• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Single most important factor in determining the outcome of a war.

The #1 war determining factor is:

  • Understanding the culture and the people of the enemy

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Wealth to fund the war

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • Military strategy

    Votes: 8 34.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 26.1%

  • Total voters
    23
When it comes to the erroneous information you've posted, its nothing more than Leftist disinformation. I think its motivated by the fact that Libbos see The Viet Cong as the good guys.

Why haven't you provided any sources then?
 
Your own lack of historical evidence proves me correct. Even the one source you presented proves you wrong.

More claims made and yet a a single source has not been provided for the accusations you have made. When you asked for sources I provided, yet when I ask you to provide sources for the claims you make you provide none.
 
So discussing with a friend of mine, the argument came up:

According to him:
- The single most important factor in deciding the outcome of a war is understanding the people and culture of the opponent.

According to me:
- The single most important factor in deciding the outcome of a war is wealth to fund it.

So, there will be occasions in history were one or the other mattered the most, but overall I still think money makes the final decision.


My examples were Rome, England, the US. His focused on Indian kings (asia) and the soviet union.

Tell me your thoughts and examples.



The most important factor is preparedness.

You go to war with the military that you have when war breaks out.

If that military isn't prepared to fight, and win, that war you're going to lose.

After war breaks out it's too late to start thinking about your military :roll:
 
More claims made and yet a a single source has not been provided for the accusations you have made. When you asked for sources I provided, yet when I ask you to provide sources for the claims you make you provide none.

You provided a source that proved you wrong. Enough said.
 
The people and the culture are irrelevant.

What difference does the other countries people and culture make when they are being obliterated by superior fire power?


A short war is based primarily on firepower, training and tactics.

A long war is based more on logistics, technological innovation and manufacturing...but good training is always a big plus. In a long war, if you cannot out build or 'out-technology' your opponent, you probably ain't gonna win.


Absolutely.

However by reading the comments and comparing the votes I still think that most people want to go with the politically correct answer.
From my perspective: Rome wealthy, organized and technologically advanced managed to subdue the regions of Spain, France, England, Egypt, Greece, Syria, etc. Brutal power which was funded by wealth not by understanding any culture, military strategy was important but at the core is to FUND the army.
England, same case with its navy.
Portugal same.
Spain, a bit different - Strategy to take over the Aztec and their gold allowed for massive land conquest.

Mongols: no cash whatsoever, nor cultural understanding.

In general, I don't see how understanding the culture of the enemy matters at all in army vs army warfare.

Yes, guerrilla warfare is a different thing, its a modern phenomenon which rises from a personal belief, not because the fighters are getting paid to kill the enemy as is the case in traditional armies. Historically, FUNDING the war is the ultimate factor, fund science come up with a bigger gun, give it to your army, or the Persian way - Hire mercenaries pay them up and continue on.

Anyone voting for "Understanding the culture and the people of the enemy" please write a coherent argument, validating such response.

A few days after the poll, and 4:1 votes, still no one has clearly explained why this is important. Again, it may be the politically correct answer, but if you can't defend it I cannot accept it.
 
Logistics



How are logistics going to help any country that's just been turned into a sheet of glass by its well-prepared enemy with a few thousand nukes which were ready to be launched? :roll:

Fill us in.

You go to war with the military that you have when war breaks out.
 
Wars can be relatively short or of interminable duration. Typically, the longer the duration, the greater the effect of unknowns and unpredictables.

There are many ingredients for battlefield success that are (or should be) interconnected. A few important ones off the top of my head...

Political/moral clarity
Unity of command
Defining the center of mass
Clearly defined/obtainable objectives
ISR capabilities
Logistics/Comms
Planning
Preparing/shaping the battlefield
Surprise, initiative, and flexibility
Combined arms coordination and joint operations
Battle in-depth
Force multipliers
Reserves and support
 
It depends. Let's look at the American Revolution:

The British should have understood the culture of the opponent, as most of them were British to begin with. Yet, they lost.

The British had far more wealth than the Colonials did, yet they lost.

History is full of wars that were lost even though the opponent was well known to the vanquished. Moreover, there are many incidents in which the wealthier nation also lost.

I'm thinking that there must be other factors of equal or greater importance.

Understanding what your objective is and how you are going to do it.

So;

The Nazi war machine lost in Russia because they had not got a clear idea of what they were replacing the Soviet social/political system with.

The British lost the North American colonies due to not having a clear structure of governance. It counted as clear in a 17th century sense but by the 18th it was hopelessly behind the times especially when it was trying to govern the most litigious bunch of rich, hard working, inventive and socially advanced people on Earth.
 
You mean this?

1975-the-south-vietnamese-capital-of-saigon-ho-chi-minh-city-fell-to-north-vietnamese-troops-during-the-vietnam-war.jpg


Do those guys look like farmers in black pajamas?

Nor does it look like a palace, more like a tank.

Just what is the point of all this? I'm picturing you in your pajamas, black or not it doesn't matter, trying to back up a point which was just an aside, not really pertinent to the central issue being discussed, and in which you were clearly wrong. Let's get back to the subject at hand.
 
Understanding what your objective is and how you are going to do it.

So;

The Nazi war machine lost in Russia because they had not got a clear idea of what they were replacing the Soviet social/political system with.

The British lost the North American colonies due to not having a clear structure of governance. It counted as clear in a 17th century sense but by the 18th it was hopelessly behind the times especially when it was trying to govern the most litigious bunch of rich, hard working, inventive and socially advanced people on Earth.

Good one. You have to know what your objective is, or you won't achieve it. I believe there are some modern examples of this principle as well. Vietnam and Iraq spring to mind.
 
Nor does it look like a palace, more like a tank.

Just what is the point of all this? I'm picturing you in your pajamas, black or not it doesn't matter, trying to back up a point which was just an aside, not really pertinent to the central issue being discussed, and in which you were clearly wrong. Let's get back to the subject at hand.

The point is, guerilla tactics failed in Vietnam.
 
So discussing with a friend of mine, the argument came up:

According to him:
- The single most important factor in deciding the outcome of a war is understanding the people and culture of the opponent.

According to me:
- The single most important factor in deciding the outcome of a war is wealth to fund it.

So, there will be occasions in history were one or the other mattered the most, but overall I still think money makes the final decision.


My examples were Rome, England, the US. His focused on Indian kings (asia) and the soviet union.

Tell me your thoughts and examples.
The single most important factor in deciding the outcome of a war is... the testicular fortitude to just do it and finish it.

The others mentioned are factors, but without the guts to just do it they aren't enough.
 
The point is,
guerilla tactics failed in Vietnam.



Guerrilla tactics worked pretty good for the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese army. :roll:

The North Vietnamese were prepared to do whatever they had to do to win.

They didn't let several hundred thousand dead and wounded stop them, they were prepared to lose a lot more.
 
Last edited:
Guerrilla tactics worked pretty good for the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese army. :roll:

The North Vietnamese were prepared to do whatever they had to do to win.

They didn't let several hundred thousand dead and wounded stop them, they were prepared to lose a lot more.
We... our government and military... still don't understand guerrilla tactics.
 
Guerrilla tactics worked pretty good for the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese army. :roll:

The North Vietnamese were prepared to do whatever they had to do to win.

They didn't let several hundred thousand dead and wounded stop them, they were prepared to lose a lot more.

Ueah, gierilla tactics worked so well, that they transitioned away from them after 1968.
 
The ability to cause so much pain that the opposition would rather have peace than continue. That might be a function of your strategy or it might be a function of your will or budget and equipment. The bottom line is that you break things until the other guy quits.

Having said that, it seems that doesn't work as well when fighting the things we call "wars" today. We are no longer fighting nations, but groups of people who do not partake in what you might call a "war". They fight under different rules than we must fight under such as indiscriminate killing where we castigate ourselves for collateral damage. What sort of conflict are we talking about in the OP poll?
 
Good one. You have to know what your objective is, or you won't achieve it. I believe there are some modern examples of this principle as well. Vietnam and Iraq spring to mind.

Yes, but I think more importantly you have to understand what your intention is about what you want to leave behind after the war.

I think it should be clear from the start at all levels. The front line soldiers need to understand it and so does the enemy and so does the political administration back home and then maybe they will send the right team to sort out the mess of the place after the tanks have finished.
 
Yes, but I think more importantly you have to understand what your intention is about what you want to leave behind after the war.

I think it should be clear from the start at all levels. The front line soldiers need to understand it and so does the enemy and so does the political administration back home and then maybe they will send the right team to sort out the mess of the place after the tanks have finished.

Exactly. If you're going to take out a dictator, then you have to consider who will take over after you're gone, and just how long and how much effort it will really take to establish a peaceful nation afterward and whether you have the will to pay the price.
 
Back
Top Bottom