It strikes me as odd that practically any victorious military finds all of its actions optimal. If it had not done as it did, then the outcomes would be worse. The regularity of the superiority of the action taken is fascinating.
Curiously, this website has a large number of commentators that believe that luck is one of the biggest factors in startup success. Yet, in this other domain of antagonistic participants, war, the victor is always the better strategist, having seen through the flaws of his enemy. Mere luck plays no part here. A curious result to me. It appears that Man is elevated to supreme intelligence when tasked with war, and finds himself a mere leaf on air currents otherwise.
Of course, I’m no peacenik. I have no problem over-bombing a population so I don’t really see Hiroshima and Nagasaki as tragedies. Since no one has an incentive to reveal the true minimum that would cause them to capitulate, it is usually a good idea when you’re almost winning to make sure you’re definitely winning. I have no problem with the death of those who would prefer my death. Just fascinated at how we conquer luck in this sphere alone.
I have no problem with the death of those who would prefer my death.
The most memorable line from the movie Patton (I don't know if General Patton said this IRL):
Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
> I have no problem with the death of those who would prefer my death
What about those who have no opinion one way or the other about your death, or are incapable of having an informed opinion, such as very young children?
Well, this is a personal position so I don’t see the value in sharing it, but since you asked: I’d rather be alive and evil than dead and good. After all, alive and evil I can be redeemed and die good after a fulfilling life. If I win, presumably following generations will talk about my courage at having turned my life around and any detractors of mine will find themselves outdone by my supporters - who will either be more numerous or will have the ability to call my detractors hypocrites since they only exist by my actions.
So the children will die if they must die. And they will live if it does not affect victory.
The children raised in bushido, who would grow up to make sure the enemy took no prisoners by having all prisoners suicide attack captors? Those who didn’t grow up to be warriors an just be innocent civilians would still fall in line with a culture that would gladly sacrifice every innocent civilian in its borders to fight. Murder until not even the dust of the bones of the society remain. It isn’t some historical fantasy. Japan was in a bloodlust.
There are many arguments about suboptimal strategies and missed opportunities. They don't usually appear outside of military history discussions, though. Strategic bombing, for example.
Strategic bombing is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, was attempted and didn't bring the desired results. There were large logistic problems and it took longer than expected to build a forward base.
Curiously, this website has a large number of commentators that believe that luck is one of the biggest factors in startup success. Yet, in this other domain of antagonistic participants, war, the victor is always the better strategist, having seen through the flaws of his enemy. Mere luck plays no part here. A curious result to me. It appears that Man is elevated to supreme intelligence when tasked with war, and finds himself a mere leaf on air currents otherwise.
Of course, I’m no peacenik. I have no problem over-bombing a population so I don’t really see Hiroshima and Nagasaki as tragedies. Since no one has an incentive to reveal the true minimum that would cause them to capitulate, it is usually a good idea when you’re almost winning to make sure you’re definitely winning. I have no problem with the death of those who would prefer my death. Just fascinated at how we conquer luck in this sphere alone.