Tanks, armored combat. Reading this through and really thinking about it, somehow I just think of it as goofy. Interestingly, chariots were historically largely used as implements of war.
20190408/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot
20190408/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks
20190408/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_warfare
20190408/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_%28World_War_I%29
Seriously, what is the point of warfare if you are just going to armor up tanks to protect the occupants, and then blast out more powerful ammunition to attack enemy tanks? The original idea with developing tanks was to end a stalemate during World War I on the Western Front. Originally, the idea was to launch a tank forward to plow through the obstructions set up by trench warfare, and then infantry would follow the cleared path and continue the attack in a more traditional manner. Except when two such tanks from opposite sides would meet. But, this is merely scratching the surface, as ships, airplanes, and helicopters are also used in modern warfare.
What is warfare as formally defined? Now, now, sure there are lots of formal definitions from pundits out there, but let me put for a more technology modality neutral definition, hinging primarily off of physics.
-
Humans organize into possibly nomadic groups. However, the primary defining characteristic is physical proximity within both space and time. Although they may not have clearly defined physical boundaries across long periods of time, across a short period of time, their bounds are defined quite formally.
-
With the definition of groups, humans always have an ingroup and an outgroup.
-
With proper cooperation, outgroups and merge to be considered part of the ingroup.
-
Without cooperation, these groups of humans can collide if they exist in the same place at the same time. Such a collision may be considered an invasion.
-
If the collision causes physical damage to property or people, then it is considerate hostile and thus terrorism or warfare.
-
The primary goal of ending a conflict is finding a way to stop the damage from continuing. There are a number of strategies.
-
Symbolic invalidation: the property that can be damaged has been declared to no longer be covered as property. Effectively, it is “thrown out in place,” and damage to it is no longer of concern.
-
Fleeing the area. If either party successfully moves away from the other, the damage can no longer continue.
-
Disabling the animated, moving objects that are sustaining the damage. The modality and means to this end is not specified, and there is more than one way to do it. However, the means to symbolic communication may not yet available as long as the parties remain outgroups to each other. Methods of physical manipulation are generally applicable. Confining the moving object within a cell is a general method.
-
Merging of outgroups into ingroups. Although there might be conflict at first contact, quick remedial action to negotiation can eliminate subsequent damage.
-
With these definitions, there is no understanding of offensive and defensive sides, only whether there is a violent conflict per se. You can only understand the offensive side as such if you can prove they planned to enter the conflict.
Fundamentally, the ability to collide requires the ability to move about. With stationary objects, you cannot get collisions. Also, the ability to cause damage depends on the ability to manipulate the world. Simple collisions are the most basic means by which damage can be caused, but additional implements for manipulating the world beyond motion of can cause more extensive damage.
By these definitions, there is no way to “win” a war, only ways to end a conflict. But, there is an important key point here. Inanimate objects have “the right of way.” Naturally, if there are only inanimate objects in an environment, damage is very unlikely to occur. So, any animate objects being observed to sustain damage should be secured within inanimate cells or otherwise disabled.