this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2026
111 points (99.1% liked)
Slop.
939 readers
555 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think that's entirely correct, you can't win a war without having a bunch of fit people who can actually carry guns and walk around the territories you need to occupy. But in this case China has more than enough people with guns so it's indeed down to strategy (and we can see how the US strategy works in Iran...)
Depends on the objective of the war, occupying territory isnt always the goal, though it tends to be required to some extent usually. And while I will concede that having an army that is physically fit to be an army, I figured that was an assumed baseline. Like, of course well placed toddlers with perfect logistics in place would still lose to a real army. But running a smart war is always more important than greater overall force unless you get to a really extreme difference in force, like ine side having guns and the other side not etc