TOS: A Taste of Armageddon

[Frustration]

Quick note to Chuck: there's a typo in the introduction blurb: the word 'think' is spelled as 'thing'.

[Riedquat]

The premise of this episode irritates a bit. Now perhaps that's unfair because there's always an element of "given such-and-such a sitution - just run with it - let's explore it and see where it takes us" about this type of story, but the idea of a simulated war like this - as soon as one side is losing they'll stop following the rules. If you can come to an agreement to stick to them you're probably capable of coming to enough of an agreement to not fight in the first place.

It treats war as a game, attacks being made to score points whereas in reality they're only done to achieve something materially; the goal isn't to kill the enemy but to defeat them (although history shows us plenty of commanders who can't tell the difference, and you've defeated them if you kill them all so they just leave it at that).

[Frustration]

Lois Bujold made the point in one of her novels that warfare requires so much cooperation between the combatants that they might as well cooperate in peace, instead. It's guerilla warfare that doesn't require cooperation; on the other hand, it goes on until the powerful force decides it's not worth the cost to continue whatever the guerillas disapprove of.

[Fianna]

It treats war as a game, attacks being made to score points whereas in reality they're only done to achieve something materially

Maybe scoring points is what it's trying to materially achieve. Specifically, political points. If the voters by and large support the war, then politicians have to show they're making devastating attacks against the hated enemy. If they don't, they'll be voted out and replaced by people who will.

[Beastro]

The premise of this episode irritates a bit. Now perhaps that's unfair because there's always an element of "given such-and-such a sitution - just run with it - let's explore it and see where it takes us" about this type of story, but the idea of a simulated war like this - as soon as one side is losing they'll stop following the rules. If you can come to an agreement to stick to them you're probably capable of coming to enough of an agreement to not fight in the first place.

It treats war as a game, attacks being made to score points whereas in reality they're only done to achieve something materially; the goal isn't to kill the enemy but to defeat them (although history shows us plenty of commanders who can't tell the difference, and you've defeated them if you kill them all so they just leave it at that).

There is an element of gameplay to war. It comes when both sides agree that they want to minimize the harm done to themselves by treating the other side in a fashion they wish to be treated in. The treatment of POWs is the best example and how nasty the one side becomes in response to the other deciding to take no prisoners.

What you speak of, though, effects the course of warfare. Back in the 90s people liked to think that chemical and biological warfare were restricted due to the crusading efforts of peacemakers, but they did so because they aren't effective in modern warfare. If they could become so again, nations would use them, just as Finland and the Ukraine are eying reacquiring land mines as their Russian threat grows.

With that said, the episode nonetheless agrees with you in spirit and is why this simulated war is looked on as worse than actual war. It's for that reason why I like it and see it as a good example of the Gene Coon spirit of Trek when Kirk pretty much takes pride in being a uncivilized barbarian that is still capable of waging war because it shows he's flawed and open to improvement and that's preferable to the endless, sterile murder going on in their perfect societies.

Coon very much loved embracing human flawedness. Roddenberry, as we all know, was obsessed with human perfection, and was thus full of contempt. IMO, the high watermarks of Trek almost always are of the Coon spirit like Wrath of Khan.

Lois Bujold made the point in one of her novels that warfare requires so much cooperation between the combatants that they might as well cooperate in peace, instead. It's guerilla warfare that doesn't require cooperation; on the other hand, it goes on until the powerful force decides it's not worth the cost to continue whatever the guerillas disapprove of.

One has to be careful with terms like guerilla warfare. We commonly see it as synonymous with tribal warfare (and conventional warfare is thus tied to modern warfare). Guerilla warfare isn't and can be as organized as conventional warfare.

Look at the Second Anglo-Powhatan War to see what I mean. The Powhatan waged a tribal war beating up the English and expected them to pick up and leave for less dangerous land. The English responded by waging guerilla warfare making hit and run attacks targeting their food infrastructure mostly that brought the Powhatan to their knees.

Most of human warfare has been tribal warfare, which is pretty much no different than a bunch of rednecks or gangbangers deciding to visit their neighbors they hate and fire off a bit to kill a few of them. It's internecine, uncoordinated and never ending operating on our casual desire to attack those we dislike.

It treats war as a game, attacks being made to score points whereas in reality they're only done to achieve something materially

Maybe scoring points is what it's trying to materially achieve. Specifically, political points. If the voters by and large support the war, then politicians have to show they're making devastating attacks against the hated enemy. If they don't, they'll be voted out and replaced by people who will.

One could see this game as an extrapolation of the UNs continued desire to interfere with modern war. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict should have been ended 3/4s of a century ago, but Israel is always prevented from consolidating is victories because of political pressure to not finish its enemies off. The result is that the conflict drags on and the body count has grown beyond what it could have been had this been decided back in the late 40s through right of conquest.

Applied here, the citizens of both worlds prefer a larger, slow bleed than the short blood baths of actual war. Millions more may die, but cities aren't Dresdened and tracts of land aren't reduced to moonscape.

[Swiftbow]

The premise of this episode irritates a bit. Now perhaps that's unfair because there's always an element of "given such-and-such a sitution - just run with it - let's explore it and see where it takes us" about this type of story, but the idea of a simulated war like this - as soon as one side is losing they'll stop following the rules. If you can come to an agreement to stick to them you're probably capable of coming to enough of an agreement to not fight in the first place.

It treats war as a game, attacks being made to score points whereas in reality they're only done to achieve something materially; the goal isn't to kill the enemy but to defeat them (although history shows us plenty of commanders who can't tell the difference, and you've defeated them if you kill them all so they just leave it at that).

I think that's part of the point... they sanitized the war so much that it really ISN'T about winning or achieving anything. They just point and click, and then murder the "casualties." And they've done it so long that people think it's normal.

[Mickey_Rat15]

The premise of this episode irritates a bit. Now perhaps that's unfair because there's always an element of "given such-and-such a sitution - just run with it - let's explore it and see where it takes us" about this type of story, but the idea of a simulated war like this - as soon as one side is losing they'll stop following the rules. If you can come to an agreement to stick to them you're probably capable of coming to enough of an agreement to not fight in the first place.

It treats war as a game, attacks being made to score points whereas in reality they're only done to achieve something materially; the goal isn't to kill the enemy but to defeat them (although history shows us plenty of commanders who can't tell the difference, and you've defeated them if you kill them all so they just leave it at that).

The goal of a military at war is to break the enemy's ability to make war on your nation, not to merely kill people*. The situation Eminiar and Vendikar have created means they are no longer trying to win the war, they are just killing people for no purpose other than the leadership of both world's have grown comfortable with the situation and see no reason to end the conflict. Which, oddly, they must have had to cooperate closely to even create the networks for these computer simulated attacks.

*The Allied island hopping campaign in the Pacific during WWII is a good example of rendering an enemy force ineffective without killing them. The Japanese expected a large land battle over their naval/airbase at Rabaul, and the reinforced the place with over 100,000 troops, who were trapped there when it was decided that could be bypassed, leaving that army stuck with the Allied naval supremacy preventing the Japanese from redeploying those forces.

[clearspira]

The premise of this episode irritates a bit. Now perhaps that's unfair because there's always an element of "given such-and-such a sitution - just run with it - let's explore it and see where it takes us" about this type of story, but the idea of a simulated war like this - as soon as one side is losing they'll stop following the rules. If you can come to an agreement to stick to them you're probably capable of coming to enough of an agreement to not fight in the first place.

It treats war as a game, attacks being made to score points whereas in reality they're only done to achieve something materially; the goal isn't to kill the enemy but to defeat them (although history shows us plenty of commanders who can't tell the difference, and you've defeated them if you kill them all so they just leave it at that).

The goal of a military at war is to break the enemy's ability to make war on your nation, not to merely kill people*. The situation Eminiar and Vendikar have created means they are no longer trying to win the war, they are just killing people for no purpose other than the leadership of both world's have grown comfortable with the situation and see no reason to end the conflict. Which, oddly, they must have had to cooperate closely to even create the networks for these computer simulated attacks.

*The Allied island hopping campaign in the Pacific during WWII is a good example of rendering an enemy force ineffective without killing them. The Japanese expected a large land battle over their naval/airbase at Rabaul, and the reinforced the place with over 100,000 troops, who were trapped there when it was decided that could be bypassed, leaving that army stuck with the Allied naval supremacy preventing the Japanese from redeploying those forces.

Doesn't that kind of depend on how bloodthirsty the leader? Joshua famously put every man, woman and animal to the sword after the fall of Jericho even though merely destroying the walls and (as cruel as this may sound) killing the able-bodied men would have sufficed.

[TGLS]

Doesn't that kind of depend on how bloodthirsty the leader? Joshua famously put every man, woman and animal to the sword after the fall of Jericho even though merely destroying the walls and (as cruel as this may sound) killing the able-bodied men would have sufficed.

I dunno, killing all the able-bodied men seems a bit impractical in the bronze age. Better off killing enough to force the enemy to surrender and enslaving the rest (and given that Jericho was a siege "enough" may be zero).

[Frustration]

Since the city of Jericho was destroyed long before the Israelites got there, the question is one of literature and myth.

The purpose of war? There is no single purpose. There are as many possible purposes as those engaging in warfare can have in mind.