In an inevitable war, do the methods to victory matter?

[HawkPerception]

Yes

No

[PretzelBeanie]

Yes. If you get a victory by doing much worse-than-necessary things, you have made the overall impact of the war worse than it reasonably could have been. Even if the war itself is inevitable, there are war crimes for a reason. It can still get much worse than the "inevitable."

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

You remember Hiroshima? The American narrative is that it won the war. Everywhere else it was a testing site after the war was over. That’s never left the US history. The methods of victory definitely matter.

[HawkPerception]

What about stuff like assassination through biological warfare?

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn america’s done that too, especially considering how many bloody coups the US government had a direct hand in

[FreyaRed]

Yes. It depends on goals and perspectives.
Losing 20k men for 200 hectare farmland is technically a victory when you want conquer land but it's a disaster when you see human resources as something that generates wealth.

[Cidknee]

Yes and no. In some cases along the way they don't matter and at certain points they must. This way you're not wrong and you insure victory.

[HawkPerception]

Any examples of what you think is wrong?

[Cidknee]

Like hurting civilians. But an example is how America followed the Geneva convention but dropped the bomb on Japan saving American and probably Japanese lives.

[Pterodon]

Not one fucking bit. It’s all out unrestricted warfare and that’s what makes it so horrible you’ll never want war. Trying to limit warfare costs lives. It extends the war. When war is declared the goal is unconditional and total surrender of the enemy. Ceasefires and armistices don’t work

[msc545]

The methods matter if you want people to trust you and leave you in control afterward.

[exitseven]

in the end, to the victor go the spoils.

[Gwendoline]

I think so.

[noohair]

War sucks but you need to maintain your humanity.