[XarokLasa]

What about this? What do you mean "the negotiation of acceptable terms isn't possible?"

Everyone goes to war for a reason.

Those reasons are political.

They want land, or they want resources, or they want concessions or they want to stop or prevent some action or influence, or "something".

So they use force to achieve those aims because, presumably, the other side isn't willing to concede to their demands.

Nobody goes to war just to kill a bunch of people, at least not anymore.

Whatever that "reason" is, I would presume that upon reaching it or having achieved it, the side with those aims would consider the war successful and would cease hostilities. They'd say "we won" and that would be it...except for the crying.

Now, when you say "unconditional" surrender you're implying that the side we're discussing here isn't willing to accept conditions short of achieving that goal.

That might be the intention going into the war, but we all know that no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Mr. Murphy sticks his dick in the pot and starts stirring things up and before you know it initial expectations may have to take a back seat to expedience or pragmatisim.

At that point concessions become, if not acceptable, at least worth consideration.

That's where negotiations come in.

Either the side we're talking about will be abblle to negotiate terms acceptable to itself or it won't.

If it can't, then we're back to square one - unconditional: "We're just going to keep beating on you 'til you concede to our demands".

But if that side can negotiate for those demands, to terms thhat are acceptabe to itself, the war needn't continue - and nobody wants to continue a war unnecessarially because they're expensive in all sorts of ways.