You make good points. And as I said, I don't know.
It's been a long time since I read up on religious wars in the 16th & 17th centuries so my memory that the commoners were trained men of arms and not serfs and herdsmen is unreliable. If I figure out whether my source is an actual historian or Shakespeare, I…
You make good points. And as I said, I don't know.
It's been a long time since I read up on religious wars in the 16th & 17th centuries so my memory that the commoners were trained men of arms and not serfs and herdsmen is unreliable. If I figure out whether my source is an actual historian or Shakespeare, I'll let you know.
I used a Nazi general because I wanted a military leader from a declared war vs. a Bin Laden type. But for the reasons, you stated, not a great example.
I am going to disagree with you about Wall Street or any other concentration of banking and finance. Both WWI & WWII were won because the US financial system provided the funds to beat Germany - both for us and our allies.
Currently, the system has back ups and distributed files so taking out NYC or London isn't going to cripple us.
But the strength of our financial system has in the past been as much a part of the victory as Lockheed or DuPont.
A country's finances are a legit target.
It's why we've blocked the Russians from using SWIFT.
Good point about finances. But wouldn't destroying Wall Street kill a lot of people who have nothing to with war while leaving others across the country who do? There is a thin line at the border between terrorism and war. Apologists will claim that the bombing of German cities or of Hiroshima took out military targets, but the primary result (and the purpose of the RAF commander, according to a new book) was to terrorize civilian populations and government officials. In any case, particular targets can be discussed rationally if clear basic principles exist. To be clear about the Nazi general, someone like Rommel was fighting a war. Others, however, were directing actions that were terrorism by any reasonable objective definition.
Same. It's nice to be debating.
You make good points. And as I said, I don't know.
It's been a long time since I read up on religious wars in the 16th & 17th centuries so my memory that the commoners were trained men of arms and not serfs and herdsmen is unreliable. If I figure out whether my source is an actual historian or Shakespeare, I'll let you know.
I used a Nazi general because I wanted a military leader from a declared war vs. a Bin Laden type. But for the reasons, you stated, not a great example.
I am going to disagree with you about Wall Street or any other concentration of banking and finance. Both WWI & WWII were won because the US financial system provided the funds to beat Germany - both for us and our allies.
Currently, the system has back ups and distributed files so taking out NYC or London isn't going to cripple us.
But the strength of our financial system has in the past been as much a part of the victory as Lockheed or DuPont.
A country's finances are a legit target.
It's why we've blocked the Russians from using SWIFT.
Good point about finances. But wouldn't destroying Wall Street kill a lot of people who have nothing to with war while leaving others across the country who do? There is a thin line at the border between terrorism and war. Apologists will claim that the bombing of German cities or of Hiroshima took out military targets, but the primary result (and the purpose of the RAF commander, according to a new book) was to terrorize civilian populations and government officials. In any case, particular targets can be discussed rationally if clear basic principles exist. To be clear about the Nazi general, someone like Rommel was fighting a war. Others, however, were directing actions that were terrorism by any reasonable objective definition.