[Drill Thrawl]

Warfare is killing people and breaking things - and it will continue until one side decides that they are tired of having their people killed and their things broken.

Which is a good argument for fast, hard and vicious wars. The sooner they are over, the better for all.

[cripplecreek]

The sooner they are over, the better for all.

Generations of North Koreans who have suffered the horrors of "peace" would probably agree.

[allmendream]

Indeed.

A short brutal campaign might kill a lot of people - but convince the opponent that continuing the war is futile - thus ending it.

A long “humanitarian” war campaign will go on indefinitely.

Thus those arguing for a more “humane” war - are de facto arguing for a longer war.

I am also reminded of the “Dragonslayer” movie - where a virgin female was ‘picked by lots’ to feed the dragon. But somehow the girls from well connected families never got chosen. I think such “simulated” deaths would tend to fall disproportionately if not exclusively upon those less well connected. How nice for them to have a war that doesn't cost them anything in terms of material goods - and supplies an excuse to execute a constant crop of those who are less valuable in that society.