Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kesh" data-source="post: 1292499" data-attributes="member: 1308">xenoflare: Excellent quotation. Thanks. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Barsoomcore: I have to say, you've got a good point. Seems the word 'war' is what has many people hung up here... it's really semantics.Consider this folks: Country A sends a military division into Country B to claim a strategic location. Country B chooses not to retaliate, allowing the land to be annexed by Country A.Country A has committed an 'act of war'. Now, here's where the two schools of thought seem to diverge:1) Since it committed an act of war, Country A has begun a war. Since Country B chose not to retaliate/defend itself, it essentially lost. Therefore, a war was conducted in a very short span, with Country A the victor.2) Despite violating their territory, Country B did not respond to Country A's actions. Therefore, no war actually took place. Had Country B responded with violence, a war would have begun.Barsoomcore is simply pointing out that #2 is a valid interpretation of events. If the defender does not respond to aggression, it can be considered that no war ever took place; however, if they do respond, that is the crossing point where a war actually begins.Thoughts?</blockquote>