Hacker News Reader

Comment by krossitalk | Hacker News Reader

I think System of a Down asked this same question: "Why don't presidents fight the war?"

"Se peut-il rien de plus plaisant qu’un homme ait droit de me tuer parce qu'il demeure au-delà de l'eau et que son prince a querelle contre le mien, quoique je n'en aie aucune avec lui?"

"Can you think of anything funnier than a man having the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of the river and his king quarrels with mine, although I don't with him?"

Blaise Pascal, Pensées, circa 1660.

> I think System of a Down asked this same question: "Why don't presidents fight the war?"

This war is already lost by Russia precisely because the generals and leaders are too far from the frontline. They are using people as pawns.

The only reason this war appears so dangerous is because of nukes. This will be the first time in history that a non-American nuclear power is losing a war.

> This war is already lost by Russia precisely because the generals and leaders are too far from the frontline. They are using people as pawns.

I thought Russia was losing generals left and right in Ukraine?[1] Certainly, Putin and his sycophants are not on the front lines.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_generals_kille...

> This will be the first time in history that a non-American nuclear power is losing a war.

That is hard to believe but I am unable to contradict it.

They "lost" Afghanistan as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

> This will be the first time in history that a non-American nuclear power is losing a war.

Soviet invasion of Afganistan?

The French in Vietnam and the Algerian civil war lost as well. As did both, the UK and France along side Israel, in the Suez crisis (granted, Israel did pretty well on their part).

Also, Black Sabbath:

"Politicians hide themselves away

They only started the war

Why should they go out to fight?

They leave that role to the poor, yeah"

"Why don't presidents fight the war?"

CCR answered this question back in the 1969:

https://genius.com/Creedence-clearwater-revival-fortunate-so...

(Please allow this light-hearted deviation which might be considered in poor taste)

Or we could build giant dueling death robots who decide wars 1-on-1 instead of pointlessly wasting human lives like in classic Sci-Fi schlock Robot Jox [0]:

> Fifty years after a nuclear holocaust, mankind is decimated and the surviving nations—the American western-influenced Market and the Soviet-Russian-influenced Confederation—have agreed to outlaw traditional open war. In their place, disputes are settled with gladiator-style matches between giant robots operated by pilots called "robot jox" [...]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Jox

Surely if we made it that far, it wouldn't even be necessary.

I think the point of "humanity will always have a desire and/or find reasons to want to go to war with itself, and the only way we can at least slightly stop that is because it gets too expensive" is quite poignant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com