An auto racing contest is not comparable to war.

You can win a race by being merely 1 second faster getting to the finish line than the 2nd best car.

In war, if you're evenly matched or close to evenly matched, you'll probably just destroy each other. Assuming roughly equal resources and roughly equal efficiency in allocating resources, battle plans etc. Winning a war but your country being in ruins anyway is not exactly a good outcome.

Tree wrote:An auto racing contest is not comparable to war.

Yes, I know. It's an analogy like the kind you try to use when talking about technical elements eludes you.

Tree wrote:You can win a race by being merely 1 second faster getting to the finish line than the 2nd best car.

You can win a war by being just a bit better in every way than the opponent.

But that's not really relevant, is it?

You don't need to respond to my analogy if you don't want to, though.

Tree wrote:In war, if you're evenly matched or close to evenly matched, you'll probably just destroy each other.

That essentially never happens.

Tree wrote:Assuming roughly equal resources and roughly equal efficiency in allocating resources, battle plans etc. Winning a war but your country being in ruins anyway is not exactly a good outcome.

That is, ironically, what I argued before with you with regards to nuclear warfare.

Akamia wrote:Handling would be a good place to start. There’s definitely a point where speed alone will do more harm than good; worthless and, moreso, absolutely dangerous if the driver can’t even control the car properly, unless the track is a straightaway.

Aye, there are numerous ways that this can be approached.

Driver safety might be another one. We might win, but there may be a 10% risk of death to the driver. Perhaps we could invest in systems to prevent this.

Another way that I think is actually analogous to the subject at hand is the economic point of view.

If it costs us $100 million to win the race, could we win it just as comfortably spending $70 million? Perhaps we could streamline certain parts of the process to achieve very nearly the same results (a tiny fraction of a loss in our overwhelming speed) but also cost us less in the process.

This is an intriguing part of this Brave New World, because wars can potentially be won before a shot is fired if you can take down their defense systems electronically. You need a lot less ammunition if they can't fire back.

Sparhafoc wrote:

Tree wrote:Those bases in foreign countries by the way are only there cause you slack on your own defenses or aren't good enough to defend yourselves.

Naive belief in a complete fiction.

Tree wrote: You should be thankful for that, not resent it.

You should stop projecting your juvenile emotions onto others just because your arguments are shit.

A slight res here, but I came across this.

It may not be expert opinions, but it was still quite interesting.

Seeing both Koreas walk in the opening ceremony of the Olympics under one flag and under on name does give a bit of hope. Sure the Kims won't be out of power any time soon, but perhaps this is a small sign that the NK is willing to coexist.

Heck, maybe we'll even see a peaceful unification in my life time (next 40 years or so). One can always hope.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/7/1697 ... ear-weapon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro