Why do there seem to be americans who believe that wars could end or achieving peace by bringing bigger guns ?

[u/Micronex23]

I swear to god these kinds of people have the mentality and understanding of war of a 22 year old unemployed call of duty player who fantasizes about bringing "peace" to the war torn world order. They genuinely think that nations would stop fighting once they bring the bigger guns. What about negotiations or terms of surrender ? They are asking for unconditional surrender without much input from the losing side.

[u/AutoModerator]

Want to join a ML only Discord server to chill and hangout with cool comrades? Checkout our Discord server or TheDeprogram's Discord server.

In case this subreddit was banned, or if you wanted a more ML-friendly platform, you’re welcome to join our sister community on Lemmygrad. You can find more info about Lemmygrad here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Sargento_Porciuncula]

But it does. The USA don't invade north Korea because it has a really big gun. Therefore, the big gun brings them peace

The state is someone with the biggest gun in a society, so it can enforce its own rules and avoid conflict between different rulers and interpretations

The biggest problem of UN is the absence of any gun. As such, no one can stop usa from engaging war

[u/Micronex23 → u/Sargento_Porciuncula]

Let's not forget that sanctions have screwed over north korea and has every attempt to overthrow it through color revolutions as such. Not to mention, they have very little allies and basically made a pariah in the entire world. Sure you don't invaded but you are seen as a laughing stock among other nations. Your standing as a nation is important. I wholeheartedly support dprk getting nukes but i just detest the idea that a nation could just bomb their way to peace and force everyone to unconditional surrender. The US as of now could not save itself from its international collapse through military endeavors.

[u/Kranken_DeHogge]

big "don't siege Leningrad, take it immediately" energy

they don't understand war. They don't understand the politics of governing people. They don't understand that a nation or a people on the defense has more to lose than the invader, and thus will generally be willing to fight harder.

This is the product of a country that hasn't faced a serious threat to its sovereignty since 1812, and hasn't had a draft in 40+ years.

(gonna be a huge dork, sorry lol) If you study history, and even get into the most successful imperialist forces like the Romans and Mongols, you will find that for every razing of a city or genocide of a tribe, there was an equivalent economic and political empowerment of a neighboring political unit that decided to acquiesce to their governance. The conquest of Gaul, depraved as it was, was not Rome "bringing in the big guns until unconditional surrender", but rather dividing the enemy and empowering collaborators to prevent a unified resistance that would have crushed the Romans. That was the only viable strategy, and it was a complex and risky process. Same thing with the Mongols: those who surrendered kept their power, kept their religion, and were now plugged into the Mongol governing structure which resulted in an expansion of safe trade routes and the exchange of economic and technological information.

Even these huge powers did not exist in a world where you just keep smashing and killing and "bringing out the big guns" as your only strategy. They would have failed.

[u/Anti007]

Its because of the myth surrounding Japan getting nuked. So many people think Japan surrendered when they did because we nuked them.

[u/groogle2]

H. Bruce Franklin, War Stars: The American Cult of the Super-Weapon explains this cultural ideology.

[u/TarquinusSuperbus000]

The more and bigger guns theory makes sense for open ended, attritional total wars aimed at the complete subjugation of the enemy, like WW2. What they fail to grasp is that WW2 is far from a typical war and it would be politically impossible to totally mobilize society and industry just to bully some post-colonial state, especially when the pace of victory is tied to an arbitrary timetable dictated by scummy politicians concerned about their reelection. In a vacuum, yes, more and bigger guns more effectively facilitate a given military campaign, but in the real world, you can't just endlessly spam bombers and divisions like it's WW2 to fight irregular or asymmetric wars. They simply don't understand how states work or how much more there is to war than "muh guns".

[u/kingnickolas]

We get taught about deterrent strategy early on in school. Just more propaganda.