Your philosophy on war.

[CaptainF]

When should it be waged?

How should it be waged?

What should be done afterward?

etc...

describe this as though you were the leader.

I personally think that peace should be preserved as long as possible. War is not something that you just jump into. I agree with Sun Tzu's notion that the soldier that fights for, and succesfully preserves peace should be awarded more glory than the solder who demonstrates genius in combat.

If it must come to war, it will only be when all diplomacy has failed. Such is the honorable way to wage war. The objective should be to neutralize the belliegerence against your country. WMD's would be avoided. Misconduct (massacres, corruption, Geneva code violations) on the part of my soldiers would be met with austere punishment. My soldiers would be professional service men, as opposed to government sanctioned thugs.

When occupying the country I would make some changes to the government, but I would try to give the populace as much free-reign over installing it as possible. Maximum courtesy would be in order amongst my troops, so as to deter the motivation for an insurgency.

blah, i'm bored.

 

[Yeeek]

I don't see mankind ever not battling each other in the futur. Of course i won't be there but when you look at our history its hard to tell otherwise.

I believe in lots of what Sun Tzu said, you can't have peace without war, or its to have peace pepare for war? Someone must have the right quote

Look at Europe ever at war and no less than 60 years ago, in ruins. To have such peace we had to see the bloodiest conflict ever.

 

[Lotus49]

Here's a quote for ya:

As long as the human mind is capable of ambition, there will always be war. And without ambition, you have no progress. Thus war is both inevitable, and essential.

-"Lotus49"

 

[Yeeek]

Yes very true, once mankind can and will dot the Solar system who can predict there won't be war for the control of other planets ressource? And what if the Mars colonies claim their independance from earth?

This is just an exemple and out of my imagination.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

The single most important thing, in my mind, is to always be on the cutting edge, in every aspect. If you make a technological or strategic breakthrough, you will enjoy a period of time during which you have a great advantage over all of your opponents, even if you started out evenly matched. For instance, see Revolutionary France and its mass army, or Hitler and the Blitzkrieg. But you can't rest on that. The rest of the world will realize that it has to either catch up or die, and it will choose the former. Once everyone else had a Napoleonic army, Napoleon didn't do so well.

That's why warfare, and security competition in general (which can go on for decades without breaking out into war) should be a relentless pursuit of advance after advance.

 

[silver 2039]

When should it be waged?

How should it be waged?

What should be done afterward?

As a tool of the state to further their intreasts

Total War

Annexation and Integration.

 

[Darkness]

When should it be waged?

Never!

How should it be waged?

If it absolutely has to be waged, then how about "single combat between the leaders?"

What should be done afterward?

Obligatory ritual suicide for all participants/survivors?

 

[Rik Meleet]

The ones who benefit from war are usually not the ones fighting it.

 

[JohnRM]

When should it be waged?

To defend your personal self.
To defend your family.
To defend the defenseless.
As a means of enacting justice and correcting injustice.

How should it be waged?

War should be conducted to eliminate or adequately decrease the threat with minimal damage to self and others.

What should be done afterward?

On the personal level, the enemies' possessions should be plundered, if practical. On the nation level, the enemy structure (govt, infa, etc) which will have been torn down would ideally be rebuilt in order to prevent the re-emergence of a new threat.

describe this as though you were the leader.

I personally think that peace should be preserved as long as possible. War is not something that you just jump into. I agree with Sun Tzu's notion that the soldier that fights for, and succesfully preserves peace should be awarded more glory than the solder who demonstrates genius in combat.

There are many versions of "as long as possible". I don't think we should go to war on a whim, but we should not wait until we have a gun to our heads.

If it must come to war, it will only be when all diplomacy has failed. Such is the honorable way to wage war. The objective should be to neutralize the belliegerence against your country. WMD's would be avoided. Misconduct (massacres, corruption, Geneva code violations) on the part of my soldiers would be met with austere punishment. My soldiers would be professional service men, as opposed to government sanctioned thugs.

All human beings should act honorable and only as neccessary, at all times. We should not require the Geneva Conventions. Even the United States Military is more often than not composed of government-sanctioned thugs.

My only interest is in my family, friends, and associates. I am not interested in the governance of any others. My soldiers would be those of my community and family.

However, if it came down to running a country, I would agree with your assessment.

When occupying the country I would make some changes to the government, but I would try to give the populace as much free-reign over installing it as possible. Maximum courtesy would be in order amongst my troops, so as to deter the motivation for an insurgency.

I would probably be far more harsh in the case of an occupation of an enemy territory. For example, we had to invade Iraq to remove Saddam Hussien, because the people would not do so themselves. I would not feel wrong for treating them harshly.

 

[Kayak]

@John, Except for that last bit I agree with you almost completely.

I can not find it in myself to blame people for not being able to remove their oppressors. I feel that it is counterproductive to treat them harshly in any case.

 

[mrtn]

My philosophy on war?

Well, I don't like it.

Blimey, I mean, blimey!
If it's a big war someone could be hurt!

 

[ComradeDavo]

In simplistic terms - War is generally a bad thing and should only be waged to stop even badder things happening when all other options have failed.

To be more specific, it all of course depends on the specific situation, but generally war is not the best answer.

 

[Taliesin]

I think that just about the only really good reason to fight is to defend land, community, family, and the personal and historical roots that tie them together.

Often, however, the best way to fight that fight is not through force of arms. For example, the free-market ideology of the New Right, and the somewhat diluted form of it that generally pervades the West, is a massive and savage assault on community and rootedness in land. (It is this devilry, and that is not too strong a word, that makes clear to me that the New Right, far from being the conservative movement it dresses up as, is in fact the least conservative political force the modern world has seen. Conservatives, at least, understand the value of community, and generally don't indulge in the base and destructive Mammon-worship that our present establishment somehow regards as normal.) The best response, though, is obviously not popular armed resistance (though it sometimes tempts! and is sometimes necessary in developing nations), but rather a determined effort on the part of communities to live at right angles to what the aggressor demands.

 

[punkbass2000]

My philosophy on war?

For the travel and the water-skiing. Not for the killing. I told them to put on my forms: "No killing".

 

[luiz]

For example, the free-market ideology of the New Right, and the somewhat diluted form of it that generally pervades the West, is a massive and savage assault on community and rootedness in land. (It is this devilry, and that is not too strong a word, that makes clear to me that the New Right, far from being the conservative movement it dresses up as, is in fact the least conservative political force the modern world has seen.

I know that I'm way off-topic, but I've beign saying this for quite a while.
Free-marketers are the true force for change and progress, revolutionaries if you will. Socialists, social-democrats, fascists and etc are mere reactionaries who afraid of change and competition.

 

[Irish Caesar]

To defend your personal self.
To defend your family.
To defend the defenseless.
As a means of enacting justice and correcting injustice.

Absolutely.

I would probably be far more harsh in the case of an occupation of an enemy territory. For example, we had to invade Iraq to remove Saddam Hussien, because the people would not do so themselves. I would not feel wrong for treating them harshly.

Well, we had to do this now because President Bush 41 screwed the Iraqis over in 1991 when they tried to overthrow Saddam. I don't blame the Iraqis for that; they were under the assumption that USA forces would give them a hand with it.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

When should it be waged?

How should it be waged?

What should be done afterward?

etc...

describe this as though you were the leader.

Here are my views on the matter.


When should it be waged: War should be waged whenever it is in the best interests of the nation to do so. Acceptable goals for a war would be annexing territory, taking resources, aiding an ally, suppressing rebellions, or to eliminate potential threats.

How should it be waged: War should be waged ruthlessly, the goal is to destroy the enemy and keep doing it until they surrender. I not use nukes unless I absolutely had to, but would probably make extensive use of poison gas and chemical weapons. I would not be willing to practice germ warfare, it strikes me as too unstable to be of use. While it could decimate my enemy's population there is too great a risk of mutation and creating a global pandemic for it to be useful. Foreign prisoners taken in the war should be given enough food to skate by, adaquate medical treatment, and possibly be utilised to clean roads or light labour, but on the whole should be treated decently. If they are from a rebellious ethnic group, shoot them all or work them to death. If they are rebels from the same ethnic group as we are, shoot them all or work them to death anyway.

What should be done afterwards: Depends on why we went to war in the first place. If it was annexing neighboring territory, I would expel foreigners from the conquered territory and resettle the land with people who are loyal to me. If we went to war in some far off land to gain resources I would set up a colonial government and take advantage of native divisions, like promoting one ethnic group over the others to gain native support. If it is aiding an ally, we fight until the ally is safe and the nation attacking them has stopped, depending on how badly we have beaten them a war indemnity would probably be in order. If we fought to suppress a rebellion I would fight until they surrender and probably exercise a little "ethnic cleansing" on them If we fought to destroy a potential threat we occupy the country and levy a crushing war indemnity on them to keep their economy in shambles for a while. I save the worst for last. If we are starting to lose the war, I would try to negotiate the most favorable peace I can before my army is completely destroyed and my people defenceless. If it is a stalemate and all attempts at breaking their lines have failed I would offer a simple peace deal with borders entailing either prewar borders or land currently occupied by both sides.

 

[MobBoss]

Even the United States Military is more often than not composed of government-sanctioned thugs.

I take great exception to this statement John. In my opinion, after almost 20 years of military service, I think the exact opposite is true. Abu Graib is the exception, not the norm.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think that, nearly without exception, cooperation can lead to greater wealth than forceful acquisition. The trick is to avoid war by binding people in mutually beneficial agreements.

This is hard to do. And if your society is being threatened, I can see how 'self-defense' is allowed. I still abide by the principals of 'least necessary force', however.

 

[Kayak]

I take great exception to this statement John. In my opinion, after almost 20 years of military service, I think the exact opposite is true. Abu Graib is the exception, not the norm.

It's a regular exception then.

Not to denegrate the US Military, (just humans in general) But these types of thugish actions seem to occure in almost every war with some regularity.