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

I reallly need to get back to work.. but damnt.. i have writers block.

Anyways as the question asks, what if some one was to invent some type of deivce, that would make missiles useless. I dont know what it is, magic farries or what not. The only means of fighting a war, would be plain old foot soldiers, tanks, and maybe some types of fighter jets.

Do you think countires would be safer, and wars more equal. Where in war would be decided by smart tatical moves, in usage in soilders, rather than cheat and win long range...? what do you think... or is all fair in love and war...

For some reason i was thinking Advance wars, when writing this...

In the original Gundam saga, there is this thing that prevents use of long range weapons thus explaining why they had to build giant robots that fought at close range. Can't remember the name of it, though. Hope that helps :)

When I am playing Age of Mythology, the Egyptians can build Monuments to Isis which basically dont let you use god powers... god powers are deus ex machina anyway, enough to cripple a weak army (I lost one game because I thought I was hanging in good but somebody decided to set up Underworld Passage and they ended up crushing me in like 5 minutes), but not enough to put a strong one down for the count.

Anyway... the monuments to Isis thing is very strong. Sometimes Im ready to lay down like a bolt storm or an earthquake, then come in with a mighty army and lay waste, but they got those fucking statues so I cant do shit, and my army gets crushed because (a) I cant use Earthquake or Bolt Storm, and (b) I built the wrong units.

If you liken this to that... I dunno.

Aren't missiles a good thing ? Basically, with the threat of long term retailition, no one is willing to fight as readily, thus PREVENTING war... a far more aspect of ranged combat, if you ask me.

War isn't ever fair... if people die they die, but atleast missles help one side from being in direct danger...

What does Fair have to do with War?

War still it tactical, Maru.

well... we could just not have war to begin with. that could solve a lot of things.

oh, and boxdrink: youre spelling "Ganymede" wrong. dumbass.
:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mattvanstone
What does Fair have to do with War?

War still it tactical, Maru.

---

hmm, i still cant see how you need tactical prowless to use missiles in battle. Especially when their long range and have a highly destructive nature. Maybe its all the glorification of trench style combat WWI and before.. That seems to romanticize the idea of the better, or the solider with more heart the victor of any battle. No matter how technically advanced warfare your "enemy" has... But I guess those days are gone.. Maybe when we create the first real mobile suit, or fully size war robot. This type of war would come back.. Or maybe iv been watching to much gundam..

You just wish that everything would be like good ol' WWII, the last really awesome strategy-rich infantry-rich war. Remember, it was a nightmare. I think I've heard it called the "Last Romantic War." Nothing's ever going be like it again, the technology has progressed too far. I'm a huge WWII history enthusiast type...person...you should read some stuff about it, the entire thing was Amazing. Capital A.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rhydant
well... we could just not have war to begin with. that could solve a lot of things.

oh, and boxdrink: youre spelling "Ganymede" wrong. dumbass.
:cool:

---

I fixed it... don't know how that happened...

88 is right. War and fair have nothing to do with one another. War is a means to an end, and its "unfair" tactics that end wars.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cowutopia
You just wish that everything would be like good ol' WWII, the last really awesome strategy-rich infantry-rich war. Remember, it was a nightmare. I think I've heard it called the "Last Romantic War." Nothing's ever going be like it again, the technology has progressed too far. I'm a huge WWII history enthusiast type...person...you should read some stuff about it, the entire thing was Amazing. Capital A.

---

Yea but what was most amazing about it was the sheer amount of death.

There's nothing fucking romantic about it. Or awesome.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I think war crimes involve doing horrible things to people which don't progress the war in anyway. But I dunno, I know jack shit...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by diffusionx
Yea but what was most amazing about it was the sheer amount of death.

There's nothing fucking romantic about it. Or awesome.

---

Tell that to Spellberg, and countless other WWII films who do romantaize WWII..

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cowutopia
You just wish that everything would be like good ol' WWII, the last really awesome strategy-rich infantry-rich war. Remember, it was a nightmare. I think I've heard it called the "Last Romantic War." Nothing's ever going be like it again, the technology has progressed too far. I'm a huge WWII history enthusiast type...person...you should read some stuff about it, the entire thing was Amazing. Capital A.

---

I'd be very amused to see anyone tell my grandparents that fought in the thick of WWII how romantic it was.

Anyone that thinks of war as romantic has never fought in one, or is an idiot. Yeah, there may be romantic and heroic deeds and attitudes arising out of it, but the end result of war is DEATH. There's a reason war traumatizes people, and it's not weakness of spirit, trust me...

I think the opposing countries' leaders should just have a knife-fight, Beat It video style.
"No-one wants to be de-feated!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by arjue
88 is right. War and fair have nothing to do with one another.

---

That was MVS... not me.

However, I would have said it if he didn't.

Well considering most countries don't want the others to kill any of their guys, so I think 'fair' goes out the window. Missiles are cool.

War would also be more fair without the use of terrorism.

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.;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by maruchan
hmm, i still cant see how you need tactical prowless to use missiles in battle. Especially when their long range and have a highly destructive nature. Maybe its all the glorification of trench style combat WWI and before.. That seems to romanticize the idea of the better, or the solider with more heart the victor of any battle. No matter how technically advanced warfare your "enemy" has... But I guess those days are gone.. Maybe when we create the first real mobile suit, or fully size war robot. This type of war would come back.. Or maybe iv been watching to much gundam..

---

Yes. And when tactical prowess is an issue, both sides think they can win, and war as seen as beneficial. With missiles, if one side has them, the outcome is obvious, and if both have them, both stand to lose, so war is generally averted. Yes, if war was a sport, missiles would be unfair, but since war is generally accepted as a bad things, and missiles decrease the likelihood or intensity of war, then they're actually a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Master of 7s
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?

---

It may never happen. I won't restate the reasons that have already been said. I will bring up one very subtle one. Letting women fight in war effects some men's place in the world. As time has went on, the line between what a female is and what a male is has shrunk. It has become harder for some to know what it is the be male. For some they find their answer in the concept of protecting. If they alow women to serve on the front line, you remove this and take away that destinction. Also everyone wants to feel importent, everyone wants to have value. No one wants to feel that they are replacable, or that they are out dated. In some cases it is not that men do not think that women can never be their equals, its that they know they can never be a females equal. Males can not give birth. You can make it where a female can do everything a male can do except fertilze a egg, you can not make a male do everything a female can do. He can not have young. As silly as it may be that some men may be in oh of the ability to give birth, ask yourself, what is more wonderious, a mans ability to wack it? or a females ability to grow a child inside her? You add this to the fact we have sperm banks, and men really arn't worth a lot. It's not they want to hold women down, its that they want to hold themselves up. Guy's with low self esteem need this sort of crap. When humans can clone human's, and frontline combat becomes more technology enhanced to make up for physically lacking, then you might see women on the front line. Men's insecurity, and some females lack of physical strength are the two biggest obsticals. Overcome those two, and there are no other counter arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by IronPlant
It may never happen. I won't restate the reasons that have already been said. I will bring up one very subtle one. Letting women fight in war effects some men's place in the world. As time has went on, the line between what a female is and what a male is has shrunk. It has become harder for some to know what it is the be male. For some they find their answer in the concept of protecting. If they alow women to serve on the front line, you remove this and take away that destinction. Also everyone wants to feel importent, everyone wants to have value. No one wants to feel that they are replacable, or that they are out dated. In some cases it is not that men do not think that women can never be their equals, its that they know they can never be a females equal. Males can not give birth. You can make it where a female can do everything a male can do except fertilze a egg, you can not make a male do everything a female can do. He can not have young. As silly as it may be that some men may be in oh of the ability to give birth, ask yourself, what is more wonderious, a mans ability to wack it? or a females ability to grow a child inside her? You add this to the fact we have sperm banks, and men really arn't worth a lot. It's not they want to hold women down, its that they want to hold themselves up. Guy's with low self esteem need this sort of crap. When humans can clone human's, and frontline combat becomes more technology enhanced to make up for physically lacking, then you might see women on the front line. Men's insecurity, and some females lack of physical strength are the two biggest obsticals. Overcome those two, and there are no other counter arguments.

---

*sigh*. So one of the two main reasons men are against females in combat positions is that they are insecure about their manhood and the further encroachment on their traditionally male dominated roles in society? This is incredibly inane and borders on male bashing. However much the cultural line that separates men and women has changed, it still does not change the fact that the genders are completely different both physically and mentally. Our brains function in completely different ways which affects our basic makeup and responses in the world. What reason is there to blatently ignore the differences between the genders in their genetic and hormonally driven behaviour? The only groups who have seemed to make habitual gender comparisons a motivating factor in their lives are feminists and gay activists, both of which have specific reasons for attempting to relegate the differences between genders to merely some "artificial constructs" resulting from socialization in "male-dominated societies". Neither I nor any other man I know feels threatened by the fact that we cannot have babies. The assumption that this and loss of a "protecting" distinction are somehow the two main reasons why our military officials are against women in the front lines is based on nothing but conjecture and it has no factual basis in reality. Women are simply not able to compete with men when it comes to combat, both mentally and physically. If low self-esteem isn't the reason why so many women feel the need to demean men and relegate their worth to mere animals driven only by their sexual urges, or assume that men "understand" and "fear" the role "superior woman" in society, then what is it? I don't assume or think that women are somehow inferior because of the differences between our genders, each gender has its strengths and weaknesses, I don't need to use illogical reasoning and assumptions in order to make me feel better and give me some sense of self worth though.


Here are some of my favorite feminist quotes, I hope you all enjoy them as much as I did.

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." - Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience," - Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life (Time Magazine).

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Author, "The Women's Room"

"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." - Marilyn French, in "The Women's Room"

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." - Andrea Dworkin

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference." - Susan Griffin

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" - Ti-Grace Atkinson "Amazon Odyssey"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by teenwolf
Here are some of my favorite feminist quotes, I hope you all enjoy them as much as I did.

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." - Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience," - Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life (Time Magazine).

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Author, "The Women's Room"

"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." - Marilyn French, in "The Women's Room"

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." - Andrea Dworkin

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference." - Susan Griffin

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" - Ti-Grace Atkinson "Amazon Odyssey"

---

Ever notice that the women who make silly, unfounded, sweeping comments like these are usually a) obese b) unattractive c) butch dykes or d) all of the above? Bitter, angry people who spew nothing but vitriol all day get no ear from me. Hardcore feminists are some of the biggest hypocrites there are. The above comments are proof enough of that.

My post was not meant to be read as saying that all men, or even many men are this way. It was mearly the other thought process some have to why women should not be allowed to fight on the front line. I'm sorry I didn't feel like retyping what you said earlier and giving the other reason.

Teenwolf, just because you are sane, along with all your buddies, doesn't mean everyone else is. Don't assume everyone in power has your selfesteem. The people at the top are often the weirdest. Some of your femenist quotes prove that.

I would like to point out that this topic has left the building.

But in its place is a very fascinating argument.

I agree with Ironplant for the most part.

You cannot believe that everyone in the world has the capacity to think and reason the way you do. I shouldn't say capacity, I should say will, or want. If people did then we would not be having this discussion, and a bunch of madmen that the US helped create would not be willing to go the lengths that they have gone to destroy us.

Its a sad fact of life to accept these things, and perhaps someday they will change, but as a realist, I very much think they never will.


The feminist stuff however I ain't touching.