What kind of bomb is it? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By MB.
#1768093
guzzipat wrote:I tend to view rules and law applied to war as little more than a silly attempt to make such activities acceptable.


Sir John Fisher wrote:The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility
User avatar
By Potemkin
#1768139
The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility

Quoted for truth. You have to go all out in war, or else don't bother. Having said that, however, going all out against civilians, who by definition are not a threat to your troops, is illegitimate and should indeed be illegal. You should attack the enemy troops with everything you've got, but you should also try to avoid enemy non-combatants. Making soldiers and commanders legally answerable for attacks on civilians is entirely justified.
User avatar
By Typhoon
#1768236
Quoted for truth. You have to go all out in war, or else don't bother.

All well and good for John Fisher in 1905 but the dawn of modern post WW combat has made the quote very dangerous and out of place in our times. To the extreme, past 1945 I think few can happily contemplate the details of what "all out" would actually mean.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#1768240
"All out" would of course include the use of tactical nukes against enemy troop concentrations, but not their use against major cities.

Of course, a 'total war' would require that major cities be attacked, since this is where the industrial capacity to construct machines of war are located. A total war would therefore not be governed by any kind of international law or rules of war. A limited war can and should be so governed.
User avatar
By Typhoon
#1768276
A limited war can and should be so governed.

Now that I can happily QfT. :)

In modern warfare the only destinction between civilian and a soldier is what it is provided by law, since any individual, infrastructure or location can be justified as a military target, even in a limited or insurgency conflict. I dislike Fisher's quote because it advocates that the laws adopted to regulate warfare are wrong and to reverse this would result in all wars turning into total wars, where rules do not apply. The quote should correctly be finished I believe with the line "Hit Hard! Hit First! Hit Anywhere!", somthing Gaza and Isreali civilians appear to have become familiar with.

Moderation in warfare today is certainly not foolish, but rather a nessesity.
User avatar
By MB.
#1769060
I dislike Fisher's quote because it advocates that the laws adopted to regulate warfare are wrong and to reverse this would result in all wars turning into total wars, where rules do not apply.


You've completely missed the point of Fisher's saying. Obviously, as Clausewitz explained, 'absolute war' is both a physical impossibility and something far from desirable by societies and governments. Fisher, in the context of the tremendous technological and scientific changes occurring in the early part of the 20th century, noticed that when preparing for war, one should always prepare in the extreme- ie, for the 'absolute war'. His quotation about moderation is really a very advanced description of deterrence (in this case, naval deterrence). The HMS Dreadnought came right out of this philosophy. Be prepared to demolish your opponents with superior technology, and it is that much more likely that your opponents will not be able to face you in war, and even if they attempt as much, will be unable to escalate violence towards an absolute point.

The development of true deterrence and the creation of the thermonuclear weapon has only made Fisher's saying that much more relevant today.

Potemkin wrote:A total war would therefore not be governed by any kind of international law or rules of war. A limited war can and should be so governed.


An absolute war. Of course, absolute wars can be total, but no total war can be an absolute war.
User avatar
By Typhoon
#1769309
His quotation about moderation is really a very advanced description of deterrence

Its just as unappealing applied to deterrance as it is when following quotes on the rules of war. Fisher's saying may be considered as a concept of deterrence but its too crude to be constructive, especially today. Two opponents following Fisher's philosophy results in spiral growth as each prepare, for the 'absolute war'. Ramping up the tension to the point where things gain a momentum of their own, then something gives. Thankfully nuclear weapons have a greater deterrance effect than the dreadnaughts managed, but that does not mean we want a return to stockpiles of the 80's.

As before abandoning moderation at any stage or aspect of warfare is asking for trouble.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Tainari88 @JohnRawls Trump is an extraordi[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

International relations throughout history has bee[…]

@Scamp Bombing Mexico is the STUPIDIEST idea I[…]

No one is more manly than me. We know there is […]