War and its leaders, can we compare it with the game of chess?

Question

War are decided by the country leaders "politicians", and they are against the leaders of the opposing country.

Would it be more practical to kill the leaders, so the wars will be over faster.

Civilians and soldiers who don't even have a single hand in the creation of wars are always the victims, but the leaders are sitting in there comfortable rooms, away from harm.

Like the game of chess, take the king and its checkmate and the game is over. Why kill the pawns?

Answer 1

Yes, we can compare to to chess, except in chess, the loser gets to play again, bad or good.

No, killing the leaders is foolish. Plenty more to step up and take the job.

Soldiers are a tool in the implementation of policy. Where it gets sticky is when the leadership is dumb enough to allow uninformed citizens to set policy and war strategy. In modern warfare, people die, lots less nowadays then in the past. In the case of Iraq, the majority of the killing is being done now by radical Islamic lunatics. They are mostly killing innocents. Here again is the problem in not letting the experts do their jobs.

This has been tried in the past with disastrous results. As mentioned previously, pop one, another pops up.

Answer 2

Take a look at the chess board, there is a line of pawns. There is no clear path to the King, without eliminating the pawns. Of course that's only to be taken literally. When applied to real life, i doubt that would work. There are countless men awaiting the chance to take the reigns. An assassination or "Checkmate" would just result in a New King. Sometimes the New King can be worse than the Predecessor. And in the case of Hitler a loss can be used as propaganda for ones own political gain.

I do see the logic in this idea. As for the pawns, what a tragedy...

Answer 3

WWII was really just WWI, part 1. The same people-groups were involved. Heck, after WWI germany was disallowed to make war-toys. We militarily beat them, and took away their guns, and their king. Twenty years later they almost made german the worlds national language.

My point: you have to remove the social, economic and political causes. Once those are removed, then the war is over. If, in the example of Germany all the generals, soldiers, war-toys and "kings" are removed, but the cause is not.. the war comes back.

Its a population growth model.

Note: every model is inaccurate, from the simple chess games (order-2) to the axis & allies (order-3) and world in flames (order 4) or even defense department strategic simulations (order-5) games. Of course they are inaccurate. Thats not the point. They can still be informative.

Answer 4

Here's my take... wars are, like everything else, an economic thing. Some leaders go to war to boost the economy. Why else would a country not just send a "hit squad" to get rid of a particular leader?

Answer 5

That's a very elementary question demanding a complex answer for which I have neither the time nor the inclination to dignify with a proper response.

Put quickly: in chess, there's only one king. In reality, take the king, another appears in place.

Answer 6

There are no similarities between war and any game.