and thermal effects of a nuclear weapon. It was thought that by removing the tamper, the neutron flux of the lithium deuteride in the fusion stage would propagate outward through the atmosphere unabated, its neutrally charged and very heavy particles being able to penetrate tanks armor, killing crews. That's all it ever was: an antiarmor weapon. I'm not sure where the idea arose that an ERW is some kind of magical device that kills people but leaves infrastructure intact, but that notion is completely false by inspection. The neutron flux would travel a relatively short distance; well inside the radius where the blast and thermal effects would be lethal to unprotected personnel and buildings. To the casual observer, an ERW's effects would be virtually identical to those of a complete weapon of a lower design yield, with the minor difference that you'd find more dead tank crews amongst the rest of the aftermath. Also, you'd have a greater incidence of neutron-induced radioactivity in heavier metals and soils from the neutron bombardment, which would vary quite a bit depending on what kind of terrain you were fighting over.

From the Fallout preamble:
<3 Fallout <3

[iceaura]

Machiavelli was a manipulator not a conqueror. Passive vs aggressive. Au contraire. He drew examples and lessons from all manner of conquests, and devotes chapters of "The Prince" (for example) to the best manner of acquiring and governing new territory etc.

Advice which the US government rejected wholesale, apparently. Or perhaps never considered - a liberal arts education being one of those dubious things realistic people regard with mild contempt.

If you don't want Machiavelli, Genghis Khan operated on similar principles. His situation was complicated by the fact that he did want to take lots of stuff, but simplified by the fact that most of that stuff belonged to a few rich people.

[invert_nexus]

A couple of possibilities:

1. The Ghost Dance.

2. Infect your women with the AIDS and let them loose as whores on the enemy ranks.

[invert_nexus]

Neither. Why kill the civilians? Manpower are also resources.

The Spaniards didn't kill all the natives in their colonies. Look who won in the end.

Your neck of the woods also did not suffer genocide at the hands of the colonists. The natives eventually won back their lands.

The US devastated the native population and whitey's still got the property, although the natives that the Spanish left behind are trying to take it back and will most likely succeed in the end.

[Roman]

I think destroying infrastructure is easier, and ultimately, more efficient. Targeting people is hard- they move around, shoot back. Buildings don't run.

[inzomnia]

I think destroying infrastructure is easier, and ultimately, more efficient. Targeting people is hard- they move around, shoot back. Buildings don't run.


Not necessarily so. That and the OP are case specific, pretty much depends on
many things, e.g. the size of your power compared to your enemy. If you are
a much smaller country compared to your enemy's country, targeting infrastructure
might just make you run out of ammunition before your mission is accomplished.
You will be attacked back and defeated.

[kmguru]

How about an airborne biological weapon that only targets the males and kills them quickly. You still will have 50% population intact for slaves....:D