It is not scientifically possible to accurately predict the outcome of an action. To suggest otherwise runs contrary to historical experience and the nature of war.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It might be useful to be able to predict war. But tension does not necessarily lead to war, but often to peace and to denouement.
When we dwell on the enormity of the Second World War and its victims, we try to absorb all those statistics of national and ethnic tragedy. But, as a result, there is a tendency to overlook the way the war changed even the survivors' lives in ways impossible to predict.
You can only predict things after they have happened.
The final outcome of a war is often determined by the degree of initiative shown on each side.
Predicting has a spotty record in science fiction. I've had some failures. On the other hand, I also predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall and the rise of fundamentalist Islam... and I'm not happy to be right in all of those cases.
Accuracy is paramount in every detail of a work of history. Here's my rule: Ask yourself, 'Did this thing happen?' If the answer is yes, then it's historical. Then ask, 'Did this thing happen precisely this way?' If the answer is yes, then it's history; if the answer is no, not precisely this way, then it's historical drama.
What is certain about the future is that even the best efforts to predict the conditions of future war will prove erroneous. What is important, however, is to not be so far off the mark that visions of the future run counter to the very nature of war and render American forces unable to adapt to unforeseen challenges.
If the facts are contrary to any predictions, then the hypothesis is wrong no matter how appealing.
The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions.
My experience has been that military assessments on 'how goes the war' are consistently more optimistic than those made by the CIA and other agencies.
No opposing quotes found.