The concept of warfare. Then and now.

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: Apocalypse
Since when has war ever been called a concept?

People amaze me on these forums.

The issue is again same as in Vietnam are our troops being allowed to win?

Are afraid that to win means we would have to face other Arab nations?

Same as in Vietnam. We were so totally afraid of China getting involved.

You cannot win a war if you are afaid to confront the consequences of winning.

Also as a Nation we are a bunch of panzies and our congressmen only think about re-election.

Is this was just in Iraq? Probably not.

Should we try to win it and get out?

Or should we just leave immediately?

All interesting questions.

War as a concept.

Totally Agree here.

 

[piasabird]

The Japanese employed some of the modern day tactics that are being used today. They used a lot of caves and tunnels to hide their operations years before Viet-Nam.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: techs
What is slowly changing is the methods of waging war and winning a war.
In fact, warfare began to change during the American Revolution when victory on the battlefield no longer equalled victory. By Americans refusing to believe they had lost and just refusing to be follow British rule the war continued past the point of military defeat.
The Colonial Army was defeated, but by refusing to lay down its arms and just existing the war continued.
Ghandi recognized this and used his non-violent warfare to beat the British.
And the culmination of both tactics was used by the North Viet Namese.

Again, these are all tactics mentioned by Sun Tzu over 2,500 years ago. And they existed long before him, he was just the only/first one to write them down (and have his book survive this long)

Edit: In most studies of Tzu's work, there is often mention of manuals that pre-date him by over a thousand years. Most of them either never survived (thier existence only known through references in other works) or never became as popular.

However, MAD was not around 2500 years ago. A nuke is NOT just "another bomb", in a full scale nuclear war there would not be any winner (at least not in any meaningfull sense). A conflict between two nuclear power is a perfect example of when tit-for-tat tactics does not work

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: f95toli

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: techs
What is slowly changing is the methods of waging war and winning a war.
In fact, warfare began to change during the American Revolution when victory on the battlefield no longer equalled victory. By Americans refusing to believe they had lost and just refusing to be follow British rule the war continued past the point of military defeat.
The Colonial Army was defeated, but by refusing to lay down its arms and just existing the war continued.
Ghandi recognized this and used his non-violent warfare to beat the British.
And the culmination of both tactics was used by the North Viet Namese.

Again, these are all tactics mentioned by Sun Tzu over 2,500 years ago.And they existed long before him, he was just the only/first one to write them down (and have his book survive this long)

Edit: In most studies of Tzu's work, there is often mention of manuals that pre-date him by over a thousand years. Most of them either never survived (thier existence only known through references in other works) or never became as popular.

However, MAD was not around 2500 years ago.

Not so sure about that one, I can't cite examples off the top of my head, but there are stories of warring civilizations that fought eachother into extinction. Info on these instances is limited for obvious reasons.

A nuke is NOT just "another bomb"

Sure it is, its just a much bigger one

, in a full scale nuclear war there would not be any winner (at least not in any meaningfull sense).

Many would argue there are no real winners in ANY war. If it is highly probable you will be wiped out by going to war, then you don't, and this is one of Tzu's biggest conclusions; know when to fight, when not to fight, and never fight a war you do not expect to win without being able to afford expected losses.

A conflict between two nuclear power is a perfect example of when tit-for-tat tactics does not work.

You are correct that it is a perfect example, but it is not limited to nuclear war, this concept is also thousands of years old.