[extropy-chat] "sensitive" war

Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Thu Aug 19 03:12:31 UTC 2004

Spike wrote: 

> I admit I am at a loss in this election.  I see no real
> differences in how the two front runners will handle
> the war.  [X] says he will fight a more sensitive war.  But
> all war is hell, there is no reforming it. 

Can't agree Spike. "Sensitive" doesn't necessarily mean
weak and soppy. Though it might. It might mean using all 
the senses. The best warriors notice the subtle things. If
they don't they aren't the best warriors.

*Sometimes*, but not always, the use of soft weapons 
(like diplomacy) can save the lives of your own troops. 

Or if you don't care about your troups it can save you 
the cost of replacing your military consumables which you
may need sometime to deploy when the soft weapons
won't work.  

*Sometimes* its the warrior (the hawk that looks like the
dove) who gets past the technology and the mindsets that 
are aimed at killing big fierce warriors.  

When that is the case the commander that uses his senses
best, the one that is most "sensitive" will waste less of his
troups, or whatever else he (or she) values. 

There was a scene in the movie Braveheart where Edward
the Longshanks give an order to fire arrows into a mellee and
his second in charge says "pardon me Sire, but won't we hit
our own troups?" To which Longshanks replies "yes, but we
will hit theirs too, and WE have reserves". 

An insensitive warrior (or commander) is one with lots of 
scars or unhappy troops or constituents, because they miss
the easy wins.  He or she wins (if they win) only having taken
a suboptimal route given their own resources.  Insensitity,
even in war, will produce waste.

And often the wars the commanders are fighting are not the
wars the soldiers on either side think are being fought. 


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list