Quote:
Originally Posted by HajiraAKhan
Ozia, my argument is that true victory cannot be achieved with military engagements, our world is more connected today than it ever was and in order to win and also maintain the higher moral grounds it would help to not kill the people that are in disagreement with you and your cause but to convince them. And should that not work, you can always use diplomatic tools such as economic sanctions and propaganda.
Also, information/cyber warfare is a much more pertinent threat against an adversary today, than actual military combat. So basically, the tools of war have evolved and we need to get creative with how to best use them to our interest. Hope that's a bit clearer. .
|
I beg to differ.
First,your arguments prove the point that instead of direct confrontation,countries should resort to modern tactics of war(like proxy,propaganda, economic sanctions and cyber warfare).Well,all this is part of fighting.it is fighting whether it is direct or indirect.that is why these tactics are called "proxy war" and "cyber warfare"
secondly,you have got to give a little more importance to the word "nations".Had the examiner used the word "armies" or even "countries", your argument could have been justified.
It is not about winning a war whether directly or indirectly..