• 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

eaglestar

New member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
Last edited:
Probably the ability to adapt to the weather.
 
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.

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.
 
"Inflicting more damage, in less time than the enemy"
 
"Inflicting more damage, in less time than the enemy"

meh, there are always exceptions--the American Civil War
 
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.

I think that the most important factor is the will to win. It must permeate down to the last man, Ho Chi Mihn teaches us that.
 
Probably the ability to adapt to the weather.

All the money in the world, all the linguistic training training and all the military genius in the world won't defeat Russia or North Korea in the winter months.

For the most part I think eaglestar is right. It's probably the wealth to fund the war. You can always buy military genius or cultural training. Not all climates are lethal.
 
meh, there are always exceptions--the American Civil War

The Civil War proves the rule. The Federals won by, "inflicting more damage in less time than the enemy".
 
All the money in the world, all the linguistic training training and all the military genius in the world won't defeat Russia or North Korea in the winter months.

For the most part I think eaglestar is right. It's probably the wealth to fund the war. You can always buy military genius or cultural training. Not all climates are lethal.

The Russians and the NORK's are super human?
 
The Civil War proves the rule. The Federals won by, "inflicting more damage in less time than the enemy".

I don't get how you reach that conclusion. The north lost 10% more troops and the war ended at the same time.
 
Military strategy... is the main factor. And what you are willing to lose... or rather not willing to lose.

And what you consider a "win". It is all on your terms, you can make it very hard for yourself to win or make it easier by your own policies, but the deciding factor is strategy.
\\
 
I don't get how you reach that conclusion. The north lost 10% more troops and the war ended at the same time.

The Federals did far more damage to the South than the other way around.
 
Given history, there exists no single greatest factor. In some wars, some factors more than others. In the end, it depends on the war itself, the nations/factions/groups conducting the war, etc... So in a sense, the factors that influence a war are determined by factors themselves.
 
Military strategy, training, and preparedness.

Second on the list is how well equipped the military is.

Understanding the culture of the enemy is more in the realm of "winning the peace," which is equally if not more important in the long run. But if we're just talking about winning a war, per se, then the list above stands.
 
I'm having a tough time answering the question, simply because "winning the war" is a bit too vague.
how we define "wining" is is ultimately how we would determine what factors lead to it.

victory conditions of each war are simply not the same.

is "winning" comprised of simply destroying the warfighting capabilities of a nation?... it is inflicting enough damage to overthrow a governing authority and replace it with an allied authority?... is it a war of reprisal, in which we simply dole out massive amounts of damage with no specific strategies involve the aftermath?

so , as i see it... if we are talking about WW2...wealth was the primary factor, or least the productivity that wealth can bring in building a warfighting machine.
in wars such as Vietnam, I think understanding people and culture are more of a factor.

I think the more we focus on tactical considerations, the more wealth becomes a factor, but the more we focus on strategic considerations, the more understanding becomes a factor.

overall, concerning a generic war, with generic victory conditions.. I would say wealth... but i'm uncomfortable with generics, so i'll have to waffle a bit on this one.
 
Actually, they don't, but I don't expect you to know why, so I won't get into it.

One country. Nicaragua. But hey, you "wont get into it". :lamo
 
no, they certainly don't prove that wrong, they nearly all prove it right.

be careful of limiting your understanding of what "damage" is.

Ok. What about that "damage"? Damage to the ruling state? Damage to their economy?
 
Ok. What about that "damage"? Damage to the ruling state? Damage to their economy?

Damage comes in many many flavors... sometimes, it doesn't take much physical damage to do massive amounts of damage to the enemies war fighting efforts.
such as in the Tet offensive.... very little actual physical damage was incurred by the US, but the war effort was mortally wounded over it. .... that damage was entirely comprised of, at it's very root, the incredulous idea that the enemy was actually still alive and able to fight.... that's it, that's all.
the mere act of the VC/NVA not being dead caused the US war effort a metric ****ton of damage.

damage is anything.. anything.... that harms a war fighting effort....
 
Damage comes in many many flavors... sometimes, it doesn't take much physical damage to do massive amounts of damage to the enemies war fighting efforts.
such as in the Tet offensive.... very little actual physical damage was incurred by the US, but the war effort was mortally wounded over it. .... that damage was entirely comprised of, at it's very root, the incredulous idea that the enemy was actually still alive and able to fight.... that's it, that's all.
the mere act of the VC/NVA not being dead caused the US war effort a metric ****ton of damage.

damage is anything.. anything.... that harms a war fighting effort....

Exactly my point. Pretty much plays into Ho's quote: "You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win.".
 
I said "other". The nation must support the war, and in order to support the war the people of the nation must believe it is justified and the cause is worth the sacrifice of their life, or the life of their child.

Without that, you can have all the money, all the strategy, and understand your opponent, and you can fail. Witness Vietnam.
 
Exactly my point. Pretty much plays into Ho's quote: "You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win.".

The will to win must be at least one of the most important factors. The Vietnamese were totally committed to their war of liberation. The forces against them, not so much.
 
The number 1 determining factor in war, in my opinion, is whether your political/strategic goals are achievable, and if they are, how much is society willing to sacrifice to achieve them.
 
Back
Top Bottom