Leaders can mistake an opponent's earlier restraint for proof that it will not react to a more serious attack. History supplies repeated examples of attackers believing their commitment, technology, or supposed advantage will let them prevail quickly. Surprise itself can be evidence that the attacker knows it is weaker and needs a rapid decision. The calculation ignores the possibility that a stronger or threatened society may accept enormous costs rather than concede a catastrophic defeat. Civilian casualties and existential stakes can therefore produce mobilisation and prolonged war instead of collapse.
Notable Point · 37:18-43:35
The recurring folly of a decisive surprise attack
A state that assumes an opponent will collapse after a surprise attack may overlook how civilian harm and existential stakes can harden resistance.