ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

Accidental Democrat said 03/11, 07:14 PM
I interpret the opening statement as neutralizing a group of militant individuals of any size incapable of fighting, which, in this day and age, could be depriving an opponent of munitions or other weapons.

However, there is a better way of combatless combat: circumvention of the will for combat. I hold the following against your opening line: "Those who prevent a motive for combat are the best of all." This is because the reward for their success, preventing all hostile actions, has more benefits that neutralizing an opponent, which still instills ill will and always requires expensive and time-consuming preparation for combat in the case that neutralization efforts fail.

The costs of failure are lower. Even if potential enemies get pissed despite our best efforts, then we fight them, which is what we'd do under any other circumstance. If we try to render people helpless via surreptitious tactics, which is the main way neutralization occurs, and if we screw up, then they kill/maim/punish our neutralizing agents, and we have to fight anyway. Starting from the higher, safer level first before working downward is always the better idea.

Accidental Democrat said 03/12, 12:41 AM
I vehemently disagree with you on the brightline standard of what it means to "attack an alliance." My understanding of it is depriving a military group of diplomatic, economic and/or military support from a different group (which is not necessarily hostile), and I hold that this is the common perception of the phrase.

In addition, neutralization is not limited to supplies. Contaminating a water supply with a soporific certainly renders an army helpless but absolutely cannot be considered "attacking an alliance." Neutralization, even that which is proclaimed by the subject tag, is certainly a tactical action, such as the one just described.

There is a difference between unable to act and unwilling. A group of armed peacenik hippies is able to act but unwilling. Instilling unwillingness is thus a higher tiered option.

Also, since we're already considering unmentioned options, occupation of a city is more difficult and costly than besieging it, because while a besieger always gets the action and the besieged can only react, an occupier always gets the action while the occupier can only react, and so siege is in fact not "the lowest."

Accidental Democrat said 03/12, 07:06 PM
I accept that in some rare circumstances, attacks on alliances can be tactical. However, I do not accept the unwilling vs. unable theme that my opponent proposes. As I've said before, a mass of people with rifles are able to inflict great carnage, but if they have no motive to do so, then they won't. They're able but unwilling. I would first keep them from getting such a motive (tier 0) than try to disarm them when they're pissed, because that's more dangerous. Diplomacy (or the crucial "war for hearts and minds") does not make an opponent "helpless," it makes him unwilling, which is a crucial difference.

"Attacking" an army should be understood with the same definition as engaging in "battle" with them. Water contamination falls under neutralization, not battle, especially if it uses non-lethal substances. This contamination is a covert-op, and covert-ops should really be tier 1, with tier 2 as disrupting relations (disrupting alliances via negotiations is not always a covert-op). I hold that IamFry's new tiers don't really match his original ones in commonly-understood language.

The occupation vs siege argument hasn't been addressed by IamFry. I call for recognition of this.