alt Hacker News> That seems to contradict itself? Cooler heads plan carefully; hotheads act out - seek immediate emotional satisfaction without thinking of the consequences.
No, because “cooler heads” are advocating for not retaliating. I’d accept the opinion of “cooler heads” if it was things like “we’re not ready yet and need to build up our military before being able to risk active conflict” vs “we should never fight back, war is bad :(“
> Wars are not acts, but the conseuqences of long chains - large graphs - of decisions often lasting decades or more. Wars come from situations where there is no other choice.
I have no idea how that is a response to what I said instead of just waxing poetic. If another nation decides they are at war with your nation, then guess what buddy, you’re at war. Even with your head in the sand.
> I’d accept the opinion of “cooler heads” if it was things like “we’re not ready yet and need to build up our military before being able to risk active conflict” vs “we should never fight back, war is bad :(“
I agree, essentially, and would say that your example is not one of a cooler head; it's just a different emotional response.
But who is saying “we should never fight back, war is bad :(“ ? Could you name someone? I haven't heard it at all. Do you see it even on this HN page, even once? I haven't heard any leader say anything of the sort.
> If another nation decides they are at war with your nation, then guess what buddy, you’re at war. Even with your head in the sand.
I'm just repeating a fundamental consensus of experts.
That's not how wars happen - the leader of a country doesn't just decide to do it one day, other than perhaps 'wars' against helpless targets like the US invading Grenada.
Warfare is very complicated. A 'nation' can't decide something, though the leadership can. But that doesn't mean they can execute it - that the nation and its internal powers will follow them sufficiently to carry it out. If Trump actually decided to invade Canada, obviously that would be the end of Trump's term in office.
Then, even if they get support, that doesn't at all mean they will be successful. Look at the US wars since WWII: Mostly failed, only one clear victory of any significance (the Gulf War), even those most were against substantially weaker foes.
So what is necessary to 'succeed' in warfare?
The most respected maxim of warfare is Clausewitz's, 'war is the continuation of politics, by other means' (not exact, and Clausewitz wrote in German of course). That is, it's politics, but by means of organized violence rather than by economic or diplomatic means (though those are involved too).
Wars start with politics; and leaders are very limited politically by the situation. They can't just do anything at all. They need political options, to create suppport and sustain it, etc.
Wars only end with effective political solutions. For example, in Afghanistan, the US lacked an effective political solution; then the US ran out of political will and withdrew. The war ended when the Taliban provided a stable political solution, for good or ill.
It's politics, and Russia's leadership knows that well. If they just start a war without considering politics, they'll fail badly. Instead, they are creating the political ground where they have the best options and their targets have bad ones.