# How wars and large-scale conflicts work People have [conflicts](people-conflicts-why.md) among each other one-on-one. When people have significant [influence](power-influence.md) over others, they wage conflicts using their groups instead of as individuals. - Every single conflict, taken large enough and without any [love](people-love.md) for the other side, will become a war. - Beyond its scope it is an inescapable part of [human nature](humanity-universals.md), and there is no distinction in this for [class](people-classes.md), [culture](people-culture.md), [philosophy](philosophy.md), or [religion](religion.md). - Further, contrary to [leftist](politics-leftism.md) doctrine, the only difference with the weak and the strong with their capacity for violence is their means. Some of these conflicts are [moralized](morality.md) issues, but most of them are simplified battles over [power](power.md) toward a future [purpose](purpose.md), group [control](people-boundaries-why.md), or an ego battle over who has more power. APPLICATION: There is very little [justice](morality-justice.md) to any large-scale conflict. Beyond preventing [genocidal evil](morality-evil.md) (e.g., Nazis), there are very few good [reasons](purpose.md) for war. However, every attacker will [work to appear](people-image-distortion.md) [virtuous](morality.md) to gain support for their side. Even the [lessons](education.md) everyone learns could have just as easily (and less violently) been gained without the social revolution. Individuals won't normally see the benefits of attacking a different set of people. To keep everyone [motivated](purpose.md), most groups portray the [appearance](people-image-why.md) of their "[good](morality.md)" versus their opponents' "[evil](morality-evil.md)" using elaborate, [large-scale media](stories-storytellers.md). Wars are always horrible, but they determine who can exert [power](power.md). - The [story](stories-why.md) on how the winners won, and what they did, determine the [cultural values](people-culture.md) and [rules](people-rules.md) of a society after the war is over. To get a people group to [consent](people-contracts.md) to any form of war, they must experience two conditions: 1. They must be collectively experiencing [severe hardship](hardship.md) from an exteranl source (i.e., not as [logical](logic.md) [consequences](results.md) of [their decisions](mind-decisions-how.md)) 2. A strong-looking [leader](mgmt-1_why.md) who: 1. Is certainly *not* the cause of their hardship. 2. Can effectively convince almost everyone of a specific group of people who are causing their hardship. The more hardship, the less difficult to convince. The strongest selling point to attack other groups comes from overstating [fears](mind-feelings-fear.md) of what may happen if the other group wins. Each group can (and usually will) damage other groups to the degree that larger groups don't have [power](power.md) over them. If they're the highest government in the land, they can kill at will and do almost anything they want. If they're a corporation or colony that a more powerful group (e.g., a government) could dismantle, they'll only act within their [privileges](people-boundaries-why.md) unless they're making a strategic and significant [decision](mind-decisions.md). These dramatic conflicts have *many* interconnected elements, and each element is its own sub-conflict driven by unique [decisions](mind-decisions.md) separate from the [large groups' leadership](groups-large.md). Alliances often shuffle around, but nothing quite solidifies the group's loyalty like an outside threat. ## Inevitable The problem with any [group](groups-small.md) is that it's bound together by [feelings](mind-feelings.md) aligned toward a specific [purpose](purpose.md). Since feelings are low-resolution, they generate a presumed shared [value](values.md), but the granular details will be discrepant in light of larger matters. Once the larger issues are sorted out, *then* comes the smaller problems. The differences in opinion, combined with a few individuals' [unscrupulous](morality-evil.md) desire for [power](power.md) by a minority of individuals, [guarantee](people-conflicts.md) there will *always* be [smaller-scale conflicts](people-conflicts-why.md). Since there's simply not enough time to resolve all the smaller conflicts, some of them will eventually become larger and spill out into becoming larger-scale. Most leaders, in seeing conflicts, are [afraid](mind-feelings-fear.md) enough to address many conflicts (due to their scope of destroying the group), and that inaction will often magnify the force of the ideas. Many of the large-scale conflicts represent the same sort of [bad boundaries](people-boundaries.md) on [an individual level](people-conflicts.md), but they frequently magnify them into absurdly large effects that often give entire people groups [severe hardships](hardship.md). Groups can coexist for *much* longer with conflicting values than individuals alongside each other, but once a [trend](people-trends.md) has turned toward crushing the competition, it's difficult to stop [humanity's competitive or destructive nature](humanity.md). Usually, the trigger for a large-scale conflict comes through an existing disagreement among groups where a leader develops at least one of a few specific [desires](purpose.md): - Gaining [power](power.md) from the other group becomes more important than [peace](safety.md) from that group (often by getting money or resources). - Losing patience with the unease that comes from a looming conflict. - The leader harshly interprets a [religious](religion.md) text or a previous leader's desires. - [Irrational](logic.md) [hatred](morality-evil.md) of another people group. - A leader has a self-interested reason, so they deceive the entire group to do one of the above. APPLICATION: Nuclear weapons will never be as popular as the *threat* of nuclear weaponry, simply because the winner inherits a crater that's uninhabitable for a long time. Most groups tend to protect their most [educated and intelligent](education.md) members as much as possible from the group's highest risks. Strategists, among others, are often working closely with (or are) the ruling [class](people-classes.md) of the group, while less advantaged individuals (e.g., young, unintelligent) are far more exposed and disposable. To keep everyone in line, the lower class is implied to have access to those privileged positions if they work hard enough. When outright physical conflict isn't as advantageous to win, [legal battles](legal-safety.md) can become just as fierce. [Low-agreeableness personalities](people-personality.md) can even make *[sports](fun-sports.md)* a constrained form of warfare. APPLICATION: [Legal](people-rules.md) battles operate under the authority of that government (e.g., [intellectual property](legal-ip.md)), but [reach](influence.md) *much* farther than the two groups or their conflict. The [laws](people-rules.md) their conflict establishes create [philosophical](philosophy.md) [boundaries](people-boundaries-why.md) for *every* pair of groups with a similar conflict in the future, and often across regional boundaries. The resource costs for war preparedness are high. Any slack in [discipline](habits.md), even for a week or two, is enough to make the group lazy and ineffective. APPLICATION: Most effective large-scale leaders are either always interacting with a large-scale conflict or [have a plan](mind-imagination.md) for one. They'll avoid it when possible, but aren't [afraid](mind-feelings-fear.md) of it. One of the benefits of a well-trained military is that it builds [habits](habits.md) into its members that empower more [success](results.md) in other endeavors. For that reason, even when there are *zero* [risks](safety.md) from opposing forces, a military can still serve a useful purpose in times of peace by drawing out people from the [lower class](people-classes.md) into the middle and upper class. [Defusing a war](people-conflicts-war-why-defusing.md) [Engagement in a large-group conflict](people-conflicts-war.md) ## Interorganizational conflicts Each large group will typically act as one unified force until a [trend](people-trends.md) reaches maturity to question the leadership's decisions. At that point, the group becomes unstable. This is most clearly onset when people aren't getting what they [need or want](purpose.md), and the violence of war guarantees at least *some* people will oppose their leadership. The best way to placate members is with a reward system, typically with decorated medals. By using incentives that create a sense of [meaning](meaning.md), people can keep fighting *long* after it makes any [rational](logic.md) sense. One of the easiest ways to [influence](influence.md) the group toward a continued effort against the opponent is to generate a disaster or emergency. If there's a crisis, people are more likely to act in [overt fear](mind-feelings-fear.md) and rally behind their leadership. This disaster can either be a relatively smaller legitimate problem [enhanced into a larger one](people-image-distortion.md), or can be a complete fabrication. Sometimes this group will express as protesting or rioting, with the people who incite the protest starting a [trend](people-trends.md) of opposition. - This taps into a [base](mind-feelings.md) urge to rebel and directs it against the leadership. - However, both the leadership of that group *and* outside groups have the ability to steer the resentment with [propaganda](stories-storytellers.md). APPLICATION: Controlling and directing a riot is very difficult. While some people, especially the [Left](politics-leftism.md), are somewhat skilled at it, an anti-leadership movement will eventually take out its own [leaders](groups-small.md) unless someone can skillfully [influence](influence.md) the [anger](mind-feelings-anger.md) and [fear](mind-feelings-fear.md) toward a [moral-looking](morality.md) [cause](purpose.md). However, since the protesters are leaders of an opposition force that may run the system soon, the current leadership can often backfire spectacularly in how they handle the unruly dissenters. The leaders who oppose the rioters are typically [laggards](people-trends.md) of the rioting trend, and it's not uncommon for them to be ejected or die from it. Sometimes, a lower tier/subdivision of a group with a different culture can oppose the large group. In that case, it quickly becomes a small vs. large group conflict ("civil war") as soon as the small group's leadership make a public [decision](mind-decisions.md) that the small group majority approves. Otherwise, the small group will quietly subvert the larger group and wait for an opportunity. APPLICATION: To guarantee a war, [oppress](morality-justice.md) a large group (e.g, a nation) for at least a decade, then give them [economic power](money-economics.md) for a few years. They *will* try to get revenge and seize [power](power.md) as soon as they interpret an opportunity (which often comes from other [weak leaders](mgmt-badsystems.md) who leave openings for it). If there's enough opposition, that protesting group can split off into its own group altogether. If the original group [disagrees](people-conflicts-why.md) (which is common because it's a tremendous loss of [power](power.md)) this will incite a large-scale civil war, and the former leader will almost always fight the split with everything they can employ. On occasion, if there's any chance of [compassion or love](people-love.md), there will be a bitter departure without a conflict between the smaller and larger groups. After enough time, they'll often ally later on future [purposes](purpose.md). However, the more frequent reality is that the large group will commission a "secret police" to track the dissidents (e.g., Gestapo, FBI). High-ranking and vocal opponents will disappear in their sleep, civil disobedience will somehow become violent, and attempts to overtake the larger system will fail. The only way for any smaller group to fight the larger group comes through a unique type of group [social risk](entrepreneur-why.md): 1. Get together to discuss what everyone [understands](understanding.md). 2. Give enough time together to cross-pollinate [new ideas](mind-creativity.md) on how to solve the problems. 3. Agree on a good decision, then [take action on it](results.md). ## Technology and war Most of the intelligent people who have built [technlogy](technology.md) have had a false understanding of what would happen with respect to war. - Many of them completely overlooked the martial [purpose](purpose.md) of their technology (e.g., aircraft). - Some had presumed that the technology would create so much [fear](mind-feelings-fear.md) that everyone would cease to fight (e.g., dynamite, nuclear weapons). - However, that fear has always proven to be short-lived, and the new technology eventually becomes another strategic portion of future conflicts. - Even when a country closely holds a technological secret, the very observance of that technology's implementation is often enough to start reverse-engineering what they're doing. Technological superiority, however, is only one portion of a military strategy, and is still subject to the constraints of a battle. - Further, the inherent volatility from the extra complexity of technology can often serve adversely in wartime, where [supply chains](logistics.md) are easily disrupted. One key detail about military technology is that it's usually easier to make than for civilian [purposes](purpose.md) - Many technological elements are often designed for destruction: - Missiles versus satellite rockets - Drones delivering payloads versus for surveillance use - Nuclear bombs versus nuclear power - Granted, the technology that *sends* the payload over will need to be higher-quality, but not the actual things that blow up. ## Modern complications with war Modern warfare has tried to create some form of civility to war, especially as [technology](technology.md) has made warfare absolutely horrific. Dozens of organizations have responded afterward to the gruesome war [stories](stories-why.md) by banning certain forms of combat (e.g., chemical/biological warfare). The reasoning that drives the [rules](people-rules.md) around forbidden weapons is absurd. Beyond torture, killing a person is the worst thing you can do to them, and war is built around the threats and means of killing people. Some implements of war create devastating results that *don't* kill people (e.g., landmines), but the purpose of others is to make killing more [efficient](results.md) (e.g., hollow-point bullets). Further, the "rules of engagement" imply that only combatants should be harmed, and not civilians. While this may make sense in a war where the attacking and defending force are in relatively new territory, this is practically unenforceable when the defender is in their homeland and the [culture](people-culture.md) of the defender's [family](people-family.md) advocates for revenge. At that point, every civilian is a *possible* combatant. There are other rules that often become war crimes if not followed, most of them coming from the four Geneva Conventions: - If an aircraft has been disabled, the soldiers parachuting down are helpless and can't be fired on. - If a soldier wishes to surrender, they should wave something large and white (or sometimes black) and raise their hands. They're forbidden to "fake surrender". The other side may search and restrain them, and confiscate their items. The soldier only has to state their name, rank, and number, though it can sometimes include [religious preference](religion.md) and other small details that wouldn't run the risk of a court-martial. - Prisoners of war (POWs) can be taken to a camp and treated well. They can only be [forced to work](people-slavery.md), but in non-military capacities that isn't dangerous or unhealthy, and they must be allowed to perform medical/ministerial duties. Prisoners are allowed to escape or impersonate the opposing force's officers, and executing them is a war crime. - Torture and medical experiments that aren't benefiting the health of the prisoners are also war crimes. - Further, any soldier who performs a war crime can't say they were "just following orders". - If there's ever a cease-fire or an armistice (i.e., when the war is finishing), nobody is allowed to attack each other anymore. APPLICATION: Any issues with war crimes is a misplaced [morality](morality.md). War itself is horrible, and to make rules for warfare without outright killing everyone who tries to kill anyone is technically a double standard. APPLICATION: Modern societies plant the seeds of their own destruction. Better technology creates better social cohesion and more wealth, which creates more capacity for bigger and worse weapons. Everyone's [fear](mind-feelings-fear.md) of war without experiencing it makes them more averse to it. That unease and the advanced weapons make the death toll staggeringly high through bad [decisions](mind-decisions.md). This gets more [complicated](mgmt-badsystems.md), but the idea is to create a [fair and equal](morality-justice.md) opportunity for combatants to fight for themselves. However, this entire idea is ridiculous when you consider that any combatant who has the means to kill their opponent will. The simple reality of humanity is that they're capable of unending [evil](morality-evil.md) that is most prevalent in war, and only way to stop a war crime is to stop the war criminal, which usually means killing them. ## Ending the conflict A war will persist as long as at least one side desires to keep fight, and they resolve when the *authorities* of both sides are sick of fighting. - One of the most rapid forms of a war ending is through the authorities changing leadership, since the new leaders may change the organization's plans after deposing the old leadership. The [economic](money-economics.md) interests of war mean many organizations will try to prolong a conflict. - There is tremendous money in all the war [technology](technology.md) (e.g., arms dealers). - Except for nuclear warfare, the rebuilding effort *after* the war is highly profitable. - Irrespective of the opinion, the devastation creates tremendous [influence](power-influence.md) from speaking about the war (e.g., [journalists](language-journalism.md)). - Politicians historically see more people collectively rally behind them when there's a perceived outside threat. The messaging for a prolonged war has a predictable pattern, with at least some of the following elements: 1. There is always an implied [virtue](morality-virtues.md) to the conflict. - This can take the form of national pride, [religious](religion.md) justification, antagonism against the other side, or some combination of them. 2. The war's objectives don't have clear goals (e.g., "war on terror", "war on drugs"). - When the situation seems more favorable, the messaging is that it's working. - When things seem more dire, the messaging is that everyone needs to contribute more to stand on it. 3. There is very little information with respect to the opposing side. - This serves to [dehumanize](mind-bias-fear.md) them enough that the soldiers don't feel much remorse for contributing to the war effort. When two groups fight, there are too many unknown factors to know exactly what's going on at any given moment ("fog of war"). However, leaders still must make [decisions](mind-decisions.md) with their limited information and often try to increase the fog of war for their opponent whenever possible. In practice, strategic decisions are essentially [game theory](math-gametheory.md), with the entire engagement built around at least two actors. Even seemingly harmless activities that simply [change how things look](people-image-distortion.md) can be *highly* effective in deterring purposes (e.g., "false flag operation"). The entire purpose of each side is not simply to dominate a space or demonstrate superiority, but to utterly humiliate the opponent's leadership enough that it demoralizes the troops. This can happen through several methods: 1. The utter, rapid, crushing destruction of the group's combat abilities. - This requires the other group to prepare plenty of work beforehand to employ a *lot* of [surprise](mind-feelings-surprise.md) and [fear](mind-feelings-fear.md), along with the extra complexities of hidden [technology](technology.md) or an unrevealed alliance. 2. The defender successfully holds off the attacker long enough that the attacker doesn't see a reason to keep going. 3. The [supply chains](logistics.md) are cut off, on either side, in such a way that one side sees they can't win. Since military conflicts move at the speed of a leader's ego, it can often take a *long* time, especially if more than two groups were involved. - To that end, exploiting [mind games](mind-bias.md), such as by demonstrating numerical superiority, is the most effective solution to quickly end a war. The composition of the military force strongly determines how their morale maintains itself. - If the military is heavily reliant on [technology](technology.md), successfully sabotaging that technology will terrify the military (e.g., [hacking](computers-cysec.md)). - Mercenaries are happy to fight as long as they're paid, so any form of cutting off their money supply will make them abandon their post. - Conscripted soldiers are more loyal than mercenaries, but they have families to return home to. Assuming a side has been [trustworthy](mind-trust.md) with their war prisoners, they will win easily by offering soldiers a chance to return home without consequence. - Higher-rank officers seek political influence, so they can often be coerced if they're given a high-rank role or plenty of wealth if they choose to defect. The outcome of a large-scale conflict is never straightforward. Between the [trauma](hardship-ptsd.md) on both sides that can provoke irrational behavior, the [reasons](purpose.md) why people fight, and the intergroup conflicts that often play out at the same time, it's *very* hard to predict who will be left standing and in what position by the end. If a leader won't end a conflict (mostly from a lack of [compassion](people-love.md) for their own group's losses), the group will be utterly devastated until the leadership is stripped of their [power](power.md). In those situations, their immediate lower-ranking leadership will depose that leader to save the [group](groups-large.md), and their "betrayal" will typically be exonerated by [history](stories-storytellers.md). APPLICATION: The losing side of a battle will have the same [story](stories-why.md) as the winning side. But, they'll have completely opposite [values](values.md) and the roles reversed. The [truth](reality.md) is somewhere between both of them, but their [traditional beliefs](people-culture.md) will [diverge](people-conflicts-why.md) wildly from the same event. On occasion, depending on the situation, the new opposition's leadership will have enough skills [influencing others](influence.md) that they'll negotiate a compromise. That new compromise won't necessarily please *anyone*, and will often create further [bureaucracy](mgmt-badsystems.md) (e.g., trade unions, national coalitions). This will sometimes happen without any violence or loss, but can create larger-scale conflicts later. APPLICATION: Often, the only grace a large group will give is to [maintain image](people-image-distortion.md). Don't *ever* [expect](mind-imagination.md) [virtue](morality.md) from a conqueror. Wars can sometimes persist for a *very* long time, and it only comes through two possible reasons. Either the goals keep changing (which often comes through the leaders lying about what they really want) or the attacker severely underestimated the defender. Sometimes, the *allies* drawn into the conflict will fight among each other longer than the original antagonists. Whoever wins gets to claim all the resources. The members' continued [loyalty](people-image-why.md) comes from how [fair](morality-justice.md) they feel their portion is. After the event, the winners get to [write the story](stories-storytellers.md), and it becomes part of their [culture](people-culture.md). In it, their group is *always* the [protagonist](stories-why.md), barring certain cases of [leftism](politics-leftism.md) and [Christianity](history-church.md). APPLICATION: The losing side isn't always innocent or a victim. Often, they're only [distorting their image](people-image-distortion.md) to gain [favor](people-image-why.md) from you. Typically, the [youth](maturity.md) will hear the [stories](stories-why.md) and take them at [face value](people-image-why.md), and will often become the most powerful advocates for future conflicts about the subject. Some people, such as the Nazis and [leftists](politics-leftism.md), adapt those [stories](stories-why.md) to re-educate young people and [empower](power.md) future conflicts with them.