The best way to win a war.

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Daecon, Jul 26, 2015.

  1. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Premise 1a: To "win" a war means to be victorious.
    Premise 2a: Victory can be quantified by the level of peace that is achieved.
    Conclusion 1: Winning a war means bringing peace.

    Premise 1b: Things that delay peace ultimately delay the victory condition of war.
    Premise 2b: Fighting delays peace.
    Conclusion 2: Fighting delays victory in war.

    Conclusion 1 (premise 1c): Winning a war means bringing peace.
    Conclusion 2 (premise 2c): Fighting delays victory in war.
    Conclusion 3: The most efficient way to win a war is to forego the fighting and skip directly to peace.
    RainbowSingularity and sculptor like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Never get into a war and you'll never lose. It is easy to start a war but very difficult to prevent them. Both sides need to talk if there's any chance of preventing a war for without dialogue there's no hope.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    What if the other side doesn't want to?

    Based on your criteria, it sounds like the most efficient way to fight a war is with nuclear weapons. It provides the most rapid resolution and results in total peace.
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Uh, isn't "victory" defined by how well your initial aims are achieved?
    Nobody starts a war to gain peace they do it because they have a particular objective: access to resources, remove a national threat etc etc.
  9. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    I agree with Dywyddyr. (!)

    In real life wars, objectives are rarely confined to maintaining peace. Combatants are trying to extend their favored philosophies or their governmental control over additional territory and populations, they are trying to seize natural resources or geographical advantage, they are trying to preemptively degrade a dangerous neighbor's military or industrial capability, they are trying to protect endangered populations inside other states, they are trying to destroy nations and peoples that they consider anathema, they are trying to remove tyrants and protect human rights, and often they are just trying to retain the ability to govern themselves and conduct their affairs as they choose.
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2015
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I think many people would disagree. First of all because usually it makes no sense to talk about levels of peace - usually there simply is peace, or not.

    If there is war, the war may be on a very different level, of course. But usually one names it "victory" only if the war is finished, thus, it makes no longer sense to talk about levels of peace, but there simply is peace.

    Then, many people think there are some things more important than peace. They prefer war to some variants of peace - say, to peaceful existence in prison or as a slave.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  11. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Russia invaded the Ukraine and shot down a civilian airliner with missiles it brought into the war as well as killing thousands of people . Nothing has been done to get Russia out of the Ukraine except some sanctions that did nothing to hurt Russia. We do not see much about this war in the media as if it did not even exist but it does. Russia doesn't want peace with the Ukraine it wants the Ukraine's land and it is slowly taking it over. Russia threatens other countries by sending its air power near their air space and brings divisions of troops to the borders of other countries intimidating them.

    If America were to invade Russia what do you think would happen , do you really think Russia would just put sanctions on America? The Ukraine did nothing to provoke Russia so why did Russia attack the Ukraine? Russia was not worried about any other country attacking it yet Russia started the war and is still fighting. Arms dealers must be really smiling allot these days with all of the conflicts going on and billions of dollars being made from the deaths of thousands while they sleep comfortably in their mansions away from it all.
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Propaganda lies. Russia protected, after a coup in Kiew supported by the US, secessionist movements in the East of the Ukraine which did not want to accept the new Nazi junta. The Crimea secessed and after this joined Russia. The secessionists in Donezk and Lugansk were supported first morally, later, after the Nazis started a war bombing civilians, also with weapons.

    The claim that Russia shot down MH17 is complete nonsense, there is no evidence at all for this.

    More problematic is that what you see in the media are antirussian propaganda lies.

    Russia has tried hard to reach peace in Minsk negotiations. They have forced some of the rebell leaders unwilling to make peace negotiations, like Strelkow, to go away, using even the blackmail to stop any support.
    It is Russian territory where these forces are located.

    America is far away, but for some unknown reasons there are a lot of American soldiers now near Russian borders.

    It would strike back, if necessary even nuclear.
    It didn't. It supported Novorussian fighters with appropriate defense weapons in a civil war where the Nazi forces were bombing civilians. This is morally justified by the principle known as "Responsibility to Protect".
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Give a "libertarian" time and a pole, and they will run up some flag or another. Now we have an authoritarian rightwing State, the type specimen of a crony capitalist oligarchy, annexing territory by sending in tanks and soldiers, and the libertarian is describing this as "morally justified".

    What happened to "peaceful separation", whereby those who do not want to live under the Kiev government leave - go to a country they prefer, where they have freedom, such as Russia?
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Yes. I'm not a dogmatic libertarian who rejects everything what a state is doing simply because it is done by a state. So, if a state gives weapons to people who try to defend themself against a Nazi aggression, why should I object?

    I evaluate the behaviour of states using the same criteria as for the behaviour of ordinary people. Thus, I do not accept its monopoly rights. The right of self-defense and defense of others against aggression is not a state monopoly.

    Why should 80% emigrate and 20% get everything on Crimea? Only because the Ukrainian Chrushtschow, being in power in the Soviet Union, has assigned Crimea to the Ukraine without caring at all what the Crimean people think about this?

    The separation of Crimea was, by the way, peaceful. Only two people have been killed - by an Ukrainian sniper - who has killed one Ukrainian soldier and one Crimean militia man. Russian speznas has only protected some critical buildings (like the parlament) and Ukrainian barracks. This was made in cooperation with the legal power of the Crimea, because of the danger that some Ukrainian troops may support the putschists.

    By the way, the term "crony capitalist" is much more appropriate for characterizing the Ukrainian state you support than the Russian state.

    As a libertarian, I don't like above states. But I'm not a fanatic who is unable to see differences between different states. And I see a much more criminal state in the Ukraine.
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Here is a big part of the problem in Ukraine.
    Many ethnic Russians and Russian speakers inUkraine never thought of themselves as Ukrainians.........They just got stuck there when the borders were rearranged.
    So, if they were there for several generations and still consider themselves Russian, should they not be offered a referendum as to which country they along with their ancestral homes/lands would rather be in?
    Schmelzer likes this.
  16. river

    Is by eliminating egos and past traditions. Vengence.
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    War on crime.
    War on poverty.
    War on drugs.

    There seems to be a pattern here?
    (aside from 0 for 3)
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2015
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  18. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Hmm, I guess you're right, there.

    Although, while that's pretty much always the cause of a war, whether or not that objective is ultimately achieved, if fighting still occurs after that point, can you truly say the war is won?

    Or am I being naive or idealistic?
  19. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    I wouldn't have said slaves or unjust prisoners are ever an aspect of peaceful coexistence.
  20. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    The Crimea region is a part of the Ukraine according to every map I've seen.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please show me where you find Crimea as a part of Russia on any map drawn up in the past 50 years. You can't so your argument is moot.

    Here is the chronology of what happened to the civilian aircraft that a Russian Buk missile shot down, combining information from multiple sources (all times local, sources in parenthesis):
    • 01:05 – Buk enters Ukraine on flatbed truck. (AP – Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda)
    • 09:00 – Buk reaches Donetsk, disembarks flatbed truck. (AP – Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda). A picture of the Buk was taken which places it in Donetsk.
    • Approximately lunchtime – Buk reaches Karapetyan Street in Snezhnoye. (AP – eyewitnesses)
    • 13:05 – AP journalists see Buk moving through town in convoy with two civilian cars. This fact was reported by AP before MH17 was shot down. (AP)
    • 16:18 – Intercepted audio released by Ukrainian SBU has separatist commander Igor Bezler speaking told by rebel spotter that a “birdie” flying “really high” was moving into range. (The Interpreter)
    • 16:20 – Locals in Snezhnoye report one or two loud blasts. One minute to a minute and a half a second blast is heard. MH17 falls to the sky after this. (AP)
    • 16:33- Intercepted phone call has separatists realizing that they shot down a civilian airliner not a military transport plane (The Interpreter).
    • 16:40 – An intercepted phone call has Bezler speaking to Vasily Geranin, who is described as a colonel in the Russian Federation’s GRU, indicating that an aircraft has been shot down. (There is a discrepancy with the time stamp since only one aircraft was shot down in this area, and Bezler says it was “30 minutes ago” but it was really only 20 minutes earlier – The Interpreter).
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    How about if the State rolls tanks and soldiers into some land it does not currently possess, occupying it against the will of a large fraction of its residents? Still OK?

    Peaceful separation, remember? From this: "I evaluate the behaviour of states using the same criteria as for the behaviour of ordinary people"

    More criminal than Putin's Russia? That would be difficult to accomplish in modern Europe. How'd you get that idea?

    Probably from this:
    The term is quite accurate for describing Putin's Russia. Whether it applies to Ukraine or not I don't know, having little interest in the country - no surprise if it did. But I find accurate terms "appropriate", in general.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Forgot, there, to get to the point: a good way to win a war is to arrange things so that a couple of your enemies (or even allies) fight it to the death, and then broker the peace. Iran won the Iraq War that way, China almost won the Vietnam War that way, it's possible that bin Laden may have won the Afghanistan war that way; it takes patience and forbearance, is the problem.
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No problem,

    Whatever, this proves that you have access only to one-sided information. I have seen maps with Crimea part of Ukraine as well as maps where it is part of Russia, because I use different sources of information, prefer to hear all sides. This makes it much easier to distinguish propaganda from truth - even if there is propaganda on above sides.

    Have I made an argument claiming that no maps present Crimea as part of the Ukraine? LOL.

    Not of what happened, but of how Western propaganda likes to present it. Phantasies deleted.

    Not ok.

    But if in one country happens a putsch against the government, which was legitimate by all Western democratic standards, and the powers supporting the previous legitimate government, including the former president and the similarly legitimate goverment of some part of it, supported by about 80% of the citizens of this part, asks another government for help, I think it is ok.
    Yep. Some guys who, by all known criteria, are legitimate owners of some property, are afraid that some illegitime robbers will rob them and ask for help. This help is given. Normal and unproblematic behaviour of ordinary people.
    Its easy.
    The point is that the description was very accurate for Russia before Putin, at Jeltsin time. This time is named, in Russia, Semibankirshtshina, the rule of the seven bankers. Then came Putin, and he has made an ultimatum, or a proposal, to these bankers: Or you go out of politics, completely - in this case, I will forget about the crimes which have made you rich - or there will be a fight. Some of the bankers have accepted this deal, others not, namely Beresowski and Chodorkowski. So, there was some fight, and Beresowski and Chodorkowski have lost this fight. The other bankers remain in Russia, and remain rich, but are out of politics (or at least out of anti-Putin politics). So, the power center of Russia is the state, not the oligarchs.

    In the Ukraine, there was the same situation, but it has not changed. There was no Ukrainian Putin, thus, the same oligarchat as in former Russia. The actual president of the Ukraine, Poroschenko, is an oligarch, and his possessions have increased nicely during the last year. Of course, you may not care about this, given that you have a nice simple way to distinguish good from bad - the good governments are those supported by the US, all others are bad.

    But I think this difference is important enough, thus, I do not use "oligarchat" to describe Russia. This does not mean that I favour the Russian, state-centered model in comparison with an oligarchat. In theory, it is not very clear what is less evil. The empirical evidence from Russia/Ukraine actually favours the state-centered model as less evil, but this is a very small statistical sample, not enough to make the general conclusion that oligarchat is more evil than a state-centered power.

Share This Page