Sniper & Sharpshooter Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I propose the following (which will constantly be edited as necessary):

1) The definition of knowledge war contains knowledge of combat, but also contains knowledge of other disciplines in addition to the knowledge of combat; these other disciplines will be referred to as X.
2) Knowledge of X does not entail knowledge of combat
3) Knowledge of combat does not entail knowledge of X
Infer1) A person who has knowledge of X is not automatically entailed to knowledge of combat
Infer2) A person who has knowledge of combat is not automatically entailed to knowledge of X
C) A person must have knowledge of both combat, as well as X, to have knowledge of war

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: The first three lines are premises, the fourth and fifth are inferences, and the last line is a conclusin drawn.

Scatch Maroo
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,927 Posts
In the interest of everyone comparing views without attacking each other, this one is a good idea. If we can all make a point, and give examples, I think we can see where everyone is coming from.

Like I was saying in the NK thread, I think some of the most important factors in a war lie with Civilians. I guess it goes with what Scatch is saying.

Battles can also include trade sanctions and embargoes, like those that are in place on nations like Iraq and Iran, and were implaced on the Japanese during the second world war.

Large companies feed off of wars, since it produces a great demand for their product, and they can contribute large amounts of money to the political campaigns of a country.

World leaders are forced to sometimes side with the ally that has the biggest carrot dangling on the string, or back an iffy country because that country is fighting a bigger enemy.

The voters at home decide the outcome of an election.

And a large part of going to war in the first place is the motivation for it at home, which must be cultivated one way or another.

None of those are anything any countries military has any real say in, but they have just as much of an impact on a war as the wins and losses in combat will have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
1) War and combat are not the same thing
2) Knowledge of war does not entail knowledge of combat
3) Knowledge of combat does not entail knowledge of war
1. War is a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. Combat is the result of war. Without combatants, it is nothing more than a war of words or a war of moral and or principal values. So I suppose if you are talking about the war on drugs, which is largely a moral issue, you would be right. There is not open combat and the statement is true. More on point 3 below.

2. Very true, knowing about WWII does not mean you will EVER know what it was like to fight in the battle of the bulge. Was that your point?

3. Since combat is an effect of war, I would hessitate to make them mutualy exclusive. To know combat is to know warfare. A war is thousands of battles (combat) going on at the same time. Since being in a state of war causes combat, to know combat is to know war.

I'll revise as nessecary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
"3. Since combat is an effect of war, I would hessitate to make them mutualy exclusive. To know combat is to know warfare. A war is thousands of battles (combat) going on at the same time. Since being in a state of war causes combat, to know combat is to know war. "

exactly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
subThermal said:
1. War is a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. Combat is the result of war. Without combatants, it is nothing more than a war of words or a war of moral and or principal values. So I suppose if you are talking about the war on drugs, which is largely a moral issue, you would be right. There is not open combat and the statement is true. More on point 3 below.

2. Very true, knowing about WWII does not mean you will EVER know what it was like to fight in the battle of the bulge. Was that your point?

3. Since combat is an effect of war, I would hessitate to make them mutualy exclusive. To know combat is to know warfare. A war is thousands of battles (combat) going on at the same time. Since being in a state of war causes combat, to know combat is to know war.

I'll revise as nessecary.
I propose war is a state of mind, rather than a state of action. A war does not have to have battles to exist (I.E. The cold war). The also does not have to be a war going to for there to be combat (I.E. Black ops). Therefore history has shown us that combat and war ARE mutually exclusive, you cannot deny this and to do so is fruitless.


bocephus said:
"3. Since combat is an effect of war, I would hessitate to make them mutualy exclusive. To know combat is to know warfare. A war is thousands of battles (combat) going on at the same time. Since being in a state of war causes combat, to know combat is to know war. "

exactly.
Please do not respond if you do not have anything intelligent to add.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I will revise my original three points as I see fit, but explain said revisions here.

I think minimalizing the number of posts we make in revision to our original ideas, we can make the discussion much easier to follow.

2. Very true, knowing about WWII does not mean you will EVER know what it was like to fight in the battle of the bulge. Was that your point?
Exactly.

1. War is a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. Combat is the result of war. Without combatants, it is nothing more than a war of words or a war of moral and or principal values. So I suppose if you are talking about the war on drugs, which is largely a moral issue, you would be right. There is not open combat and the statement is true. More on point 3 below.
I do not feel you have completely defined war, but only given one component of it. To say a person, such as a general, knows war, he should have knowledge of the reasons why the war was begun, as well as what it will take to end the war. There is a reason why generals have graduate education in subjects such as international relations, international economics, and regional/global cultural studies: because these subjects are important to identifying your enemy's objectives and pressure points, as well as anticipating their tactics and developing counter-strategies.

3. Since combat is an effect of war, I would hessitate to make them mutualy exclusive. To know combat is to know warfare. A war is thousands of battles (combat) going on at the same time. Since being in a state of war causes combat, to know combat is to know war.
I will concede that combat and war are not mutually exclusive, to demonstrate that they are still unequal, and that knowledge of combat does not entail knowledge of combat. In line three, one characteristic of war is given (numerous battles/combat encounters), but that is not the sole characteristic. The other characteristic of war is those things we will call socio-economic factors (as defined previously).

I can admit that to know war, you have to know combat... but you must also know about the socio-economic factors involved, as well.

Combat and the socio-economic factors of war are mutually exclusive, and so we cannot assert that because a person has one set of knowledge, they possess both.

We can think of additional criteria that fit into the definition of war that are mutually exclusive of combat: economic blockade (embargos), psych-ops, and societal disruption (instilling revolutions) are all independent from knowledge of combat but all are parts of war, and so to say a person knows war, he must know much more than combat.

Scatch Maroo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
Ahhh, philosphy... if anyone needs me I'll be in the "rifles" section... Sorry, this looks like a good thread but I'm far to slow to go with this one for now. I'll check back periodically though. But um, if anyone wants to send me cliff notes on this PM me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Edit: I am by no means a good writer or debater, nor do I ever mean to "flame" someone, please take this response for what it is worth- my opinion.

Edit 2: When I said war was a string of combats I meant that as only part of war, not all of it. Psyops, Blackops, and everything that goes into war is not nessecarily combat- but i just meant to say that war and combat are correlated.

Edit 3: I have since come to the conclusion that I am also partially wrong when I said not all war requires combat. Combat does not have to be armed. And the cold war was never declared, it is merely a term used to describe a disuation.

"I propose war is a state of mind, rather than a state of action. A war does not have to have battles to exist (I.E. The cold war). The also does not have to be a war going to for there to be combat (I.E. Black ops). Therefore history has shown us that combat and war ARE mutually exclusive, you cannot deny this and to do so is fruitless."
After careful thought and deliberation with some friends who are also veterans, we started to think of war as an idea, or concept. But after said discussion we decided it was indeed a very real thing.

I mentioned in my point 1 that not all wars are faught on the battlefield. But to say they are completly mutualy exlusive is an error. I agree with Scatch (I said your name right this time), to know combat is not nessecarily knowing *all* of war, in the context of knowing how to plan and wage war. They are indeed unequal in what you need to know to accomplish both.

My point was simply cause and effect. Combat is caused by being at war, although not all of the time. You typically don't run around other countries initiating in combat for no reason but to kill other people. Which most sane soldiers frown on. But that is another topic.

By planning and staging a war, like generals and commanders do, is not to know the combat of said war. You won't know the outcome of the combat until after the mission you just planned. But to say a commander has no regard for said combat while planning his war is also an error.

But the act and combat is a result of war. Not all combat mind you. You give the example of "blackops." Combat and war do not go by a certain rulebook and are never subject to the same outcome. That said, there are sometimes when declaring a war is not in the best public interest, politically, financially, etc. That does not mean the men in combat at not warring eachother. Granted it is a short war most of the time.

I think most people would agree than armed aggressors invading your country is a war. I know if i saw a boat in Red Chinese in the Gulf of Mexico armed and running over Galveston killing people, I would consider myself at war with them. Regardless of congress. And I'll be damned if they prevent me from going red fishing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,927 Posts
I think what he meant was that its the "non-intelligent" remarks that usually get us saying personal things ot scrappin with each other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
subThermal said:
Edit: I am by no means a good writer or debater, nor do I ever mean to "flame" someone, please take this response for what it is worth- my opinion.
Dont worry, just be honest and i think we'll get through this alright.

Edit 2: When I said war was a string of combats I meant that as only part of war, not all of it. Psyops, Blackops, and everything that goes into war is not nessecarily combat- but i just meant to say that war and combat are correlated.
Alright, gimme a minute with that one.

Edit 3: I have since come to the conclusion that I am also partially wrong when I said not all war requires combat. Combat does not have to be armed. And the cold war was never declared, it is merely a term used to describe a disuation.
Heres where my disagreement comes in. If you want to be like that, then vietnam wasnt a war. It was a policing action. If you tell that to some of the guys on this board i guarantee you'll not get a happy response. Mabye we should focus on an accurate deffinition of what war IS, rather than what is involved in war.


After careful thought and deliberation with some friends who are also veterans, we started to think of war as an idea, or concept. But after said discussion we decided it was indeed a very real thing.

I mentioned in my point 1 that not all wars are faught on the battlefield. But to say they are completly mutualy exlusive is an error. I agree with Scatch (I said your name right this time), to know combat is not nessecarily knowing *all* of war, in the context of knowing how to plan and wage war. They are indeed unequal in what you need to know to accomplish both.

My point was simply cause and effect. Combat is caused by being at war, although not all of the time. You typically don't run around other countries initiating in combat for no reason but to kill other people. Which most sane soldiers frown on. But that is another topic.

By planning and staging a war, like generals and commanders do, is not to know the combat of said war. You won't know the outcome of the combat until after the mission you just planned. But to say a commander has no regard for said combat while planning his war is also an error.

But the act and combat is a result of war. Not all combat mind you. You give the example of "blackops." Combat and war do not go by a certain rulebook and are never subject to the same outcome. That said, there are sometimes when declaring a war is not in the best public interest, politically, financially, etc. That does not mean the men in combat at not warring eachother. Granted it is a short war most of the time.

I think most people would agree than armed aggressors invading your country is a war. I know if i saw a boat in Red Chinese in the Gulf of Mexico armed and running over Galveston killing people, I would consider myself at war with them. Regardless of congress. And I'll be damned if they prevent me from going red fishing.

I also disagree in calling every small scrap that Special Forces gets into, in the jungles of bumfrakistan, a war. I do not however, know why. As i mentioned earlier i feel it would be prudent to attempt to agree on a workable definition of war, to accurately compare war and combat- and their correlations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
spade said:
Mabye we should focus on an accurate deffinition of what war IS, rather than what is involved in war.
An important task... I'll start with a list of criteria, and I think it would be important for everyone to edit the list (add, remove, change aspects).

A war must have the following criteria:
1) More than one faction must be involved
2) An amount of force must be used by one faction against another
3) At least one faction must have a designated beneficial objective

1. If there is infighting in a faction, we can say that the faction is then divided into multiple factions.
2. Force is any act by faction A to motivate faction B to conform to faction A's agenda; there is no minimal requirement for how much force must be exerted (as faction B may be easily motivated).
3) Faction A must have a designated objective that it perceives to be beneficial to itself, regardless of what that objective is.

Can anyone think of a war that either does not have one of these three characteristics, or think of a characteristic not listed that is shared in all wars?

Scatch Maroo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
"I also disagree in calling every small scrap that Special Forces gets into, in the jungles of bumfrakistan, a war. I do not however, know why. As i mentioned earlier i feel it would be prudent to attempt to agree on a workable definition of war, to accurately compare war and combat- and their correlations."
I only have time for a quick response right now, so I chose to respond about this statement.

Real life example: All nations / countries have airspace, it belongs to them. Invading another persons airspace is considered an act of war, whether or not they even have the ability to act on it is another matter- hence the U.S. does this with impunity to a number of nations to benifit ourselves.

We stopped flying U2's over Russian during the cold war because they developed SAM's that could knock them out-- however, modification to the U2 since then have made shooting one down a very big chore. Russia also had a vast radar network, they knew when a U2 was over them (not all of the time mind you), whether they choose to shoot it down is another matter. Although it is an act of war to violate Russia's airspace, it is a "bigger" one to nail an American jet.

That long tirade aside: Regardless of whether or not *you* feel special operations is other countries is an act of war or not is irrelevant. It is the people getting invaded that matter. Yes, we are commiting acts of war? Yes-fact, we are invading thier territory. Are we engaging in armed conflict? Are we trying to impose the will of others? A small war is a war nonetheless.

---------------------------

No offense made to Scatch, but I do not like the new wording of the proposed discussion- I don't understand it well. I have a G.E.D. after all. :lol:

I still believe war causes combat, all wars have combat. Combat can be verbal, legislative, ARMED, etc. However, to engage in combat does not mean you are at war.

More later.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,927 Posts
I like those definitions and examples, SubThermal. You can have combat without war but you can't have war without combat. Well, I'll amend that. War wasn't "formally" declared, but technically still acts of war. And like you said, it doesn't have to be physical violence. Lotsa other ways to impose will over a country.

I was thinking...Does a country need to have a legitimate Government to be at war?

The idea of the Chinese invasion wasa good example because it shows that if invaded by China, which would clearly be the aggressor in the scenario, it doesn't really matter what the motivation was for China to invade. They would be in your face nonetheless, and trying to take your property if not your life. Concepts of duty aside, it would be your right to fight them. Regardless of the orders of your Government or your status as a noncombatant, they are in your country and your home for hostile purposes.

Soo...I guess you don't need a legitimate Government to be at war.

To answer Scatch's questions, I think the effects and scope of a war can far surpass one fight, one campaign, or one President and Government. There is always so much going on that it is impossible to know a war without thorough study of it. Even in an act of war, such as the Black Ops example, there will be a long and probably convoluted history of how they ended up shooting Bumfrakistanis in the first place.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top