NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a peculiar thought that popped into my head just now. Given an hypothetical situation of two nations at war, where one of these nations is obviously going to lose, and assuming the purpose of government is to serve and protect its citizens... would this nation's government be better fulfilling its duty by surrendering to its opponent, or instead fighting to the last?

Surrender of course. What's a border except a line on a map?

Just a peculiar thought that popped into my head just now. Given an hypothetical situation of two nations at war, where one of these nations is obviously going to lose, and assuming the purpose of government is to serve and protect its citizens... would this nation's government be better fulfilling its duty by surrendering to its opponent, or instead fighting to the last?
I certainly hope you're not anti-French.

There is no purpose to fighting a useless and unwinable war.

depends sometimes to surrender is to die...

also sometimes what seems like a hopeless defence can sucede (take the finish-russian war of 1939 or the vietnam war)

(I can't spell)

(I can't spell)

http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/

Just a peculiar thought that popped into my head just now. Given an hypothetical situation of two nations at war, where one of these nations is obviously going to lose, and assuming the purpose of government is to serve and protect its citizens... would this nation's government be better fulfilling its duty by surrendering to its opponent, or instead fighting to the last?
Depends. If your enemy is going to subjugate and commit large scale slaughter against your citizens, then fight as long as possible. If they're going to treat them as a conquered people, but civilly, then surrender.

Depends. If your enemy is going to subjugate and commit large scale slaughter against your citizens, then fight as long as possible. If they're going to treat them as a conquered people, but civilly, then surrender.
So if they are going to slaughter you any way...... it's better to fight. of course

It depends. If your opponent is seeking to expand borders, but has no questionable use for your citizens, throw in the towel. If he intends to make slaves of them, or a modern holocaust, fight to the bitter end.

acctually if they are going to destroy your way of life I'd fight to the death

but i'd fight in that way agains any attacker

it's how I've been brought up

Just a peculiar thought that popped into my head just now. Given an hypothetical situation of two nations at war, where one of these nations is obviously going to lose, and assuming the purpose of government is to serve and protect its citizens... would this nation's government be better fulfilling its duty by surrendering to its opponent, or instead fighting to the last?
That would depend upon what the winning nation could reasonably be expected to do. If it was reasonable to conclude that they were going to execute most of the losing nation's political and military leaders, and/or oppress civilians, the underdog should continue to fight on.

In this kind of situation, the country has no power over its citizens. In modern warfare, guerilla-war is simply the only chance for the oppressed people. Who cares for some politicians? There will always be some people who continue fighting. Think about Chechnya for instance.