It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Militarily speaking: During war, humanity is not part of the equation. Humanity considerations occur before and afterwar but never during.
To be most merciful, one must be most ruthless.
To do less, and try to enter humanity during a conflict, is to extend the conflict without resolution. This extension negates resolution, which extends much more suffering on both sides.
Get in, close with, destroy the enemy, and the net count indicates in all wars that lives are saved.
Originally posted by dooper
I find your mistaken assumption that one's response should be of equal or similar proportionality. ... Such a concept is a fool's errand, and a concept that has never, ever, been practiced in any battle, conflict, campaign, or war since 1479 BC. This very recent concept of proportional response is only touted by losers.
I disagree. The reason that there are so many unresolved problems is that too many ancillary considerations are permitted to keep one from obtaining a simple goal. That explains the lack of decisive success in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Gaza. And anywhere else ongoing conflicts continue to seep pus over decades unresolved.
I would suggest that the masters of warfare know much more than you, and they all agree with what I said previously. Grant, Sherman, Alexander, Marborough, Napolean and Suvarov, just to name a few
But we can look at a couple of comments, and if they don't make the point, and you disagree, you do yourself no favor of understanding.