Overheard on Albie Speer's Marine Officer Selection Course

[kentonio]

A couple of points here. You talk again about how one side or the other would asses the likelyhood of certain responses that calculate into their decision making on going to war. The point is...what if a total war response was assured under any circumstance? Would that have acted as a deterent?

I think the problem here though is that no-one could really guarantee that response. MAD worked because it was so cut and dried, any nuclear launch would destroy the target country, so they would have no reason not to retaliate. Can we really believe that a country would seriously escalate a small conflict to total war if they knew it would trigger a wider conflict and inevitable nuclear exchange? At some point someone would have to actively give the orders to do that, and if the initial conflict was small it's just not believable that a leader would sacrifice the whole of humanity over it. Where's the gain for anyone in that scenario?

If you could have some external guarantee that any war = total war then sure you'd probably cut down the frequency of war, but with humans being humans it just doesn't feel like something we could actually do.

[PLATO]

I think the problem here though is that no-one could really guarantee that response. MAD worked because it was so cut and dried, any nuclear launch would destroy the target country, so they would have no reason not to retaliate. Can we really believe that a country would seriously escalate a small conflict to total war if they knew it would trigger a wider conflict and inevitable nuclear exchange? At some point someone would have to actively give the orders to do that, and if the initial conflict was small it's just not believable that a leader would sacrifice the whole of humanity over it. Where's the gain for anyone in that scenario?

If you could have some external guarantee that any war = total war then sure you'd probably cut down the frequency of war, but with humans being humans it just doesn't feel like something we could actually do.

I totally agree that in practice and practicality you are totally correct. While it is an interesting theory to debate, it would never enter into any version of reality that I can see. I debate the point simply as an exercise to determine if escalation may be an answer to ending conflict. Clearly there is a downside to any escalation of a conflict, but the real question is "Is there a benefit?", and if so, is it worth the cost?

[kentonio]

It's an interesting idea. It seems to hit problems when you get into a strong country attacking a weak country though. Does the aggressor also have an obligation to carrying out total war if they could just win using limited means?

[PLATO]

It's an interesting idea. It seems to hit problems when you get into a strong country attacking a weak country though. Does the aggressor also have an obligation to carrying out total war if they could just win using limited means?

That opens may questions actually. The first is "What is winning?" Iraq comes to mind as a good example of what you are talking about. Did the U.S. "win"? A few weeks of full scale military action followed by years of low level conflict. Was it worth the cost? Probably not all things considered. Looking at the alternative of total war to the point that the general population was devastated and had no fight left in them is a horrible picture. Following the theory though...would it have prevented terrorist from being able to set up in the country? Would the country be in better shape today with the extra years to recover from the conflict? Would any of this been worth the extra cost in human life? The last question there leads me to believe that the answer is probably "no."

The real question under the theoretical argument though..."Would there have even been a war if Saddam had believed the U.S. would commit to total war?". Or perhaps, even more intriguing..."Would the U.S. have declared war at all if the rest of the world had guaranteed a total war response to stop them?"

As with many theoretical questions, there may not be any answers that we can provide, but I think there is merit in asking the questions.

[kentonio]

That's interesting actually, would we see far less of what we'd now consider 'positive' interventions? Hmm..

[PLATO]

It seems to me that the more we "sanitize" conflict and the more "rules of engagement" we develop, the more conflicts we get into. These developments have turned conflict into a "made for TV" experience. Total war would probably have far fewer supporters imo.

[kentonio]

I've actually wondered many times if the problem isn't so much the sanitization of actual conflicts rather than our willingness to intervene in the first place. It starts getting into pretty murky moral territory, but I can't help but wonder whether in some regions where long standing conflicts have been brewing for decades or centuries if it wouldn't be better in the long run to just stand back and let the countries in question just resolve it themselves through war. Of course then you see genocides and war crimes happening and the idea of just letting them get on with it suddenly becomes nearly unthinkable. By jumping in and holding the antagonists apart however the conflicts just drag on. Tricky stuff.

I must admit though, Northern Ireland has given me some hope that we're on the right track. I was firmly in the opposition camp to the Good Friday agreement, yet its actually been working.

[MRT144]

I did. I just don't see how these two examples are at all similar to one another. The Falklands was an incident that escalated whereas the Korean war was actually de-escalated and deliberately kept a limited war.

Thats because you're borderline retarded.

[Elok]

Returning to the OP, what are the odds that Al will get into an argument with his drill sergeant over whether or not Arabs are "white"?

[BlackCat]

What are the odds that Al will get into an argument with his drill sergeant over something not worth arguing about ?

[MichaeltheGreat]

The odds on either of those scenarios is none. DIs have a certain charm about them that very effectively disinvites any dissent or discussion.

[BlackCat]

You forget the Al factor

[dannubis]

Well, last time his legs were fractured...

[MichaeltheGreat]

I totally agree that in practice and practicality you are totally correct. While it is an interesting theory to debate, it would never enter into any version of reality that I can see. I debate the point simply as an exercise to determine if escalation may be an answer to ending conflict. Clearly there is a downside to any escalation of a conflict, but the real question is "Is there a benefit?", and if so, is it worth the cost?

Whether there's any benefit is a function of a lot of factors external to the direct conflict. I think the days of total war are essentially over. No regime crazy enough is capable enough to wage a significant total war against an external enemy, and to be capable enough in the modern world requires a certain degree of political and economic interaction with the rest of the world. The alleged benefit of total war in that situation can't outweigh the political risk.

[MichaeltheGreat]

You forget the Al factor

It's one thing on the internet, it's another in person.