Who would you want to fight? 72 replies

Please wait...

Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

Let's say you are the ruler of a powerful local nation. You decide to go to war, and have to choose which of your two neighbors to attack first. You decide to attack the one that would offer the least resistance. But this is a tricky decision to make, as both of your neighbors are equally strong economically and militarily. One is a Republic, and the other is a socialist government with an unelected government. I would say the socialist state would be the easiest to take down. This is the opinion Machiavelli had himself. He believed that a Republic is far more dangerous than any other state. The people are used to their freedom, are used to defending it, and hold it dear - so they will put up a vicious fight against anyone who tries to take it away. But a people who are used to being ruled by an all powerful government will be relatively submissive to a foreign ruler, as they are used to the "iron fist". Though a citizen army is generally not as well trained as "professionals", it has spirit and determination that most mercs and henchmen could never hope to achieve. Note that this argument doesn't apply so well in some cases, like when the people are raised up to a high level of fanaticism, like Nazi Germany. The people of Berlin put up a huge and bloody battle against the Soviet army. The Russians lost tens of thousands of men just taking that one city! This scenario was shown in reverse on an much larger scale earlier on, when literally millions of Russians died to repel the German invasion. But I doubt this would happen in a modern socialist state. The people are disarmed, taught to obey, while the government takes on more and more functions that were originally done by the people. This even applies to nominally republican states, like parts of the USA.




Delta Force

Revenge was here.

50 XP

23rd June 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

Unless the US was invaded, than 90% of us would surrender like a bunch of Frenchies (I would not, i'd grab a gun and fight them till some tanks, helos, or APCs showed up, than i'd run like a poor outgunned guy in BF2). The rednecks, military, gangsters, criminals, and people tricked into fighting would fight.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,963 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,002 Posts

6 Threads

#3 12 years ago

Well, what about the human wave attacks in the Korea war? I think that what you call a socialist government cares much less about the people and has the necessary power to force them to sacrifice themselves. Democractic or republican governments are more likely to surrender in extreme situations than to fight till the last man. So the expected loss from attacking a "sociatlist" country would be higher. The best solution would of course be not to attack at all.




Delta Force

Revenge was here.

50 XP

23rd June 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago
MrFancypantsWell, what about the human wave attacks in the Korea war? I think that what you call a socialist government cares much less about the people and has the necessary power to force them to sacrifice themselves. Democractic or republican governments are more likely to surrender in extreme situations than to fight till the last man. So the expected loss from attacking a "sociatlist" country would be higher. The best solution would of course be not to attack at all.

A good example is the US. We pulled out of Nam cause it was stupid and too many were dieing for a pointless, unwinnable war.




DnC

GF's Cognitive Psychologist

50 XP

13th April 2004

0 Uploads

2,668 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago

Put this in leisure games.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago
MrFancypantsWell, what about the human wave attacks in the Korea war? I think that what you call a socialist government cares much less about the people and has the necessary power to force them to sacrifice themselves. Democractic or republican governments are more likely to surrender in extreme situations than to fight till the last man. So the expected loss from attacking a "sociatlist" country would be higher. The best solution would of course be not to attack at all.

That was an offensive war - and a huge number of those North Koreans just ran away. They didn't "fight to the last man". Freedom gets more enthusiasm than some dictator in his mansion. Seriously, would you listen to some little guy in his armchair screaming "fight to the death you dogs!". The henchmen listen as long as the money he is paying is good, but hightail it if the going gets tough. Also, I disagree with your statement that republics generally surrender.. If you were right, the US would have surrendered to Britain in 1813, and the Biofran War would have lasted two weeks.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,963 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,002 Posts

6 Threads

#7 12 years ago
Machiavelli's ApprenticeThat was an offensive war - and a huge number of those North Koreans just ran away. They didn't "fight to the last man".

I used Korea to show the willingness of a dictator to use desperate measures such as human wave attacks.

Seriously, would you listen to some little guy in his armchair screaming "fight to the death you dogs!". The henchmen listen as long as the money he is paying is good, but hightail it if the going gets tough.

It's not really as if you could just say "no, I'd prefer to stay home" if a polit-officer of the Soviet Union asks you to attack. What is more, the kind of dictatorships you mentioned usually go along with extensive propaganda and brainwashing which usually create more fanatic warriors than the liberal values which can usually be found in a democracy.

Also, your statement that republics generally surrender is wrong. If you were right, the US would have surrendered to Britain in 1813, and the Biofran War would have lasted two weeks.

I didn't say that Republics generally surrender.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

[quote=MrFancypants]I used Korea to show the willingness of a dictator to use desperate measures such as human wave attacks.[QUOTE/] Yes, but we're talking about the willingness of the people.

It's not really as if you could just say "no, I'd prefer to stay home" if a polit-officer of the Soviet Union asks you to attack. What is more, the kind of dictatorships you mentioned usually go along with extensive propaganda and brainwashing which usually create more fanatic warriors than the liberal values which can usually be found in a democracy.

Yes, but people used to being ruled by a dictator won't mind so much if a new dictator moves in.

I didn't say that Republics generally surrender.
Democractic or republican governments are more likely to surrender in extreme situations than to fight till the last man. So the expected loss from attacking a "sociatlist" country would be higher.

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted:lookaround:




DnC

GF's Cognitive Psychologist

50 XP

13th April 2004

0 Uploads

2,668 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago

Please disregard my previous post. I apologise for being very blunt and bossy.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago

Socialist state.

Size doesn't matter. Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world back in 1991. Yet a force much smaller than it still defeated it in one hundred hours of ground combat.

MrFancypantspolit-officer of the Soviet Union asks you to attack

I don't think they ever asked in the Red Army. Hell, no matter the army, you are never asked to attack. The difference is that in the US Army you would be tried as a deserter. In the Soviet Army, you would be summarily shot.