![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
one thing i think we are missing the mark on here is..what definition of war? World war II was a Total War..one where ever bit of resources, manpower, and effort was poured into the conflict to win it.
Now we have limited wars or conflicts...where all resources are not poured int the conflict, but just enough to achieve a reasonable objective. Or surgical conflicts...just enough resources to change a countrys leadership, or relieve a human right pressure. Its all war...but somehow the level of involvment just seems to fluctuate. so as kim possible says...whats the sitch? ![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
Topic: Re: heyQuote:
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|||
|
Topic: Re: heyQuote:
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Vietnam was fairly pointless, but in my own opinion, I think that WWI was the most pointless of all of the wars fought in the 20th Century.
The whole reason the war started was because someone shot Arch-duke Ferdinand. After that, all hell broke loose. During the war, it was trench warfare. Killing and entire enemy company just for what? To gain a few meters of mud after losing half of your company? Had better tactics (or any at all for that matter) been employed in WWI, I think the war wouldn't have lasted as long, or there wouldn't have been as many casualties. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Right before WWI, the whole of Europe was wound up tight as a drum, just watching for a spark to ignite the tinderbox. If it wasn't Arch-Duke Ferdinand, it would have been something else. You've seen the videos of the German people rejoicing when war was declared. WWI was an inevitability.
Vietnam was not a pointless war. The US and many other countries felt it neccesary to stop the spread of Communism. Ultimately, that was accomplished. Communism was unable to spread anymore because of all the resources and manpower the commies spent. The US felt N. Vietnam to be a direct threat to them and we acted. I say again, all wars have a point. Even the Opium War had a point. The point was to reinstitute the opium trade. The question is wars without a valid point. |
![]() |
||
![]() |
Quote:
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
That is true. Modern warfare is more 'humane' that the wars fought hundreds of years ago. Technology has played a major part in warfare. Back in the day, swords and bows were used to fight all out battles in the middle of a field. Hundreds of men would line up on either side and then run at each other after the volleys of arrows were done.
Now, we have long range weapons to, say, take out a command center from miles away. Since the mentality of some militaries (maybe even less that I know of) is 'Take out the commander, and the army will fall', a precision hit on a CP will do a number on an Armies morale, possibly making them surrender. |
![]() |