There is so much psychological warfare these days... long before there is any real fighting. Often that's all that's needed to tip the scale in favor of an aggressor or liberator. Their intended target gives in to the reasoning of the perpetrator. The actual war may never happen. The leaflets are dropped. The troops build and build outside of the intended target. The cell phones are intercepted and used to reason with enemy commanders. The email is flooded with ideas and rewards for defection. There are often thousands of enemy troops deserting their commanders, as was apparent during the Gulf War of the 1990s. Of course, the aggressor or liberator's preparedness and readiness are a large part of the psychological build up, affecting the military institutions of a weaker force. This adds immediacy to the psychological babble dropping from planes, on the cells and in the emails. What if there was a war and no one showed up? These words take on a larger meaning when looking at the psychological aspects of war. It could be called a dry war. No blood. A bloodless coup. Few lives lost. Is this the evolution of war? We've seen an example of it in the use of nuclear deterent. No one dared fire off a nuclear device knowing that they would be obliterated... with all of their culture... as an after-thought. I see acts of war and the perptrators of war slowly evolving a new method of securing rogue nations or military institutions. The method is starting to look like a physical deterent coupled with the psychological approach. A kind of way of changing the mind of the target. Sort of like the way a child might see the larger, experienced parent as unchallengable yet is also shown that they are approachable and have much to offer. What do you think?!