Stupid fukkin question, but...

[Skynet12]

Tho this applies to most histoory, i put it in here as it was a bit empty. :)

what;s bigger, war or battle? battle is generally lots and lots of units on two sides, whilst war is more different sides and less units. But what I don't get is why battle is always downed. Afterall, battleships are bigger than warships.

[Fut004]

I always assumed that a War was made up of Many Battles.
So a War would be bigger.

That's a good Question about the Battleship/Warship thing though.

[DontBeAfraid]

A battle is a single encounter or an encounter at a single place and war is Everything from the end of one peacetime to the biginning of the next peacetime.

I suppose battle ships are bigger than war ships because they are made specifically to fight in battles. A war ship on the other hand seems like it is named as such because its duties would be more about the logistics of an entire war.

[Mezurashi]

yeah, War implies more than just a battle but rather the result of diplomatic breakdown and long standing points of aggression. Battle is just a big fight within the greater scheme of a war, thus there can be War without Battles (like Cold Wars, Economic Wars, Wars on Tobacco and such) and there can be Battles without Wars (like the Battle of the Network Stars, which should always be fought with real ammunition imho).

the naming of ships goes back to the old British Navy conventions when much was confusing and nothing seemed to make sense unless you really scratched at it. a Ship-Of-The-Line meant a large (usually two or three gun decks) ship but these have also been called Capital Ships, Man-Of-War ships and Battleships - this from the days of Sail Navy. a warship was a general designation given to any ship officially part of the Royal Navy which carried more than a certain amount of guns and crew and qualified as a ship in and of itself - and this got confusing because there have been instances where larger ships that were not designated as Warship got involved in an armed conflict and got drafted and so on. also, sometimes the Commanding Officer (usually an Admiral or Commodore) had to transfer their Flag to another ship as theirs was sinking so they took on the first available ship which became the Flagship and thus was officially a Warship if not a Battleship.

modern terminology has gone away from this to the world of confusing acronyms.

this isn't meant to clear things up, though. just shed some light on why things are so confused ...

[jeffweeder]

how can you have a war without a battle?
How can you have a battle if you dont go to war.
This could proove a real battle to figure out.

But then again its a real battle with you guys......does this mean we are at war?

just shed some light on why things are so confused ...

Never heard of any war before confusion set in.
Where does this word "confusion" come from?

Comes from the word Babbleon....babylon, which means confusion..as in the confusion of dialect.
People couldnt understand each other any more, and guess what....it became a battle and inevitable war.

[DontBeAfraid]

how can you have a war without a battle?

The cold war. The war on drugs. The war of terror. Mez explained it pretty well.

How can you have a battle if you dont go to war.

Usually by accident or by strict limited engagement.

[lycanox]

Those kinds of war you mention definitely have their battles.

The only wars I can remember without battles are the flower wars Hitler fought in the thirties.
Which basically involved threatening countries into surrendering before the using of any weapons.

After such war the local population happily greeted the Nazis with flowers. Hence the name flower wars.
Until Poland decided not to surrender without a fight, that is.

[Fut004]

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

The war on drugs. The war of terror.

The "War on Drugs" isn't quite a real War though, and the War on Terror is a joke.

Originally Posted by lycanox

The only wars I can remember without battles are the flower wars Hitler fought in the thirties.
Which basically involved threatening countries into surrendering before the using of any weapons.

I like that Hitler would make peace treaties and such with Countries, then wait a few months and invade the fuck out of them.
You'd think that by the third time this happened people would see a Hitler-Treaty like the Kiss of Death.

[DontBeAfraid]

and the War on Terror is a joke.

Ya... but Im talking about the war of terror that the rightwing political monsters are waging against the american populous.

[Nu Kua]

Originally Posted by Fut

I like that Hitler would make peace treaties and such with Countries, then wait a few months and invade the fuck out of them.
You'd think that by the third time this happened people would see a Hitler-Treaty like the Kiss of Death.

Kind of like when Bush smiles as he's making a speech... ever notice he speaks the best and smiles the most when he is talking about war?

[Freaked out]

I agree with Fut - "war on terror" or "war on drugs" are almost misnomers. They aren't real "wars" - Those statements are rhetoric or hyperbole. They are not true "wars" - I think for it to be war, in the real sense of the word, it has to be against another nation. But the word "war" can be abused in this way to create the desired emotional reactions from the public.

[lycanox]

And what about civil war?

[Freaked out]

Originally Posted by lycanox

And what about civil war?

Yeah, you're right. Excellent point. Hhmmmmm. That would definitely be war wouldn't it.

[Skynet12]

Originally Posted by Mezurashi

yeah, War implies more than just a battle but rather the result of diplomatic breakdown and long standing points of aggression. Battle is just a big fight within the greater scheme of a war, thus there can be War without Battles (like Cold Wars, Economic Wars, Wars on Tobacco and such) and there can be Battles without Wars (like the Battle of the Network Stars, which should always be fought with real ammunition imho).

the naming of ships goes back to the old British Navy conventions when much was confusing and nothing seemed to make sense unless you really scratched at it. a Ship-Of-The-Line meant a large (usually two or three gun decks) ship but these have also been called Capital Ships, Man-Of-War ships and Battleships - this from the days of Sail Navy. a warship was a general designation given to any ship officially part of the Royal Navy which carried more than a certain amount of guns and crew and qualified as a ship in and of itself - and this got confusing because there have been instances where larger ships that were not designated as Warship got involved in an armed conflict and got drafted and so on. also, sometimes the Commanding Officer (usually an Admiral or Commodore) had to transfer their Flag to another ship as theirs was sinking so they took on the first available ship which became the Flagship and thus was officially a Warship if not a Battleship.

modern terminology has gone away from this to the world of confusing acronyms.

this isn't meant to clear things up, though. just shed some light on why things are so confused ...

That would make sense, I guess. Warships generally would also have an armanent of 44 42ib guns whilst a battleship would sometimes have shit loads of 12 or 9 pounders. Much of a muchess I guess.

So battle is the consequence of war. I guess its self-explanetry really; afterall, if you declare war on a counrty insetad of just invading and having a battle, its considered 'good manners' and strong-willed. The great war; battles of jutland and what have you, napoelionic wars-many naval battles. Actually, changing the question a bit, why are they called the 'wars' if war is the singlular name for many battles? I dunno. Maybe I should declare a war on my warped brain.

Sky

[lazserus]

Responded to wrong thread.

[Skynet12]

Thanks anyway. :)

Sky

[medicvet]

Originally Posted by Freaked out

I agree with Fut - "war on terror" or "war on drugs" are almost misnomers. They aren't real "wars" - Those statements are rhetoric or hyperbole. They are not true "wars" - I think for it to be war, in the real sense of the word, it has to be against another nation. But the word "war" can be abused in this way to create the desired emotional reactions from the public.

True, in the war on poverty, who wins? And I think if we didn't spend so much money on missiles to blow the world up, then we would have enough education, clothes, food, shoes, and opportunities. Good to know we got our priorities right.


I just got reminded of an old bumper sticker once that said: "wouldn't it be nice if schools had everything they needed, but to get military war machines built, we had to hold a bake sale and a raffle?"

[serge_regulator]

There is an old saying, "You won the battle but lost the war." To me that saying always meant that it takes a whole lot of battles to make up a war and that you need to choose your battles wisely.

[olddragon]

War is symbolic for struggles that 'END' in victory or defeat.
Even at the 'declaration of War' there is a commitment to 'Ending' in victory.
Battles are events that determine the End.
The problem is Wars are no longer fought for victory or defeat.
That's is why they drag on and don't seem to end.
Victory means to destroy your enemy to the point he can no longer fight back.
We tend to kill a few and see if they will give up. No, they just hide and start again later.
And so it goes on and on and on.

[serge_regulator]

There seems to be a predisposition on this thread to consider war as something international with a clear and decisive end and anything other than that isnt really war.

In order to wage war effectively you have to know who your enemy is and what constitutes a victory. Failing to achieve that goal means losing the war. If the war is against drugs perhaps your goal is to reduce the influx of illegal drugs by 50%. If that was your goal when you started, by achieving it you have won the war, even though drugs are still present and you can continue fighting if you choose to do so. Eliminating half the drugs doesnt seem like a victory but if you accept the fact that there will always be some illegal drugs and a 50% reduction is the best-case scenario it is still a win. I dont know if I would call that a war but someone did and it seems to have stuck.

Popular media thrives on sensationalism. Everything is a war or a life and death situation of some kind. A newspaper headline that says, "Minor Skirmish Over Insignificant Border Dispute", isnt going to get people all excited and make them buy copies of the paper. But if it says, "Is This the Beginning of WWIII ???" people will probably take a look at it. Every struggle, no matter how small, is a war now.

[rainingonsunday]

To me I think war is more universal and more countries or states are fighting, whilst a battle is more like a fued between a select few. I don't really know the truth to this posted question but I gave a view point on my thoughts on it. War seems and sounds uglier and more dirty and tragic in the end. Death and destruction comes to both battles and wars.