Overheard on Albie Speer's Marine Officer Selection Course

[PLATO]

The nature of winning a war is to make the other side so devastated that they will do anything (i.e. total surrender) to make it stop. Rules of engagement exist only to make war a "politically acceptable" alternative. If all wars were fought as "total war" then they would be of far less duration and have far less problems at the end. Of course the human toll would far far exceed what would be acceptable in this circumstance...however, that might make war a thing to be avoided (which it should be).

[MRT144]

The nature of winning a war is to make the other side so devastated that they will do anything (i.e. total surrender) to make it stop. Rules of engagement exist only to make war a "politically acceptable" alternative. If all wars were fought as "total war" then they would be of far less duration and have far less problems at the end. Of course the human toll would far far exceed what would be acceptable in this circumstance...however, that might make war a thing to be avoided (which it should be).

Not if you're the aggressor and winner.

[DaShi]

Anyway, back on topic:

"Welcome to the marines, you handsome looking, gorgeous piece of sculpted man m....huh...into the showers! All of you! Especially you."

[regexcellent]

At least now if he makes it through Alby won't be discharged for DADT. His constant women trouble advice seeking would count as telling. Oh and taking it in the ass being tough.

[kentonio]

I'm not saying shoot anything that moves, I'm saying that our rules of engagement don't leave enough to discretion and that we're being excessively legalistic. We have all these rules about when we can shoot people. In Fallujah, we'd let insurgents get away just because we couldn't 100% positively establish that the people walking out of the house weren't the ones shooting guns at our troops from inside the same house, since they'd left the weapons inside. It's insane. Soldiers aren't ****ing cops, and we shouldn't be fighting with both our hands tied behind our backs.

How about because murdering innocent people is a complete breach of the Geneva Convention, not to mention a ****ing war crime? You start loosening ROE and the number of innocent people dying goes through the roof. If you don't have to be completely sure that someone is a threat, then are you really going to put your life at risk when you can shoot them and make sure?

You can generally judge the morality of something by considering it happening in reverse. Let's say it's your family who gets gunned down in cold blood because an insurgent was firing at soldiers from your garden or roof. Still seem like an acceptable way to fight a damn war?

The nature of winning a war is to make the other side so devastated that they will do anything (i.e. total surrender) to make it stop.

The vast majority of wars don't require anything near that level of commitment. During the Falklands War should the UK have carpet bombed Buenos Aires? I get the point you're trying to make about deterrents, but consider Korea. It took a whole four years after the most devastating total war in human history for the Korean War to start, and if that had been conducted as a total war then it would have resulted in nukes dropped on China, and a full WWIII happening. There's a reason that we don't use the total war doctrine unless we absolutely have to.

[PLATO]

The vast majority of wars don't require anything near that level of commitment. During the Falklands War should the UK have carpet bombed Buenos Aires? I get the point you're trying to make about deterrents, but consider Korea. It took a whole four years after the most devastating total war in human history for the Korean War to start, and if that had been conducted as a total war then it would have resulted in nukes dropped on China, and a full WWIII happening. There's a reason that we don't use the total war doctrine unless we absolutely have to.

I understand your point, but consider this. Would Argentina have invaded the Falklands had they been certain that Britian would carpet bomb Buenos Aires? I propose that it was the very thought that there would be a limited or even no response from the British that empowered the Argentines to invade in the first place. Equally, with Korea, would the Chinese have crossed the Yalu, if they had known that the price was nuclear war with the United States?

It is the mere fact that limited war exists as a possibility that makes it happen in most cases.

I don't expect that this type of doctrine would ever be adopted (and, in fact, it might be horrible it it was), but I imagine that the conflicts that we see as commonplace in today's political environment would be resolved more peacefully.

[kentonio]

I understand your point, but consider this. Would Argentina have invaded the Falklands had they been certain that Britian would carpet bomb Buenos Aires? I propose that it was the very thought that there would be a limited or even no response from the British that empowered the Argentines to invade in the first place. Equally, with Korea, would the Chinese have crossed the Yalu, if they had known that the price was nuclear war with the United States?

To be honest, quite possibly. They did after all throw away a million Chinese lives on that stupid war as it was. They may have gambled on the Russians posing too much of a threat for the Americans to contemplate going that far. That's also the problem with the Argentianian example, it's rarely as simple as 'x will nuke us' or 'x will destroy our cities', there's always going to be deeper considerations about maybe x won't feel able to nuke us because they wouldn't risk the wider consequences. Wars very rarely start because of rational people making rational decisions, and I very much doubt this would change things much.

There's also the wider strategic implications of nations going full total war. In the Argentinian example again, would Argentinas neighbours have felt comfortable with Britain, a former colonial power, invading or nuking Argentina?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ugh, terrible examples, terrible comparisons.

One, yes, it was likely even if the war went hot in the Korean war, that it would not have worked to the advantage of the United States. They had nothing to gain by making the war Hot.

Two, in the second, it was just pointless. Nobody cared. Not even Argentina.

[kentonio]

Well done for missing the point of the conversation and managing to be completely wrong at the same time. Even by your standards that's some impressive going. #golfclap

[Ben Kenobi]

Well done for missing the point of the conversation and managing to be completely wrong at the same time. Even by your standards that's some impressive going.

So you support the notion that nuclear war was a significant possibility in the Falklands?

[PLATO]

So you support the notion that nuclear war was a significant possibility in the Falklands?

ben...please reread what is being discussed and don't be stupid just trying to start a completely different debate.

[PLATO]

To be honest, quite possibly. They did after all throw away a million Chinese lives on that stupid war as it was. They may have gambled on the Russians posing too much of a threat for the Americans to contemplate going that far. That's also the problem with the Argentianian example, it's rarely as simple as 'x will nuke us' or 'x will destroy our cities', there's always going to be deeper considerations about maybe x won't feel able to nuke us because they wouldn't risk the wider consequences. Wars very rarely start because of rational people making rational decisions, and I very much doubt this would change things much.

There's also the wider strategic implications of nations going full total war. In the Argentinian example again, would Argentinas neighbours have felt comfortable with Britain, a former colonial power, invading or nuking Argentina?

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? In the case of the Chinese response in Korea, it may well not have. However, the U.S. did have millions of combat experienced vets from WWII that could have been activated and thousands of demobilized military assets. Would be an interesting exercise in alternative history to know what would have been the actual response. Even more intriguing is thinking of the exercises that the North Koreans would have gone through if they had been assured of a total war response. Finally, it would be interesting to know if the U.S. would have even gotten involved had they been assured of a total war response from the Russians and the Chinese.

To many variables! Makes my head spin....

[Ben Kenobi]

please reread what is being discussed and don't be stupid just trying to start a completely different debate.

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.

[PLATO]

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.

Then you are missing the point. The examples do not matter to the theory being discussed. In fact, no example of worldwide importance would suffice since the end of WWII. Please try again.

[dannubis]

I understand your point, but consider this. Would Argentina have invaded the Falklands had they been certain that Britian would carpet bomb Buenos Aires? I propose that it was the very thought that there would be a limited or even no response from the British that empowered the Argentines to invade in the first place. Equally, with Korea, would the Chinese have crossed the Yalu, if they had known that the price was nuclear war with the United States?

It is the mere fact that limited war exists as a possibility that makes it happen in most cases.

I don't expect that this type of doctrine would ever be adopted (and, in fact, it might be horrible it it was), but I imagine that the conflicts that we see as commonplace in today's political environment would be resolved more peacefully.

Would Germany have invaded Europe a second time after the horror that was WWI ?