Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I meant that demographically, if your populace isn't as poor, battle hardened and religious (like Afghanistan) maybe going into a long ground war is less politically feasible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

Excerpts:

> 95,000 Iranian child soldiers were casualties during the Iran–Iraq War, mostly between the ages of 16 and 17, with a few younger

> The conflict has been compared to World War I: 171 in terms of the tactics used, including large-scale trench warfare with barbed wire stretched across trenches, manned machine gun posts, bayonet charges, human wave attacks across a no man's land, and extensive use of chemical weapons such as sulfur mustard by the Iraqi government against Iranian troops, civilians, and Kurds. The world powers United States and the Soviet Union, together with many Western and Arab countries, provided military, intelligence, economic, and political support for Iraq. On average, Iraq imported about $7 billion in weapons during every year of the war, accounting for fully 12% of global arms sales in the period.



That was 40 years ago though. So no one fighting on the ground in that war would be fighting on the ground in a war that starts today.


No, but they're the ones making the decisions about fighting such a war. The child soldiers in the 1980s are the politicians, the diplomats, and the generals in the 2020s.


They say that for WWI that it was one of the aspects that kept it "more civilized" (whatever that means in the context of war).


“…and we turned out just fine!”




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: