it's worth indicating that EVERY conflict has war associated, since people [imagine] it going there as soon as [love] for their antagonist is utterly removed.
- of course, most people don't want to admit it, since their [shame] or [fear] of what others would think (as a power tactic) prevents them from openly disclosing the value
- this doesn't have any [class] distinction, either: the [evil] would represent in the weak if they became strong

[Bad-jacketing - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad-jacketing)

[Something Every Cop Should Hear – Dude Named Ben](https://namedben.com/something-every-cop-should-hear/)

[Charles Petzold](http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2015/07/De-Obfuscating-the-Statistics-of-Mass-Shootings.html)
(2015) De-Obfuscating the Statistics of Mass Shootings

[United States discloses nuclear warhead numbers; restores nuclear transparency | Hacker News](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41040417)
[United States Discloses Nuclear Warhead Numbers; Restores Nuclear Transparency - Federation of American Scientists](https://fas.org/publication/united-states-discloses-nuclear-warhead-numbers-restores-nuclear-transparency/)
- public intelligence


wars are always unpleasant, and nobody likes to accept this, but they determine who can exert the power and the winners (and, equally importantly, the [story] about how they won and what they did) determine the [values] and [rules] that dictate a region of the world

ironically, when a war is between A and B, C is waiting to take advantage of the situation, and will often do it when A or B fails against the other
further, C will ally with A or B, whoever they think is least likely to screw them over later in a way they can't contest

Modern societies contained the seeds for their own destruction:
1. better technology
2. better social cohesion
3. more wealth
4. more aptitude for bigger, worse war
5. bigger wars destroy society (i.e., nukes kill more than dynamite, which kills more than guns)

There are always presumptions that a new [technology] will build out a tech vs tech battle (e.g., air power in WWII, drones most recently)
- the reality is that the purpose is to take out the enemy in such a way that it humiliates the enemy's political leadership
- deep-down, it's all about smashing the conceit of a leader that wishes to crush the opposition

wars are won or lost either by a few possible things:
1. the utter, rapid, crushing surrender of an opponent, which requires them to have a TON of surprise and [fear] (often assisted by [technology] or an alliance)
2. the defender is able to hold off the attacker long enough that it's too resource-intensive to be worth it for the attacker
3. the [supply chains](logistics) are cut off, on any side, in such a way that one side sees they can't win

WAR NARRATIVE
the best war to keep on fighting is one that has an element of implied [virtue], but doesn't have any clear goals
- e.g., "war on terror", "war on drugs"
- that way, you can always justify that you need to keep fighting it
- if things get better, you can say it's working
- if things get worse, you can say you need more resources for that fight