Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 10:51 pm
I wonder if the secretary of defense thought about how many air defenses it might take to down all the drones sent by Iran, and whether they thought about what will happen when there are no more air defenses and the drones keep coming?
Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace.
It could make for quite unusual turn of events if America and allies at some point needed to send a delegation asking for conditions of peace. I don't expect that at all, but such turn of events have happened in human history.
Another article.
U.S. Races to Accomplish Iran Mission Before Munitions Run Out
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
JohnH wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 8:45 am
Ultimately, the old European system of small professional armies mostly composed of mercenaries, knights, and so forth going and having battlefield skirmishes is far more civilised than the system of mass bloodshed we have today. Wars were also considered far less virtuous back then than they are now.
From what I know each lord was required to levy peasants to fight and what pointedly argues against back then being any different would be the sieges and then the banning of the cross bow because it could kill the Nobel knight…
Most lords would instead recruit knights which could be substituted to peasants (and would be far better at fighting).
Well the military has almost ran out of supplies before. This really is normal although it is also a sign of poor planning for the amount they needed underestimating the supplies.
JohnH wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 10:44 am
Most lords would instead recruit knights which could be substituted to peasants (and would be far better at fighting).
20 men would kill a knight and be far cheaper to equip and train.
Well the military has almost ran out of supplies before. This really is normal although it is also a sign of poor planning for the amount they needed underestimating the supplies.
I somehow doubt articles like this, considering that stockpile levels are classified info and that there are factories churning out massive amounts of munitions.
JohnH wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 10:44 am
Most lords would instead recruit knights which could be substituted to peasants (and would be far better at fighting).
20 men would kill a knight and be far cheaper to equip and train.
Well, wars were mostly fought by mercenaries, not peasants.
An “innovation” of communism was the idea peasants should rise up and fight.
Justfiguringitout wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 10:17 am
Of course there will always be war. But I thought that Christian pacifists were not denying that. But that war and the army is of the systems of the world, and Christians are not. You're trained to kill other human beings as efficiently as possible. That doesn't seem a Christian thing to do. It's hard to see how loving your enemy would include killing them. Which doesn't mean that pacifists don't give their lives, right? Or fight for what's right. Just not in combat and by killing. Now it's hard to think of ways to get in harms way in a war that isn't fought on your own soil. So I wouldn't know how you can fight for the good cause in that context. But our own Corrie ten Boom is a good example of someone who was willing to lay down her life, without killing (I don't know if she was a pacifist, but it's example of doing well and being ready to lay down your life.
I think this is right - a Christian who follows Christ's teaching to love their enemies and "turn the other cheek" might still be called to "lay down their lives" - even when war is not on your doorstep. For example I can think of many Christians who have served in dangerous settings, some giving their lives working to advance the Gospel and serve those in need. There have also been those here in the US who have suffered and died for their conscientious objection to fighting and killing for the government.
Dan Z wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 10:50 amThere have also been those here in the US who have suffered and died for their conscientious objection to fighting and killing for the government.
Oddly enough, killed by those who supposedly were willing to lay down their lives for their country...
Dan Z wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 10:50 amThere have also been those here in the US who have suffered and died for their conscientious objection to fighting and killing for the government.
Oddly enough, killed by those who supposedly were willing to lay down their lives for their country...
Christians do believe in laying down our lives for others. We just don't believe in killing others.
Even in peacetime, we believe in sacrificing our own lives for others by serving them. In wartime, some Christians risk their lives to serve the victims of war. And there are always refugees to serve.
2 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.