I'm sure this thread has been on here before but let's have a discussion about the nature of war, starting with our personal preferences on the necessity and nature of war.
I'll start by saying that I dislike war as much as the next guy but believe that it is pretty much unavoidable. It's not an original idea or even really an opinion. Whether heated national or tribal emotions intoxicate a people to aggression, governments are blinded by greed, a nation is in need of resources that are inaccessible due to another's hostility or their own incompetence, or whatever else have you, war will happen. It's our humanized and amplified way of applying force to shift or restore balance, though we are incredibly good at solely causing the former.
Start discussing. I'll add a second point in the first comment.
OP here. Now, as far as the ethics of war are concerned, I have my ideals and I have my practicalities in terms of opinions. The hypothetical "I would run things [this way]" query.
Ideally, I would like to see battles fought with vigor for the preservation of life, and if given the power I would only deploy troops when the situation jeopardizes my people or a fellow people for whom I and my kin generally value and care. I wouldn't allow pillaging, raping, slaughtering of livestock, slaughter of civilians or other non-aggressors, or dismantling of infrastructure. There would be no conscription and I would allow the regulated use of militias and maybe even mercenaries provided they were comprised entirely of my citizens. Tactics would revolve around an ability to travel quickly and make constant and heavy use of reconnaissance and scouting, as well as general versatility in the governed military, putting our ability of adaptation and transportation above vigor, specialization, and sheer numbers. I believe this would be ideal as I would not use my military as a conquering force and only be equipped to occupy foreign territory for the defense of my soldiers and the utilization of the enemy's infrastructure, as well as refraining from engaging in wars beyond the homeland that my military is prepared at all times to fight. If an army with which we desire to do battle is known for their overwhelming use of cavalry or for extreme guerrilla tactics, or if they are known to retaliate using terrorism and such, I wouldn't bother.
>>1309398
Last part:
Practically, I would prefer to have my wars fought using the power of experimentation, fundamentally. Any tactics that are not intended to incur casualties to non-aggressors (government officials not withstanding) and their property will undergo trials of use. The most consistently effective and versatile means will be absorbed and the military will be well equipped accordingly, of course all while minding budget and likelihood certain scenarios unfolding and other factors of efficiency. In this case, nothing within the aforementioned bounds will be too low or too high, too warm or too cold. War will include far more than physical aggression.
>>1309349
where is the question?
you just like to hear yourself talking don't you?
The first kid w glasses looks cute af.
>>1309398
> I wouldn't allow pillaging, raping, slaughtering of livestock, slaughter of civilians or other non-aggressors, or dismantling of infrastructure
You just extended the war by an extra 10 years you shithead
