• 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
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.".

you point was that guerrilla wars somehow prove the maxim wrong.... and your point was incorrect.
limiting your notion of damage was the initial mistake, but it's not the only one.... and it is truly is a lengthy conversation to have if you want to flesh it out...
it would probably be quicker to be accepted to USAWC, NWC, or USNWC and take the courses, though
 
you point was that guerrilla wars somehow prove the maxim wrong.... and your point was incorrect.
limiting your notion of damage was the initial mistake, but it's not the only one.... and it is truly is a lengthy conversation to have if you want to flesh it out...
it would probably be quicker to be accepted to USAWC, NWC, or USNWC and take the courses, though

No. The point was "Inflicting more damage, in less time than the enemy". The DRV face massive amounts of bombing raids, bombing industrial zones, bombing economic zones, bombing basically anything and everything. The US struck basically anything and everything, and even on the ground... If destruction leads to victory, then clearly we have many conflicts that dont back up that claim..
 
No. The point was "Inflicting more damage, in less time than the enemy". The DRV face massive amounts of bombing raids, bombing industrial zones, bombing economic zones, bombing basically anything and everything. The US struck basically anything and everything, and even on the ground... If destruction leads to victory, then clearly we have many conflicts that dont back up that claim..

you're still making the same mistake....

but it's ok if you don't want to listen,I don't mind... I only had 25 years in uniform living and breathing this stuff, in addition to my time at USNWC and UNNWC-SEA... and of course, reading source material for , oh I dunno.. 35 years or so?
surely, your extensive knowledge in these military affairs far surpasses mine... maybe tomorrow you can teach me applied military strategy , or MAGTF expeditionary operational doctrine .. or how to shoot a gun... or something.
 
28 posts and not a single one touched on the single most import factor in winning a war - LOGISTICAL SUPPORT. If you can't arm, feed, transport and keep your army healthy, you will lose. But if you can do these things, you can win just almost any war as long as your military is somewhat close in strength to your enemy.
 
"Inflicting more damage, in less time than the enemy"

That sounds like the metric we used to fool ourselves into believing we were winning the Vietnam War. It doesn't mean crap if the enemy has nothing but TIME.
 
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.
I agree.
The wealth is the single most important factor. With enough money, a country can build strong military forces and keep them fighting effectively. Without enough financial support, the army may soon fall apart in front of feeble enemies.
 
i think guerrilla wars prove that wrong.
Guerrilla wars are not commonplace, compared to the major wars. You cannot dismiss an argument just by rare cases. More often than not, inflicting more damages in less time is overwhelmingly destructive.
 
The ability to counter the enemy. Soviets couldn't do **** to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan once they got US support. US kicked the North Vietnamese army's arse, but never broke the Viet Cong. Macedonia swept through Asia because of long spears and a tight phalanx. Genghis Khan rode past the big walls and threw the plague at people. The British had a big-arse navy. The Finns invented a cocktail.

Basically, it's sufficiently innovative tactics.
 
That sounds like the metric we used to fool ourselves into believing we were winning the Vietnam War. It doesn't mean crap if the enemy has nothing but TIME.

No army has an infinite amount of time.
 
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.

Depends entirely and totally on what the goal of the war is. War for conquest of territory? Firepower and strategy. Counterinsurgency? So many factors it is scarey. Defensive war? Strategy and tactics.
 
Depends entirely and totally on what the goal of the war is. War for conquest of territory? Firepower and strategy. Counterinsurgency? So many factors it is scarey. Defensive war? Strategy and tactics.

No matter what the goal is, the objective is the same.
 
28 posts and not a single one touched on the single most import factor in winning a war - LOGISTICAL SUPPORT. If you can't arm, feed, transport and keep your army healthy, you will lose. But if you can do these things, you can win just almost any war as long as your military is somewhat close in strength to your enemy.

well, i'm of the mind that logistical support is implied in the "wealth" option... I might be off, though.
 
Political will
 
No army has an infinite amount of time.

Except when the LIVE there. When you are a foreign force fighting against the citizens of a country they never give up.
 
well, i'm of the mind that logistical support is implied in the "wealth" option... I might be off, though.

Having the money to support the logistics and actually carrying it out are two different things. Germany had the money, manpower and materials to crush the Soviets, but they lacked the logistical support to put them into place and keep them effective. Our victory in WWII was all about logistics. The Germans had better arms and the manpower to use them. It was only when we were able to bring the massive logistical hammer that D-Day enabled us to have that we were able to defeat them. When we started attacking their logistical support and building ours up to the point that we could keep our men supplied through anything, then we were able to defeat them. It's why the Bulge failed so miserably, the Germans lacked the logistical support to sustain the effort.
 
Guerilla war can damage their will and has so much in the past..

Actually, there are very few examples of a successful guerilla war and no, Vietnam isn't one of them.
 
Except when the LIVE there. When you are a foreign force fighting against the citizens of a country they never give up.

You mean like Germany? Japan? The Confederacy? Poland? France? Shall I keep going?
 
Back
Top Bottom