Modern Day Wars...

Remove all ads!

*sigh*
I hear all this talk of nuclear bomb threats, countries distroying other countries, and terrorist atacks...wouldn't it be cool if the ONLY wepons we had were: swords, axes, spears, bows, xbows, catapults, and slings? No distroying whole cities with a touch of a button. If theres a war to be fought, let them do it the old way!

 

Well...it depends if it was illegal to own such a weapon, otherwise that would be very cool indeed.
Combat and wars would be so much more interesting and fair. Though i don't think that's the point in war exactly...

 

*cheeks turring red from laughter*
LOL! Thats the funniest Oxi-Moron I've ever heard of!Hahaha...A fair war...hahaha!

 

Yes, personally I would prefer "old-fashioned" type warfare (Note: I would prefer it; meaning I would despise it LESS than modern war). For one thing, wars would not be AS common, especially in today's society, since much training is needed to wield hand-to-hand weapons effectively, as opposed to guns, which only need to be pointed and fired (I know guns aren't as simple as that, but one must admit that fighting with swords requires more training than fighting with guns). Of course, there would be problems with this, since having swords for fighting would almost guarantee that they'd be kept at home, and thus some irresponsible or angry child, could take a sword to school...and I don't think I need to describe the issues there...

[This message has been edited by Faerus Stoneslammer (edited June 13, 2002).]

 

If no modern weapons such as guns, bombs, missles, etc. were invented, a lot more lives would both be spared and killed. For example, look at World War I. Stuff like machine guns, grenades, artillery, and poison gas made life hell for practically every soldier on the fronts. If they had old weapons, such as swords, bows, etc., you can well imagine one side with a better army and generals winning the war quicker. On the other hand, in some situations, more people would be killed. In World War II, U.S. President Truman hit Japan twice with nuclear bombs to avoid a full-scale invasion on Japan. If nuclear bombs were never invented, a lot more people on both sides would have died in the fighting (although the nukes also had plenty of harmful effects.)

In modern times, we'd have much, much more war on our hands. The nuclear tension between the USSR and US probably helped avoid global nuclear war for around 50 years. Having the ability for mass destruction at button's touch sometimes reduces warfare, because few nation iare willing to trigger such mass destruction. If we had old-fashioned weapons, a lot more war would probably go on between a lot more countries.

IMHO, not having modern weapons wouldn't make warfare any cooler, also probably more strategic. War is still hell, despite any weapons people have to use.



[This message has been edited by C'Jakob (edited June 13, 2002).]

 

A few other things to consider:
Communications are much more advanced. Instantaneous messaging via: (take you pick) computers, (internet/ethernet) Satellite relays for everything else. Microwave radios & encrypted cell phones.
Transportation is likewise advanced. The horse & buggy and even railroads are seldom thought of these days. Self contained and mechanized is the order of the day.
Unfortunately for Human society we continue to rattle sabres with ever more powerful ones. Also unfortunate is that warfare and ancilliary items dominate the global economy.
I don't honestly believe conflict could be erased from the planet, but think of what could be done with 10% of what the world spends on military? I know my taxes would go down, thats for sure.
And then I woke up...

 

One word only...
WAR is WAR
Doesn't matter if he is done with swords or axes or nuclear nukes and mass destruction weapons. Cruelty of war exists in both situations.

However, if I had to choose I would surely prefer the swords, axes etc. because then the most trained and brave would win. Not like today when the richer wins...tssk..tssk..

 

...except that "most trained" and "most brave" don't mean the same thing. In Roman times I'm sure the barbarian tribes were very brave, but the training, weapons and armour (and hence wealth) of the Roman Empire conquered them and kept an empire until it was swamped by sheer weight of numbers and internal pressures. I think you'd have to go a long way back to find a time when wealth wasn't a major factor in who would win a war.

In medieaval times the Church tried to ban the crossbow (or longbow, can't remember exactly) because it was too lethal...

 

I think it was the crossbow (punched right through plate mail).

Back in medieval Japan, one million casualties (that was the reported figure, most likely exagerated, but anyway) were suffered in a "primitive" war. The only weapons used were swords, axes, and so forth.

I doubt medieval weapons would hinder war, just make it longer. And people would still die. Most people who died in medieval warfare were pitchfork wielding peasents. I don't think that is an improvement, considering that the knights and footmen (the trained warriors) could just as likely be found killing a lineman as an example for cowards as they were to be found actually fighting.

 

The technological supremacy of developed countries does not oblige them to maintain high birth rates and enforce conscription laws. There are currently about 400,000 people on the U.S. military payroll, and that includes clerical, civilian, and support staff.

Ten years ago Saddam Hussein had 1,000,000 troops, troops mind you, not military personnel. That is also the size of India's standing army. Pakistan's and China's are not far behind.

The modernized war machine, therefore, is consistent with a smaller population and a higher standard of living. The downside of the advanced state is that it tries to wage war on the infamous "zero-casualty" theory, which in primarily strict terms of cost/benefit analysis (and please understand that I'm not by any stretch of the imagination making a moral judgement here) means that the life of say, a highly trained pilot really *is* more valuable than, for example, a self-equipped infantryman in a low-tech military. The secondary enforcer of the "zero-casualty" theory is, naturally, the media, which is shackled to the state propaganda office in a host of states with an underdeveloped military establishment.

There are two problems with this. I'll take as an example the U.S. armed forces, because regardless of the politics even its enemies agree that it is the most powerful war machine in the world. The first problem is that it is expensive and no one is willing to fight it openly. This means that it has to be maintained, essentially, to do nothing. It is its own deterrent.

The second, more frightening problem is when an army with low-tech mentality acquires high-tech weapons. After some initial jitters, it was clear that neither the U.S. nor the U.S.S.R. would ever initiate a nuclear attack. The same cannot be said of, for example, Pakistan, which has stated repeatedly that it might, in certain circumstances, do exactly that.

Would I rather see swords and bows and whatnot? Does it really matter? The longbow was as revolutionary a weapon in its day as were the fighters and bombers which were used to devastating effect in WWII. But no, I wouldn't. That would mean a substantial decrease in life expectancy, health, standard of living, with an increase in military abuses, infant mortality, poverty, you name it. Not to mention the hordes of screaming Mongols sweeping over the plains.

 

I really don't think the term 'cool' should be applied, whether a war was fought with swords and pole-axes or with high-powered rifles and bombers. Wars always have and always will be brutal and devastating. And certainly 'fair' would never enter into it.

Pre-modern warfare, while in total generally less destructive, posed just as many horrors as does modern warfare, although the specifics differ. For example, most men who died in wars fought with swords died from blood loss, usually hours after the battle. There were no medics to run out into the field and save anybody's life. The wounded were generally left to die were they fell. If they were 'lucky', they might get dragged off the field only to day in weeks rather than hours from infected wounds. The effect of a sword cleaving into a body is no different than a butcher's knife cutting into a piece of meat: it's hack and slash. By the time heavy armour came along, swords had pretty much given way to heavy, blunted weapons that would crush a person's skull or rib cage...and again, be left to die on the field. And that was if you were lucky to have armour. Most soldiers weren't.

Of course, in modern war the horror is generally associated with the complete and total destructive power. Ever since the enormous casualties of WWI (and the Crimean War before it), armies have learned new tactics. During those early 'modern' wars (primarily the Crimean War and WWI) when truly destructive weapons were used, armies still fought using old tactics. Basically, this meant 'sending them over the wall' or charging blindly into a storm of bullets, mortars and shell fire. When the casualty numbers started hitting the millions, and the soldiers started to defy the order to 'go over the wall', generals started coming up with new ideas.

The major difference, I guess, would be from a civilian stand point. Modern war is almost always fought against enemy soldiers and civilians. For large parts of the pre-modern war era, enemy soldiers met on the field of battle, outside of civilian areas. Of course, exceptions always exist, such as the American Civil War, and most Roman campaigns into Europe.

 

Hey the scariest part is if you get a crazy enough leader in some of the countries with more technoligy they could blow up the world just like that evryone gone. It's crazy and scary.