English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Do you support total wars, or "limited wars". Why?

2007-12-01 06:17:07 · 8 answers · asked by me 1 in Politics & Government Politics

8 answers

Total war is a military conflict in which nations mobilize all available resources in order to destroy another nation's ability to engage in war. The practice of total war has been in use for centuries, but it was only in the middle to late 19th century that total war was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not total wars because the US has not mobilized all available resources.

2007-12-01 06:20:42 · answer #1 · answered by frogskin13 4 · 0 2

A "total war" is a conflict in which the single objective of a nation is to use all of its resources in order to demoralize a foreign enemy to the point that it can not or does not want to engage in combat any longer.
A "limited war" is when a nation is engaged in combat against a foreign enemy, but is not dedicating all of its strength to the war effort. These wars are very difficult to win, since the nation at war is not entirely united for that one objective.
Iraq and Afghanistan are absolutely not total wars, and in my opinion are not limited wars either. The war in Iraq ended when Saddam's army was decimated. The same happened in Afghanistan when Al Qaida was ousted from the government. What is happening in those two countries is a military occupation in an attempt to help stabilize the region. This is not war, since we are not fighting any standing army.
As for whether I support total or limited wars, I'm generally against war. But, in the event that war is invoked upon a nation, in accordance with just war theory, then total war is the only way to secure peace and justice when the dust clears.

2007-12-01 14:32:25 · answer #2 · answered by chris 4 · 0 0

Yes,Iraq and afghanistan are total wars since much of the army is involved and they are actual occupations of invaded countries.
Both traditional armies were completely destroyed in the two countires,what left is just civilians and some insurgents,so there is no need for a nuke.

which one shoudl be supported?
neither
Nobody wins in a war,usually the afflicted are civilians and infrastructure.

2007-12-01 14:20:12 · answer #3 · answered by Chakat 4 · 2 2

Total war is the annihilation of your enemy by using every means at your disposal. Much like the second world war when we used nukes on Japan. Now THAT'S total war! Wars nowadays are limited so as not to upset the liberals delicate stomachs!

2007-12-01 14:20:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 4

if this were total war, no one would exist in the nations we are attempting to "liberate" right now

2007-12-01 14:26:49 · answer #5 · answered by captain_koyk 5 · 0 3

total war is awesome.

limited wars are not so awesome.

2007-12-01 14:20:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

War is hell !?

I don't support war !?

2007-12-01 14:39:19 · answer #7 · answered by iceman 7 · 1 1

No.

2007-12-01 14:26:57 · answer #8 · answered by jgtorres85 2 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers