Kasz216 said:
Sure, that's all that matters... if you don't actually care about extrapolating the results of a war forward to future events. However, that's exactly what you're trying to do. To use an exagerated scenario to show the silliness of your point... If the US were to declare war on Russia today, send one expiermental fighter to russia, destroy 1,000 russian fighters before that one fighter crash landed due to mechanical failures, then the US surrendered... the US would of lost that war. To suggest that was proof the US had "No success" vs russia and would lose a war, despite the US rolling out 500 of those fighters next week is the epitome of sillliness however. There is zero chance the US would fight a war in Russia like they did a war in vietnam. |
Hey man, people from the future would look back and only see the final result of the war. Now it doesnt matter if US destroyed 100000 of russian fighters, if the russians won at the end, or Americans failed to achieve their goal (whatever that might would be). I said in my post that US would more likely to bring higher casualties to Russia than vice versa, but none of that would matter if they would lose a war at the end. I also never denied that US would more likely to get off easier if the war were to happen. I am just arguing that the casualties dont decide the winner, the end result does.
As for your last sentence, that would depend on where the war is happening, why the war is happening, what are the goals of each sides, and on what scale is war being fought.