Which kind of war

[Knife]

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

I still pick A. The possibilities of continued hostilites with and the havoc on economic stabilities, and the possibilities of hostilities with other nations after a very long compaign with B makes is worse.

It's not like either option is good.

[weemadando]

Can someone UNEDIT that?

Because, given the nature of the thread and the fact people have already voted, it leads to a (probably unintentionally) deceptive OP.

And, if its only 400,000 as the new OP would state, then fuck yes, I'd go with Option A. Casualties will be high, but the shorter war would probably be worth it...

[Stofsk]

Clue from the wise: 400'000 is higher than 50'000. There is nothing else that makes me want to choose country A over country B. My vote is unchanged.

I don't give a flying FUCK if the war has a 'goal' or will be 'over in 5 years' as opposed to 20, 400'000 casualties is worse than 50'000, no matter how you cut it.

The only way I could choose country A over B is if there was some other consideration given to going to war, which frankly hasn't been stated in the OP, and were it to be, you might as well start a new thread with a new poll option.

[RedImperator]

I'm tempted to edit the OP back. Changing it at this point makes the poll totally meaningless, and I hate "Oh, it turns out my OP scenario is hopelessly onesided. Let me edit it to get the results I was looking for."

[Surlethe]

Has anyone considered the civilian toll in A and B? Certainly, as the OP states now, B is still the preferred choice, but would there be a meaningful difference between civilian casualties in A and B?

[Stofsk]

Has anyone considered the civilian toll in A and B? Certainly, as the OP states now, B is still the preferred choice, but would there be a meaningful difference between civilian casualties in A and B?

How can it be considered if the OP makes no mention of it?

[weemadando]

Well, if the 5 year war was to be swift and leave the nations involved relatively intact (mainly battlefield fighting), while the 20 year war was to rip apart both nations with extensive guerilla fighting and massive civilian casualties due to the nature of the conflict, it makes option A more "acceptable".

[Stofsk]

Well, if the 5 year war was to be swift and leave the nations involved relatively intact (mainly battlefield fighting),

What is this, 19th Century warfare? The OP states Option A is the complete destruction of the country's government and infrastructure. That means strategic bombing of industry and 'total war'.

while the 20 year war was to rip apart both nations with extensive guerilla fighting and massive civilian casualties due to the nature of the conflict, it makes option A more "acceptable".

How so? The OP is vague, and this isn't your fault, but it seems the OP is really asking "Which do you pick: Total War or Limited Conflict?" and gives a casualty list for each which we can expect to be accurate (otherwise the hypothetical is invalid and we're just wasting time here).

Given that, Option A is not only the one with higher casualties but also the one choice where more material destruction is expected as a goal of the conflict. Option B sounds like a modern day 'short war' that turns into a quagmire (sound familiar?), while Option A sounds like fucking Stalingrad. Or it did until the guy edited the OP. Now it sounds like the American Civil War.

[weemadando]

Urgh...

Until the original post is restored and we all know what the hell is ACTUALLY going on (because I don't entirely), I call SHENANIGANS! on this thread.

[Darth Fanboy]

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

I think the point people are trying to make is that Even though the first option has the "clear objective" the deathtoll is still much higher, and why would anyone prefer Option A which even after your edit of the OP still leaves 8 times as many people dead as Option B. /I think I could live with uncertain objectives and a prolonged conflict if I knew in advance that it would spare the lives of 350,000 people. Which is just a bit larger than Anaheim CA, and slightly less than Minneapolis, MN.

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.

No shit.

[Lancer]

DF, think about it for a second. Your country was just attacked by two other countries.

One of those has a military that poses a definite threat to your nation, and has already shown their willingness to perform acts of war.

The other is some shithole that most likely lacks the resources to attack your country conventionally, and will draw you into in a lengthy struggle against an insurgency.

[Macunaima]

I would choose Country B. At its current state, Brazil's military is in no condition to face a enemy that can infringe serious damage against our infrastructure, and the Country A seems to have a more organized and prepared military, in order to do that. Against Country A, a defeat seems more likely. A long and bitter war is not a good option, but some sort of victory could be achieved on the long run, at least cost.

[Darth Fanboy]

DF, think about it for a second. Your country was just attacked by two other countries.

One of those has a military that poses a definite threat to your nation, and has already shown their willingness to perform acts of war.

The other is some shithole that most likely lacks the resources to attack your country conventionally, and will draw you into in a lengthy struggle against an insurgency.

OP specifies that I can deal with one of the countries diplomatically and avoid the war, while warring with the other country. It says nothing about this other nation rising up and attacking later. Even if it does do that then Country B will have been dealt with.

Now Matt, think about it for a second, do you not understand my reasoning? One war gets eight times as many people killed. Why in the hell would I let 350,000 additional people die just to satisfy some national security concern which is already being averted through diplomacy.

[Lancer]

OP also states that the conflict with country B will last 20 years, as opposed to 5 with country A. During which time Country A can violate any deals you've made and attack you again.

And diplomacy is by no means a get-out-of-shit free card. Negotiations with country A, short of pushing them to the brink of defeat, will most likely require major concessions on the negotiating table. They can hurt your country, they have a willingness to do so as demonstrated by their attack, and both of you know that. You would either have to push them to the point of defeat or make major concessions to them in order to get peace.

[Argosh]

Choosing Country A would kill about 1/3rd and wound the rest of my countrys population, attacking Country B would be more beneficial.

[Surlethe]

And diplomacy is by no means a get-out-of-shit free card. Negotiations with country A, short of pushing them to the brink of defeat, will most likely require major concessions on the negotiating table. They can hurt your country, they have a willingness to do so as demonstrated by their attack, and both of you know that. You would either have to push them to the point of defeat or make major concessions to them in order to get peace.

But wait! You can't have peace with this country because they've attacked you in the past! Negotiations with country A, being diplomacy, will never work, because diplomacy is certainly by no means a get-out-of-shit free card.