Total War

[Col. Tartleton]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Total War

And Zero s Were Given

Is a Total War always, sometimes, or never okay?

"Total War" being defined as: A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, esp. one in which the laws of war are disregarded.

In short: Do ends justify means?

And as a counter point: "War doesn't determine who's right only who is left." Is there any real or moral victory that can be claimed from a war against an entire nation rather than merely against an armed force?

In addition, if such a war be acceptable given a Ius Bellum but not in any other circumstances, what would be due cause for such actions to be taken by a reasonable actor?

[Exarch]

total war is only acceptable when you're righting confederates or Russians

[Roboute Guilliman]

When I bought medieval 2, I always attacked all my neighbours as the HRE.

[Ancient Aliens]

War shouldn't be waged on an enemies populace.

But yes, the ends do justify the means, in most circumstances.

[Condottiere 40K]

Circumstantial.

Despite recruits being informed that the Geneva Conventions will be enforced, military instructors hint about various less savoury methods in warfare, since the army in question is solely preoccupied in repelling invasions, and the general view is that if an enemy force crosses the border, depending on the desperation of the situation, almost all means are allowed to fight them, and let the International Courts deal with infractions later, as long as you win.

As regards the United States, ends seemed to have justified the means, as their country stretches from shining Atlantic coast to shining Pacific coast.

With the Assyrians, it seems to have come back to bite them, as their client states became desperate to overthrow their yoke, though that may have more to do with tax policy (which usually is the basis of most revolts).

[SPECTREtm]

War shouldn't be waged on an enemies populace.

That completely depends on your objective!

[Poach]

I can't answer the question because you have changed your definition of Total War to include several aspects that are not a necessity of Total War.

A "Total War" is a war in which the participants mobilise all available resources and manpower to the war effort. The definition of Total War does not include unrestricted use of weapons or targeting and it certainly does not include disregarding the rules of war. Why have you included these terms in your definition? By your definition Total War is always wrong, but you've changed the definition to turn it into something far worse than it's intended meaning. Attempting to prove a point, perhaps?

[Col. Tartleton]

I can't answer the question because you have changed your definition of Total War to include several aspects that are not a necessity of Total War.

A "Total War" is a war in which the participants mobilise all available resources and manpower to the war effort. The definition of Total War does not include unrestricted use of weapons or targeting and it certainly does not include disregarding the rules of war. Why have you included these terms in your definition? By your definition Total War is always wrong, but you've changed the definition to turn it into something far worse than it's intended meaning. Attempting to prove a point, perhaps?

I just got it off an internet dictionary definition. I think if citizens and infrastructure are considered part of the war machine then they're fair game for targets. At the very least a Total War is that definition, where it's a war between societies with the gloves of fair play off.

Sherman may have given the archetypal "Total War" but World War 1 and 2 were Total Wars, Korea was a Total War, Vietnam was a Total War. Our bombing campaign in the Gulf Wars has been a bit less "Carpet Bombing" and a bit more "Surgical Strike" but they were Total Wars.

I think almost all modern wars have become "Total Wars." Attacking civilians and civilian targets does not imply a genocide, but it at least means dealing with an insurgency.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Sherman may have given the archetypal "Total War" but World War 1 and 2 were Total Wars, Korea was a Total War, Vietnam was a Total War. Our bombing campaign in the Gulf Wars has been a bit less "Carpet Bombing" and a bit more "Surgical Strike" but they were Total Wars.

I think almost all modern wars have become "Total Wars." Attacking civilians and civilian targets does not imply a genocide, but it at least means dealing with an insurgency.

A Total War also includes both sides reconverting their Industry, Social Institutions, and Political Associations toward primarly oriented War functions. That only happened during the ACW, WWI and WWII.

The USA never converted their Economy into war based during Vietnam or Korea, the same goes for France during the Algeria Civil War or the Indochina War.

[Col. Tartleton]

A Total War also includes both sides reconverting their Industry, Social Institutions, and Political Associations toward primarly oriented War functions. That only happened during the ACW, WWI and WWII.

The USA never converted their Economy into war based during Vietnam or Korea, the same goes for France during the Algeria Civil War or the Indochina War.

Our economy has been at least for a large part been based on War since WW2.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Our economy has been at least for a large part been based on War since WW2.

Still, the main orientation of USA's GDP leans toward ''peace oriented'' trades not the War-machine. ''Total War'' is when you face a partial conversion or a full conversion of the war industry and other State Institutions(like Schools and Hospitals), when car companies start making fighting vehicles on a massive scale you've just entered a Total War stage.

[Mr. Scott]

Our economy has been at least for a large part been based on War since WW2.

I wouldn't say that. Sure, the military has played a large role in the American economy during the cold war.

It no longer is as significant though.

I means sure, in absolute terms US military spending has increased, but at the same time the US economy has grown faster, outstripping the spending.

The same can't be said for social spending though

Anyway, I doubt total war is even a real possibility anymore. Wars are, more then ever, determined by the country that has the most advanced technology. It doesn't matter if you have 50 battleships if they're all defenseless against a single stealth fighter/bomber/submarine.

Take a look at the Second Gulf War. The US smeared through the larger iraqi military (larger relative to the invading US force) through more advanced weaponry and tactics.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

A Total War also includes both sides reconverting their Industry, Social Institutions, and Political Associations toward primarly oriented War functions. That only happened during the ACW, WWI and WWII.

The USA never converted their Economy into war based during Vietnam or Korea, the same goes for France during the Algeria Civil War or the Indochina War.

It also happened during the Iran-Iraq war. Cities weren't just bombed. They were hit by chemical missiles. There were suicide paramilitaries with millions of volunteers. That war was probably more unpleasant than even the Eastern Front of WWII.

[Poach]

I just got it off an internet dictionary definition. I think if citizens and infrastructure are considered part of the war machine then they're fair game for targets. At the very least a Total War is that definition, where it's a war between societies with the gloves of fair play off.

Sherman may have given the archetypal "Total War" but World War 1 and 2 were Total Wars, Korea was a Total War, Vietnam was a Total War. Our bombing campaign in the Gulf Wars has been a bit less "Carpet Bombing" and a bit more "Surgical Strike" but they were Total Wars.

I think almost all modern wars have become "Total Wars." Attacking civilians and civilian targets does not imply a genocide, but it at least means dealing with an insurgency.

I'm sorry, but what? You need to completely revise your definition of Total War if you regard anything post-WW2 as a total war.

Let's exmaine:

Korea: The US increased defence spending after the war. Not an indicator of a Total War: why was this money not spent on war material during wartime? Where was the carpet bombing of North Korea and China? The US deployed half a million men for the Korean War. They deployed twelve million for the Second World War.

Vietnam: Where was the carpet bombing of Hanoi and the rest of North Vietnam's infrastructure? Where was the offensive into North Vietnam? That war is widely acknowledged as having been fought with the US "having one arm tied behind their back". In a Total War, you use both arms, feet, teeth and nails.

Gulf Wars: That's just a stupid claim. We aren't even using conscription to fight these wars.


Here's a nice pdf for you showing US defence spending for all wars they ever fought.

Korea cost about 1/9th of WW2 (lasting half the length, 1/4.5ths if you equalise it). Vietnam cost about 1/18th (lasting 3 times longer).

Even the United States spending in the Second World War was fairly light when compared to others. British Defence Spending in 1940 equated to 48% of GDP. It was 74% in 1945. Double the US figure. source.

I can only find the average German spending for the whole war, which is 50%, comapred to the US average of 32% and UK average of 45%.

The cost of every war fought after Vietnam doesn't even match the Korean War, which itself is no match for WW2.

There have been no Total Wars since WW2. None.

[Hoplite of Ilis]

Well, sometimes things are getting crowded, know what I mean? There's not enough to go around for everyone. I'm talking basic needs. So let's not pretend we live in a peacefull world of censorship while our leaders play with our lives behind our backs. If there's total war they must lose too. The commoners are losing every day. Every now and then there should be total war to clean things up. So we can go again at it when we're ready. Just take a look at things today! It would be great if people could live in harmony among themselves, but who will be the first to throw away his spear? It will not be me, and that's the kind of thinking that lives through the ages. As long as there are others that bring "their" into "mine", that's the way it's going to be. Hate it, love it, conseal it, judge it, embrace it, meditate on it, censor it, pretend it's not there.... It's always there, it's freakin' driving force of everything's being. The law of nature is the "harmony of killing each other for survival", and as a part of nature that we are, this will never stop. It's my right against your right. My wrong against yours. It's better to be sorry for something you did, than be sorry you didn't.
And quit pretending cause you're weak! Now let's play Rome!

[Claudius Gothicus]

Sherman's Total War was pretty acceptable, but there's a difference between waging TW and committing genocide, that needs to be clearly defined because completely destroying a nation's morale, infrastructure and ability to wage war is not the same as systematic murder of civilians.

[Sir Pignans]

No. Never justified. Preferably even if it's being waged on you.

[Ishoss]

In theory never justified. However I do believe that total war is an acceptable response if it's being waged on you. But in principle one shall never be the instigator of total war.

[Vanoi]

In theory never justified. However I do believe that total war is an acceptable response if it's being waged on you. But in principle one shall never be the instigator of total war.

This is what i pretty much believe.

[The excited one]

total war: a pure waste of resources if you can use it for state building and increase people standard of living