The reason America (or any other Western nation).......

[FN1TGhost]

will never "win" another war.

Because we (collectively) have abandoned the concept of "Total War" ie. Take no prisoners, scorched earth, and unconditional surrender.
To "win" in theatre a population must be brought to it's knees regardless of non-combatant casualties.
This is why America is in a no-win money sink known as "the Forever War" and why belligerents such as Putin and China shrewdly do what they do.

[Sledfang]

The West has become too soft for total war, but it doesn't really matter because our focus on economics make it so that there is no incentive to militarily fight with Russia/China.

[Aeno]

I thought it was because warfare is in its fourth generation which is vastly different than the strategies of its preceding generations. Hmm. I guess your conspiracy might have a smidge worth of truth.

[Aeno]

When was the last war won that way? Scorched earth was not a problem in Vietnam and that didn't go well....

Technically it wasn't a war, and thus we never needed to win for his point to stand.
lol

[Tastyfish]

It's because otherkin are not allowed in the military. >_>
really, tho, has there been a need to just burn everything to ash, ever?

[Dreknar20]

really, tho, has there been a need to just burn everything to ash, ever?

better to have everything to ash then in enemy hands

[Deleted]

Well, I guess there is nothing to discuss here, surely OP is preaching the truth and we mere ignorant fools shall fall in line...

If only history books were accessible to disprove such absolute foolish notion, alas OP has spoken!

[Sledfang]

Eventually Russia/China will fall in line or remain semi-pariah states.

Except if the West declines in economic power and the East rises, we wont have the clout (ivory tower) that is needed to successfully mark them as outcasts in the global community.

[Tastyfish]

Can I be an elfkin? I feel an affinity to them the most... please?!

Sure but the bow and arrow deal won't work in a conventional army Rambothanas

[Deleted]

It's because otherkin are not allowed in the military. >_>
really, tho, has there been a need to just burn everything to ash, ever?

You mean ever like ever ever? Or recently? Because I know about 2 incidents where 'Murica just burned a city.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are only two ways to end a war: You either kill everyone who might oppose you or you make friends out of them.
Both methods have in common that eventually no enemy is left. That's all it takes.
You can see that on our two world wars as the second one was only an aftermath of the first one.
The humiliation in Versailles created the mindset that was needed and after WW2 was over they got it.
They had the Morgentau plan, basicly anihilation and the Marshal plan, basicly befriending the germans.

[Tastyfish]

You mean ever like ever ever? Or recently?

I mean in general/the history of the world.

[Reeve]

If the west declines, so does Russia and China... China is only rising because we buy stuff.(Which reminds me I need to see if that 980 GTX is in stock) And Russia is "stable" because the west buys their oil/resources, to make/buy more stuff.

China's domestic market is growing rapidly too. At some point their internal domestic market will be sufficient to sustain their economy, if not continue to grow it.

[Deleted]

will never "win" another war.

Because we (collectively) have abandoned the concept of "Total War" ie. Take no prisoners, scorched earth, and unconditional surrender.
To "win" in theatre a population must be brought to it's knees regardless of non-combatant casualties.
This is why America is in a no-win money sink known as "the Forever War" and why belligerents such as Putin and China shrewdly do what they do.

yes democracies, such pussy's, for not being as readily willing to utilize force...
to be fair, the initial threshold for using force is heavier in a democracy, once that threshold has been hit, they have this tendency to Win.

[Aeno]

You mean ever like ever ever? Or recently? Because I know about 2 incidents where 'Murica just burned a city.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are only two ways to end a war: You either kill everyone who might oppose you or you make friends out of them.
Both methods have in common that eventually no enemy is left. That's all it takes.
You can see that on our two world wars as the second one was only an aftermath of the first one.
The humiliation in Versailles created the mindset that was needed and after WW2 was over they got it.
They had the Morgentau plan, basicly anihilation and the Marshal plan, basicly befriending the germans.

The Concert of Europe (17th century) included France in its peace talks and treaty negotiations after the other European powers defeated France. Defeat, not annihilation, and befriending at the same time. Likewise, we defeated Japan, and befriended them. We made them surrender, then worked on relations. It wasn't a "you are my friend for vaporizing my cities" thing. That is a ludicrous idea.

WWII didn't change the mindsets of great powers from seeing that Versailles was an idiotic idea. They just relearned what was already a practice before WWI.

[Catta]

will never "win" another war.

Because we (collectively) have abandoned the concept of "Total War" ie. Take no prisoners, scorched earth, and unconditional surrender.
To "win" in theatre a population must be brought to it's knees regardless of non-combatant casualties.
This is why America is in a no-win money sink known as "the Forever War" and why belligerents such as Putin and China shrewdly do what they do.

Such military strategy. Much smarts. Very kill.

Wow.


You arent going to win a war aimed at removing terrorists by decimating the local population where they are. You are only going to further their recruitment doing that.

Also even during total war plenty of prisoners are taken - not doing so is a detriment to those who dont because then the opposing side will never surrender.

You seem to have a very simplified understanding of what winning a war means.

[FN1TGhost]

When was the last war won that way? Scorched earth was not a problem in Vietnam and that didn't go well....

The flaw with Vietnam was operations were taken away from the Commanders and placed with civilians (think McNamara, Johnson etc..)
For instance the logic of using F-4 Phantoms, F-105 Thunderchiefs as Strategic bombers and B-52's as Tactical bombers. Or, not allowed to obliterate Hanoi and denying insurgents their main lifeline. Concentrating on bridges and railways in and around Hanoi isn't the same, that was done for years only to have them back in place the next day.

[Sledfang]

If the west declines, so does Russia and China... China is only risking because we buy stuff.(Which reminds me I need to see if that 980 GTX is in stock) And Russia is "stable" because the west buys their oil/resources, to make/buy more stuff.

Yes many other countries are rising thanks to the West, but that doesn't mean they cant surpass us in the future. Even if Asia became equal to the West, they would likely have an edge since they are more likely to lend us their money (our debt) rather than give it to their own common people through social programs. Liberal democracies on the other hand, we could easily bankrupt ourself trying to be the white knights of society. Which would further help conservative countries like Russia/China reach hegemony in the future.

[Aeno]

Yes many other countries are rising thanks to the West, but that doesn't mean they cant surpass us in the future. Even if Asia became equal to the West, they would likely have an edge since they are more likely to lend us their money (our debt) rather than give it to their own common people through social programs. Liberal democracies on the other hand, we could easily bankrupt ourself trying to be the white knights of society.

We already have been bankrupt (See: Debt). It's just that the developed countries are so stable that not investing in their bonds would be stupid, and thus keeps them afloat.

- - - Updated - - -

They are still at least two decades away to fully bring out that almost 1 billion that is living in almost Medieival type of poverty.

And the challenges that this process will bring are bigger than some anticipate : http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/end-c...#axzz3EEWmoHhL

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101945949

And this hilarity. They literally build cities for a few million, and less than half a million live in them.

[Sledfang]

They are still at least two decades away to fully bring out that almost 1 billion that is living in almost Medieival type of poverty.

Here is the thing that a lot of people don't get. The rulers of those countries don't care about those billion people in poverty. They can become increasingly powerful despite the medieval style poverty. In fact, economically it gives them an advantage.

[Deleted]

WWII didn't change the mindsets of great powers from seeing that Versailles was an idiotic idea. They just relearned what was already a practice before WWI.

Thank the US for that.
its fun that the stupidest president, was arguably, the one with a Doctorate...