Cost Of War

Re:Genocide(Score:?)
by mercedo (822671) on 2006.11.10 22:40 (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11854854 Last Journal: 2006.11.09 2:21)
Your expression in the article was a well thought one, so I was not opposing to your idea.
At the near end of the second World War America tried calcurating the cost of war in two different cases - one is American GIs land the Japan proper and fight in it, the number of casualties were thought to be 150,000. I forgot the cost of war. In terms of just the cost of war, a nuclear weapon costs a lot more than conventional weapons, but human cost is irreversible.
Then how about the cost of massacre? Usually the complete pillage is carried out before massacre takes place. Then the wealth from the war in our side maximises, while the loss of enemy is enormous. The result is similar in using weapons of mass destruction.
Most costly war is as follows. A war that strictly distincts between non-combatants and combatants and only attacks combatants, no civilians. But in war tone area civilians turn to millitia, in this case it costs more. A war that the division of army stations in the occupied area for a long time costs a lot. The longer the term of occupation, the more the cost rises.
In these respect genocide is the cheapest and easiest way to win the war.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters