Page 2 - tough decisions - what would be your decision in crisis?

Aaahhh, strategic war games, absolutly nothing like real life, and you Shadow, a former soldier should know better.

Scenario 2 is always going to be the most productive to a milatary thinking man. Yet, thankfully, our leaders in power, do not just rely on military thinking to make the correct judgements.

Yes, I would agree, that sacrifices have to be made, i.e. the hostages, they are seen as a weakness to the military mind, so effictively they are no longer a factor in the outcome of the war, from our perspective.

But can you imagine the political pressure from groups back home in a real life situation. During the second world war, Our Majesty's Navy blew the hell out of the French Battleships in their home port, after the French army capitulated to the Germans - the reason, the allies didn't wont a potent navy fleet used against them.

The French went mad, along with some other Major European States, Churchill nearly lost his job (he eventually did once the war was over, the British people did not trust him in government, without the coallition government).

The point I'm trying to make is that in modern warfare - there are decisions that will garauntee a victory, but may not be descisive in the final outcome i.e. retaining the power of the state/country.

well, you can't blame Churchill for his decision. If he hadn't destroyed the french navy, the germans would have used it to kill more people and the final outcome (Churchill not being trusted) would have come about anyway once the ignorant masses realized that he had the chance and blew it (trust me, some other politician would have made public his error). However, he failed to defend his point well enough to keep the public's trust. That would have happened anyways and he saved lives. He did the right things.

Politics and military are seperate and common people need to understand that. Also, people associate militants with violance.. not necesarily true. A lot of good qualities are present in a good leader.

You're all going to think ill of this but you will have to agree that Hitler was a great leader. He wasn't a great person but a great leader. He brought Germany up from nothing to a real world-threat in a matter of years and created many new advertising strategies and combat tactics (Blitz-krieg "Lightening warfare" for example). He could have done a lot of good for Germany, but he instead did a lot of harm to the world.

New scenario...
(actual scenario from the Vietnam war)

You are a soldier and a 5 year old kid is running toward you. There have been many cases of little children having conceiled explosives blowing soldiers up. He is in range and you can take him out. He may or may not have an explosive on him. If he does, you and three people near you die. If he doesn't you have to live with the fact that you shot an innocent kid for no reason. What do you do?

Gecko, I tink your being rather confused...


As for calling the British people - ignorant masses - after they endured nightly bombings for about a year, and gave up their children to fight a tyrannical dictator like Hitler - an absolute disgrace.

you've interpreted what I said all wrong. In a society, the people outside of the political rings are not given all of the information needed to make sound decisions. Therefore they are ignorant to the actual events (politicians lie y'know) Not only that, not everyone who votes knows exactly what's going on. Also, with all the politicians lieing, who can really say they have any insight as to the world events.

Yeah, news lies too! They want an interesting story. World peace isn't interesting enough =P

My reason in using French Navy exaple was that Britain and the USA knew that the ships would be used against them and it was well documeted in the press at the time, however french soldiers in their thousands were killed from the descision, an allies peole had to be extinguished for the greater good, much like Shadows game.

However, in the real world that part of France still remembers those lost, due to Churchhill and co's, descisions.

The French people's hurt still remains, long after a battle has been fought, the masses may be ignorant but their not forgetful, and in the long run their choice will decide who makes the descisions in battle.

As for your Vietnam scenario, would you not give warnings, either in the foes language or universal sign language to stand still, lie down and stay there. If they did not look as though they understood, then fire a warning shot, if that didn't stop them, then, as with the self-preservation society code -- shoot to kill.

if there is anything suspicious in the kid (e.g. long cloths in hot
day, exposed wires) I would shoot. if there's no sign for such thing
and it looks like the kid just want attention, I won't. it depends on
feeling... of course I'll try to warn first but not always we have
time for this and kids don't always understand universal signs very
well.

Goog point about checking out his clothes - you can see the military mind kicking into gear for that call.

not really.
it's more like sheer experience, living in place where such things
became routine.

Has it got better in recent years, or is the threat of something happening still hanging in the air?

we are at war since 2001. things are relatively quite for some time now, but it's very far
from being stable peace. any minute, something can happen.

Such troubled times for such an interesting, insightful and historic part of the World. Keep the chin up Shadow.