Originally Posted by jenni-m

Waiting for someone to attack is not the best option.

"Boots on the ground" are very valuable, yes, but you don't need them to attack anyone directly... therefore others don't need theirs to attack directly either.

There is such a thing as interdiction. Like in the WMD example (the fact it was a screwed up situation does not change the theory)

If Saddam actually DID have WMD, and was going to use them, stopping the WMD before they ever leave the launch site is key. This involves attack (or interdiction, you can -try- to do it without casualties). It's a little late when the bombs are already flying, until technology to shoot them down -safely- becomes more viable and common, anyway.


War, the way we think of it, is not only about killing. Some have used it for that, yes, but overall... it is only escalated conflict. There will always be conflict, conflict will always escalate to some extent, therefore war is not going away. Maybe one day we can have war without killing people as much.

There is ALWAYS some form of conflict or disagreement. War tries to resolve these in a more physical manner. A silly example is like... let's pretend you are one particular 'faction'. Another faction you don't particularly get along with (and who doesn't get along with you) has a base very close to you, and it suddenly increases in activity.

You can either watch that base closely, and wait for a possible attack so you can suppress it, or you can stop it before it begins. You can try diplomacy first, but if they have a hostile attitude and won't negotiate, the best option may be to take that base before anything happens.

You don't necessarily want to kill anyone in that situation, you just want that base to go away or at least be less of a threat. So the point is to capture or damage it, but the people operating that base are not likely going to let you do that, they are willing to die, and kill you, to protect their base. That is where combat and killing comes in... two parties who have different ideals clash, and neither wants to give in. The attacker may not want to kill, but they WANT that base, the defender may not want to kill, but they don't want to be attacked. The defender will kill and die defending, and the attacker will kill and die attacking, because that is what the defender is doing too. It is a mutual thing.