| > That's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to global nuclear annihilation ... That is the kind of thinking that ends wars. Compare the results of this method in WWII to the results of modern warfare, where force is much more restrained. > Either you're trying to end the war, or you're not. It isn't as simple as that, you aren't just trying to end the war - you are trying to end the war while maximizing your return on blood and treasure. If your goal is to completely dismantle the enemy's war machine, and head off another war with them in a few years, then you are most likely going to want an unconditional surrender. So if your enemy announces that isn't in the cards, then why bother with negotiation? > Earlier you said that it was "risky" to do so. How? Because irrational actors can't be understood, you can't negotiate without understanding. > It only matters that they never did. I don't try to negotiate with salesmen when they announce a hard price, the resulting lack of negotiation is on them - not me. |