Archived Jury Condemns 7-Year-Old Boy to Live with Woman Determined to Make Him a Girl (americanthinker.com)
submitted ago by sand_mann
Posted by: sand_mann
Posting time: 1.1 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 1/22/2020 10:00:00 AM
Views: 332
SCP: 193
193 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived Jury Condemns 7-Year-Old Boy to Live with Woman Determined to Make Him a Girl (americanthinker.com)
submitted ago by sand_mann
view the rest of the comments →
[–] [deleted] 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
[–] Niggardly_Jew 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
“The attacker can exploit just one vulnerability to get in, while the defender needs to protect all ways in.”
The attacker can select the weakest point of defense and exploit that vulnerability. If there are two ways to make an attack, the defender must split his resources to defend both while the attack consolidates his resources to attack one. In reality, there are infinite ways to attack. Which means the defender must divide his resources among an infinte number of possibilities to ensure successful defense.
"Defender's advantage" refers to the defender's ability to select the terrain. If the terrain is bad, they can retreat to better terrain to provide them more of an advantage. This is a useless "advantage" in guerilla style warfare because selecting a battlefield is not applicable (excepting ambushes, which are an attack).
More simply put, being sniped by someone a mile a way, or hit by a mortar from 10 miles out, is almost impossible to defend against. As long as your position is known, you're vulnerable to enemies who you do not know the position of. The attacker must necessarily know the defender's position to attack, while the defender cannot predict the attacker's position, so the attacker always has advantage.
[–] midnightblue1335 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Initiative and scouting are the variables which determine whether the defender has an inherent advantage.
Explanation: If the attacker has a well-planned offensive that the defender knows nothing to very little about, and the defender just has minimal preparation and little scouting information, then yes- the attacker has the advantage. If well coordinated, a swift strike can overwhelm a fortified position before the defenders realize what is happening.
On the other hand, if the defenders have some good scouts and communication, they can be prepared for the incoming attack. If they know "500 men are bringing ladders to the south and west walls", then they can position a lot of forces on those walls and prepare countermeasures for the ladders.
But if the attackers built their ladders in a concealed location that the defenders are unaware of, and the defenders believe "They are only coming to our gates with a few rams", suddenly the attackers have a massive advantage.
There are so many variables in combat, that IMO there are very few "set in stone rules". Fighting is chaotic and so many variables go into large-scale battles. A man defending the base of a hill absolutely has a disadvantage against the guy charging at him from the top of the hill. Does that mean attacking is better? No- because if the defender was on the top of the hill and the attacker was charging from the bottom of said hill, defender has a huge advantage.
[–] [deleted] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
[–] WickedVocalist ago
Youre full of shit. We won every war and this would be the first war active on US soil since WW2