StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Imagine if your country was attacked by two nations and forced to begin a war. However, through diplomatic methods, you can make peace with one of them and only be forced to fight the other. The war that you can expect from each nation is diferrent from the other. So-

Attack Country A- The war will last 5 years. There is a clear goal in destroying the other country's government and infrastructure. However, casualties will be astronomical. 400,000 your country's soldiers will be killed with about a million wounded.

Attack Country B- The war will last 20 years. There is no clear goal, and many of the battles will be fought with unconventional means. Casualties will be less, about 50,000 killed and a hundred thousand wounded. Most of them are not from them are not caused by the other country's regular military but by guerilla and resistance groups.

Which war would you support and why?

Country A, definitely. A definite goal is better than an indefinite one, because it's easier to maintain public support until the war is won. People were willing to endure the losses and deprivation caused by World War II, but they weren't willing to endure hardly anything to win Vietnam. I think it was because World War II had obvious goals and Vietnam didn't.

Country B, my country cannot lose 5 million and it has endless years of experiance with Country B warfare.

I would think B, if only for the fact that my country only has 20 million people.

Though aside from that, A is more preferable.

You guys have the Australian SAS.

As for me, B. A WWII-ish thing is simply out of the option, and if the current Muslim insurgency got worse, well, I'm sure it won't be the end of the world.

Country A would eliminate 1/6th of our total population, or thereabouts. Country B.

B as there's not enough troopers in Finland (the Total population is 5,223,442 people (give or take)(source:CIA factbook)) for A.

B. Who cares if it ends up being unpopular, its the better of the two options, and it will give my nation another valuable testing ground for new equipment and tactics.

A. A clear victory/defeat tends to let life get on after the war instead of stagnate hostilities dragging on. If you have to fight, fight then get on with life.

After the war you can try to get relations back and trade, ect....After a 20 year war, you'll have a whole generation if not two or three that are bitterly againt country A/B. With a 5 year war, you'll have hatered for A/B only from a single generation.

I'm surprised some people were actually for Country A, because I thought the casualties were so high it would deter anyone from picking that option. But obviously, for smaller nations with smaller populations, country B is much more preferrable.

Wouldn't five million soldiers be more than we've actually got? (we being the UK) I'm not up on the numbers, but isn't that going to require some sort of draft or massive increase in recruitment?)

Country B.
If more information was given, say that country B was some totalitarian nation that was intent on covering the world and enslaving it, or other moral and political notations about the war and each nation, I might reconsider, but with just casualty figures and something about a longer, more indistinct war, I would have to go with the course that ends up with fewer deaths. I am all for fighting a costly war for a good and just cause, but sending millions to their deaths simply because the objective is clearer and the duration shorter doesnt sit well with me.

Option C, use The Shep Solution.

El Moose Monstero wrote:Wouldn't five million soldiers be more than we've actually got? (we being the UK) I'm not up on the numbers, but isn't that going to require some sort of draft or massive increase in recruitment?)

military stats for UK (acording to CIA)
12,046,268 men (fit for military service(2005 estimate)
14,607,724 men (max 2005 estimate).

so you resourses unlike Finland were the max availability is only 1,121,275 men (between ages 18-49, 2005 estimate). so we had hire about 4,000,000 mercs so just fill the dead for country A, you on other could take that much casualities and still have men left.

Lord Revan wrote:

El Moose Monstero wrote:Wouldn't five million soldiers be more than we've actually got? (we being the UK) I'm not up on the numbers, but isn't that going to require some sort of draft or massive increase in recruitment?)

military stats for UK (acording to CIA)
12,046,268 men (fit for military service(2005 estimate)
14,607,724 men (max 2005 estimate).

so you resourses unlike Finland were the max availability is only 1,121,275 men (between ages 18-49, 2005 estimate). so we had hire about 4,000,000 mercs so just fill the dead for country A, you on other could take that much casualities and still have men left.

Ah, well show's how much I know about things. If the death tag on the first option was about 1/5th of what it was, then I could just about accept it, as 20 years of what sounds like essentially a 20 year war on terror but with regular attacks is going to play hell with a population's morale and mentality.

Country A. Long, drawn-out wars are not good for your society's stability and state of mind. So the quicker the war is over, the better it'll be for everyone else, even if the death toll is somewhat high. Plus, there's the added benefit that if an enemy has clear goals, it's feasible to direct counterintelligence efforts towards undermining their plans and making victory easier for yourself.

Not to mention that fighting a war against a country without any clear goals will have everyone asking why we're fighting them and get alot of negative reactions as opposed to one where we're clearly trying to survive being wiped out.

I can't believe there are people who are actually arguing that the uncertainty of a 20 year low-casualty guerilla war is actually worse than five million fucking war dead. That is more than twelve times as many casualties as America suffered in WW2.

5 year war. Clear goal (wipe country A off the face of the earth), shorter timeframe.

Plus, after your done with country A, threatening to do the same to country B will carry a little more weight.

I'm sure the four million, nine-hundred fifty thousand additional soldiers who would be killed in the five year war would be delighted to know the war had "clear goals" and everyone could "get on with their lives" quickly--everyone except their families, of course, but who's quibbling? I'm sure that's much better than, say, living.

Are you people smoking crack? Option B is Vietnam. Option A is the Revolution, 1812, Mexico, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the Philipines, both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, both Gulf Wars, plus every pissant border skirmish and police action we've ever been involved with combined, multiplied by five.

I'll take the 50,000 killed. If my numbers are correct, thats 6-7 dead a day (with leap years factored in). Thats similar to a bad day in Iraq and to be quite frank, the birthrate outstrips it.

The 5mil, means that there are going to be on average, 2738 or so casualties A DAY. That is astronomical. Thats like having a Tarawa atoll landing everyday for 5 years.

Take a guess which one got my vote.

Augustus Caesar wrote:Attack Country A- The war will last 5 years. There is a clear goal in destroying the other country's government and infrastructure. However, casualties will be astronomical. 5 million of your country's soldiers will be killed with millions more wounded.

Unacceptable. My nation has 20 million people in it, but not all of that number is of adult fighting age of course. An estimated 5 million dead and millions more wounded would effectively destroy my nation.

Choosing to attack country A would be like asking me to commit my nation's suicide. I won't do it.

Attack Country B- The war will last 20 years. There is no clear goal, and many of the battles will be fought with unconventional means. Casualties will be less, about 50,000 killed and a hundred thousand wounded. Most of them are not from them are not caused by the other country's regular military but by guerilla and resistance groups.

Which war would you support and why?

Attack country B. 50'000 killed is horrendous in itself, but it isn't as bad as losing a full quarter of my people and MORE who suffer grievous injuries.

If I pick option B, will I eventually be able to get Country A to help in the fight against country B?

Also, how public is the fact that there are these two choices? It might help the morale situation to know that instead of 5 million boys and girls being sent to war and killed, it's "only" 50,000 + 100,000 injured.

I picked B, BTW

I pick option B only due to the insane number of casulities of option A. Option A is better from my stand point in every way shape or form except the number dead so I'm guessing Option A either has to be us VS the Zerg or a Limited exchange Nuclear war.

So B due to casulities of A.

I don't see how anyone could pick Option A, even without a priori knowledge of post-war casualty reports: if we're going to be fighting our way through a fucking morass to the point of losing 2700 soldiers every fucking day, it's going to be pretty damned obvious before the war just by looking at decent intelligence.

Option B is a much, much better choice, simply because we're losing two fucking orders of magnitude less men.

Ok, I think I put the casualties for option A higher than I should have, so I edited the OP.