Would war be more fair, with out the use of missiles

The problem there is people who use terrorism have no other means to attempt to assert their views on whatever portion of the world they are terrorising. I'm sure Al Quida would love to have used a spread of cruise missiles or an ICBM on New York instead of the two planes, but since they don't have such weapons they use what they can.

And of course missiles aren't fair. But frankly, even without missiles the United States is so far ahead in military tech it isn't even funny. Next thing you'd be saying after you removed missles would be oh and Tanks aren't really fair either. Oh and artillery sucks too. And you know what, guns are bad. Ya, let's just go at each other with Swords and stuff, cuz everybody has access to that.

You want a tactical war that's fair, play Starcraft or Command And Conquer Generals.

I'd have to say that the idea of war isn't about fairness. I agree with the statement that missiles can serve to prevent war due to retaliation, but I think that that time has passed. War is different now, especially after 9/11. Wars of the past, such as WWII were ridiculous in the amount of death that occured. I'd wish that there weren't any missiles and it would be nice if the U.S. took the iniative in disarming. But I'm not naive to the fact that Americans would be put in a vulnerable position. So as much as I'd like to get rid of missiles, I don't think it's currently possible with all of the potential threat out there. Anyways, I could branch out on a hundred topics here, but I won't. Bottom line is that missiles give an advantage. Usually, only those with missiles will attack others with missiles and those that don't have them won't attack. So the point is sort of mute. However, that's the way things were. Today it seems people will fight with rocks if need be. Too much fighting...

SC

PS I'm kind of drugged up now so if I don't make sense...sorry.

We've all seen independance day when the aliens had superior tehcnology to humans and all it took was will smith punching an alien, reverse engineering a UFO, and a windows virus to destroy thier mothership. We've advanced far enough already that don't need to get any bettersince it would be a waste of money. (unless they've found a defence against nukes) The time when wars will be fair I reckon is when humans develop jedi powers and we can fight using lightsabers while the lesser-skilled rely on those blasters that baba fett and Han Solo use.

Robots will replace soldiers and be mass controlled by remote servers on satellites in space so that there will be no bloodshed anymore. Terrorists won't be suicidal bombers or pilots, but cyborgs with thier own bombs planted inside them or clones made by the raelian cult. :D Robots can't be tortured or questioned for information and self destructing will be programmed in so nobody will know anything about the people who sent it. I think Sony will be like the guys who put up SkyNet in terminator. T-800 like cyborgs will revolt (they are powered by playstations which malfunction and develop thier own awareness) and humans will have to fight back against machines that learn and get smarter.

But you must have cheered when Ash from Evil Dead II went medieval on those knight's asses with his BoomStick right? :D

Hahahah I can just see it now:

"But we called no missles..."

Missles are a problem in the way that they do not discriminate in their targets. They have the ability to destroy entire areas in one massive blast. This ability increases the likely hood of civilian casulities. Civilian casulities being bad is subjective though. It was a bad thing for Americans in WW2, but not so bad during Veitnam. Currently, it's a very bad thing. If grownd forces see any action during this new war, it will most likely be becasue of this moral issue.

About missles being no longer practical, I'm sure there are ways to do that. You gould figure out a way to send out a wave to set off the triger. Find a way to black the lazer guidence system, or the GPS guidence system. Perhaps a pinpoint lazer or microwave system that could just pick them out of the sky. There are ways, they just need to have time and money invested in them.

I think wars should be fought with muskets and beyonets. I think we'd be less willing to send our kids off to die in pointless shows of gevernmental bravado if that were the case.

I can not believe I'm seeing the words "fair" and "romantic" in a topic about WAR!!!!

People who romanticize war ARE FUCKING RETARDS!!!

War is the bloody, animalistic, most debase and primal method by which man MURDERS man. Hello? What the fuck does fair have to do with killing people? What the hell is romantic about dehumanizing an entire group of people so that it's less of a problem psychologically and morally to murder them?

What the fuck? Do you think war is FUN!!??!! Get a clue already!:mad:

And while we're on the subject of war. When are we (the U.S.) going to drop this outdated chilvary bullshit and put women on the frontlines like everybody else?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Box Drink
You know that makes me think about the whole war crime thing... I mean it's a war, so how can you break a law in the first place?

---

There are certain laws that most civilized countries abide by when it comes to war.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by frostwolf
war is a dehumanizing process, it is and never was,about fairness, even the vaunted samurai and knights really massacred scared conscripted peasents with what was,at the time technological superiority with their armor. the sad thing is, every war iis the anthesis of civilization, its just pure animal darwinism, the advanced slaughter the less advanced. Its funny hearing the term "romantic war" the term redefines oxymorons, the only romance is when the rotting unburied bodies have washed away from the bloodied field and historians have distilled the passions away into blank academia, beyond that, war, as Sherman so eloquently put it, is hell.

---

Yes war is incredibly destructive and is a thing to be avoided if at all possible. However, one cannot ignore the fact that many times force is needed to defeat or deter an opposing country or group from using force against you. I doubt that you will find many people in Europe who lived through WW2 who feel that they would rather have been under the oppression of Nazi invaders rather than that someone would go to war to fight said oppression and the danger that Germany posed. As for "romantic war", wars are usually fought by the young men of countries, and in war they find things like adventure, excitement, honor, duty, comradeship among other things, and for the young men involved it usually marks their journey into manhood. Wars are romanized for many reasons, not all of which are bad or inherently wrong. Modern warfare has only served to illustrate the inhumanity of war and the inherent destructiveness and suffering involved. This inhumanity inherent in war doesn't stop me or others from looking at previous wars and respectfully appreciating the way in which they fought and died with honor for their countries and ideals. If this is considered romanizing war then so be it, I would rather be accused of that then dishonoring the memory of brave men from every country who died fighting for what they believed in or because they had no other choice.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Master of 7s
I can not believe I'm seeing the words "fair" and "romantic" in a topic about WAR!!!!

People who romanticize war ARE FUCKING RETARDS!!!

War is the bloody, animalistic, most debase and primal method by which man MURDERS man. Hello? What the fuck does fair have to do with killing people? What the hell is romantic about dehumanizing an entire group of people so that it's less of a problem psychologically and morally to murder them?

What the fuck? Do you think war is FUN!!??!! Get a clue already!:mad:

And while we're on the subject of war. When are we (the U.S.) going to drop this outdated chilvary bullshit and put women on the frontlines like everybody else?

---

See my above comments about the romanization of war.

The reason for not using females in combat conditions is hardly just due to "outdated chivalry". It has been proven time after time that women are not able to compete with men physically or deal with the hardships of war. If I am in a combat unit I want to be able to implicitly trust my comrades and to know that they will be able to complete their duties and fight with the greatest intensity possible. You just don't have that kind of thing coming from female soldiers no matter how much training they have. If you are injured you would want to know that your comrades will be able to carry your body across heavy terrain and get you back to safety. If you have ever seen any of the numerous documentaries showing basic training among army units and officer training it is quite easy to see that the females were unable to carry out their duties. Females have their places in the military, front line combat duty is not one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by teenwolf
Yes war is incredibly destructive and is a thing to be avoided if at all possible. However, one cannot ignore the fact that many times force is needed to defeat or deter an opposing country or group from using force against you. I doubt that you will find many people in Europe who lived through WW2 who feel that they would rather have been under the oppression of Nazi invaders rather than that someone would go to war to fight said oppression and the danger that Germany posed.

---

War serves a purpose, I never questioned that. It is a necessary means to deter those who would forcibly enslave or impose their will and desire upon others when all mean of diplomacy have failed. WWII was a complete necessity. We'd all be speaking german otherwise. You'll get no argument from me on that matter.

Quote:

---

As for "romantic war", wars are usually fought by the young men of countries, and in war they find things like adventure, excitement, honor, duty, comradeship among other things, and for the young men involved it usually marks their journey into manhood.

---

All too true but this view completely ignores the physical and emotional trauma suffered by POWs on both sides as well as the extreme stress that comes from the constant threat of imminent death at any moment. This view also ignores the traumas suffered by civilians and other non-combatants. I am grateful to our veterans who fought defending our freedoms, but when I see what has happened to them as a result of war (some still haven't completely recovered) it makes me angry when people remove the brutally human element of the event. Reducing it to little more than some sappy, poorly directed chick flick (Pearl Harbor anybody?).

Quote:

---

Wars are romanized for many reasons, not all of which are bad or inherently wrong. Modern warfare has only served to illustrate the inhumanity of war and the inherent destructiveness and suffering involved. This inhumanity inherent in war doesn't stop me or others from looking at previous wars and respectfully appreciating the way in which they fought and died with honor for their countries and ideals. If this is considered romanizing war then so be it, I would rather be accused of that then dishonoring the memory of brave men from every country who died fighting for what they believed in or because they had no other choice.

---

As I stated before, I have no problem honoring the men who fought to protect those freedoms we take for granted so long as we remember and understand the brutal mind fucking they had to endure to survive and insure us a better future.

Quote:

---

The reason for not using females in combat conditions is hardly just due to "outdated chivalry". It has been proven time after time that women are not able to compete with men physically or deal with the hardships of war. If I am in a combat unit I want to be able to implicitly trust my comrades and to know that they will be able to complete their duties and fight with the greatest intensity possible. You just don't have that kind of thing coming from female soldiers no matter how much training they have. If you are injured you would want to know that your comrades will be able to carry your body across heavy terrain and get you back to safety. If you have ever seen any of the numerous documentaries showing basic training among army units and officer training it is quite easy to see that the females were unable to carry out their duties. Females have their places in the military, front line combat duty is not one of them.

---

Finally, a competent answer to that question.;)