"If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot"

Martin van Creveld's quote analyzes the ethical and strategic conundrum dealt with when a stronger party challenges a weaker one in a dispute. The declaration critiques the moral and practical measurements of power dynamics in warfare and competitors.

To unload the quote, we require to think about the functions of strength and weakness in dispute. When a stronger entity faces a weaker opponent, the expectation might be for the more powerful to easily dominate. If the stronger party picks to annihilate its weaker enemy, it can be seen as self-important and relentless, thus a "rascal". This part of the quote scrutinizes the ethics of power and the obligations that come with it. It argues that large strength should not be a license for indiscriminate aggression; rather, it brings into question the morality of wiping out a weaker opponent when there might be options like diplomacy or restraint.

On the other hand, if a stronger celebration enables a weaker opponent to beat it, the more powerful is deemed an "idiot". This part of the quote challenges pragmatism and self-preservation's fundamental instinct. In Van Creveld's view, if a more powerful private or group stops working to take advantage of its advantage successfully, leading to a defeat at the hands of a weaker opponent, it shows a lack of tactical acumen. This suggests that power, if not efficiently wielded, is lost and can lead to an unneeded downfall.

In General, Van Creveld's declaration highlights a paradox of ethical warfare: the more powerful should stabilize ethical accountability with tactical intelligence. It suggests that blindly using strength or mismanaging it can cause ethically remiss actions or silly outcomes. This highlights the complex relationship between ethical obligation and strategic necessity in situations of power disparity.