My conception is that the world would be a much simpler place if war was total. No one would start it unless it would be 200% it could win it. And we would all go through military training just in case, you know, a neighbor drank too much last night and thinks it can win against you.

> The threat of violence is much more powerful than actually committing violence.

While I agree with this statement, the only way the threat works is if from time to time you apply violence to reinforce your capability and availability to actually do it. And the US is really good at actually being violent so others don't even think about doing something against it, at least the majority of countries anyway.

▲

don_esteban 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Re: My conception is that the world would be a much simpler place if war was total. No one would start it unless it would be 200% it could win it

Now apply the same logic to the current Iran war.

▲

ExoticPearTree 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I do not see Iran winning this. The current government is also hated by the people who would very much like to see all of them dead.

Al Jazeera has some very good insights into this, and the gist of it is: the Iranian regime is in a fight for its life with nothing to lose. If they are degraded enough, a revolution will start in Iran and they will be killed by the people. Or by US/IL bombs - whichever comes first. There is no way they get out of this alive. They are trying to prolong the inevitable.

▲

don_esteban 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Regarding Iran's future:

You are describing Libya scenario, not a 'lived prosperously ever after'. There is no credible opposition in Iran to take the mantle.

	▲	ExoticPearTree 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No. Iran has almost all of its population part of the same ethnic group, which in Libya it was not true: all the tribes started fighting each other. It does not an established opposition because the current regime has the habit of killing anyone it doesn't like or goes against the official line. Now there is a chance for opposition to form.

▲

don_esteban 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

OK, slowly:

The wars are already total for the weaker sides. See Ukraine/Iran. Did not stop the stronger side attacking.

You are advocating for no constraints (total war) on the stronger side. Taken literally, that means genocide of the losers. Really, that's what you want?

But yes, you are right, the world would be much simpler in such case - there will be no humans left. OK, maybe some hunter-gatherers.

	▲	thaumasiotes 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You are advocating for no constraints (total war) on the stronger side. Taken literally, that means genocide of the losers. Really, that's what you want? Taken literally, it means genocide of the losers is an option the winning side has. It always has been. Note that Genghis Khan's explicit plan when he conquered China was to wipe out the Chinese to make room for Mongols. He wasn't stopped from doing that; there was no constraint to block him. But he was persuaded not to.

▲

Tanjreeve 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is the same mistake as made in Iraq and Syria by media policy pundits. Dictatorial regimes collapse pretty quickly without a significant base of support enough to stop a revolution happening. They might not have a majority of people supporting but it isn't a democracy. Dictatorial regimes will always have one or more of military, business, or sub-groups of citizens in their pockets as clients.

Whenever we say "the regime is hated by it's people it will collapse" it should be asked "then why didn't it collapse already?". In Iran metropolitan areas are where you see opposition. That's also where people have cameras and media orgs tend to be. We get a warped depiction of opposition in Iran even without our own media's baggage. Meanwhile the power base of Iran is everywhere but metropolitan cities. And there's a lot of clients who benefit from the regime. I think this might be worse than the sectarian violence that came out of the Hussein regimes collapse because the Sunni sect his base was built around was still a minority. This time it's the majority and the people being fought against are the Americans, the Israelis and the Arabs so their backs are against the wall this is a total war already from their side.