War

[bile]

Right now, our wars consist of guns and bombs that fire when you push a button. Before guns and bombs were invented, there were swords, shields raw man power. You had to face your enemy and give everything you had or be run through with a sword.

So my question is this: Is the wars of today more "hardcore", "manly", "savage", or whatever you want to call it, or the wars of the ages?

I say the wars of the ages are better. If I could, I would go back then to fight in those wars instead of ours. Ours seem more pansy because all you really have to do is push a button, you don't have to go up to your enemy and club them to death.

Tbh .. in direct comparison, yes .. It is more brutish to fight all melee

but those people grew up .. and that was the norm. To each his own imo..

If we took some people from the dark ages and pulled them to now, and threw him or her in combat ... even with training .. he'd be like omgwtfbbq people are exploding, ****ers pretending to be dead shooting my mates in the back, coward soldiers in Civilian clothing, Sure watching some people bash eachothers faces in and cut eachother into peices is gruesom .. but could you honestly imagine sitting behind a tiny structure knowing at any minute you could just explode from a grenade or an rpg, you just watched your best friends legs get blown off by a land mine and had to carry him back to your convoy on your shoulder while he screamed for his mother only for him to be shot in the back while you were carrying him, His screaming corpse being the only thing between you and a stray bullet that could have killed you.

All war is hell... regardless the times ...there is no glory in it..

It makes no difference when... the only thing that matters in the end is why and who won.

 

[Wolf Devil]

No it's not...

War is war and hell is hell, and of the two, Hell is a lot better.

Sinners go to hell. No innocent bystanders in hell. No good kids who chose a bad career in hell (well, unless you count pimps).

 

[Brim]

Coming from a historical view, war has lost its romance

Wars of older ages followed codes of conduct, while these weren't always followed, there was more honor in defeating your opponent if you followed these rules of conduct. War today no longer follows rules like that, it is more bestial, more win at all costs even if it is a dirty move. Yes, there can be found instances that disprove what I'm saying in many ways, but overall the romance of battle no longer exists. From a historical perspective I love war. I find that some of the most interesting history comes from war and the methods of war, and the politics of war. Now its just crap IMO.

 

[Raistlin_Majere]

well, in the old days people didn't nuke countries so millions of innocent people died, it was an army verus an army.
well, that is except for the victory raiding and stuff though..

 

[Tassadar]

I shoot the german in the head, he falls over, he's dead. I killed a guy. Great. In my perspective, killing is killing no matter what the form. I don't think it's so much as guts that determine what you use to kill a guy. But more so mental capacity. I couldn't do it. I just couldn't. A guy could kill my best friend or "explode" as Hitikori put it, but i couldn't bring myself to take a mans life.

That's a good point. However, many people think the exact same thing; that they can't kill anyone, know matter what. But when your put onto a battlefield, and you see the enemy coming towards you with every fiber in his body burning because he wants to kill you and as many of your allies as possible, it comes down to a simple equation- it's either you or him. And most people choose themselves. Or try to.

But as far as the modern war vs. classical wars goes I think it probably did take more guts to fight back in the day than it does now. If you look at a soldier back in WWII, for example, he had to trek accross miles and meet the enemy in the trenches, or the beach, or the desert. Often times he just runs to death, only the lucky run to victory.
But I don't think that means we can view the soldiers of today as having any less courage or valor. Sure, a pilot can explode thousands of people with the push of a button from a ship or a plane, but we'll always have ground troops, no matter how advanced we become.
I'm using the following strictly for example purposes.
Looking at Iraq, for example, it has to take a lot of guts for soldiers to drive around town knowing that any object on the side of the road can blow up in your face. Or any person that looks like an average civilian can try to kill you.
That being said, I think it did probably take more of a person to wage war in days past than in present days, but that doesn't mean the ground troops don't still go through a lot.

I'd just like to say... that people might want to keep in mind that this thread isn't about whether war is right or wrong. But rather whether or not it took more guts to fight in the past than in the present.

 

[Fire Phoenix]

That's a good point. However, many people think the exact same thing; that they can't kill anyone, know matter what. But when your put onto a battlefield, and you see the enemy coming towards you with every fiber in his body burning because he wants to kill you and as many of your allies as possible, it comes down to a simple equation- it's either you or him. And most people choose themselves. Or try to.

Which is why you'll never see a person like myself in a war.

::E-to-the-dit::

at the guy above Tassadar... I suppose killing women and children isn't killing innocent people eh? Or perhaps taking hostages and having their way with them, then killing them, that's not killing innocent people either. Nope, no siree. Not in the least.

 

[MC]

well, in the old days people didn't nuke countries so millions of innocent people died, it was an army verus an army.
well, that is except for the victory raiding and stuff though..

The United States Army Air Force dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the mornings of August 6 and August 9, 1945 during World War II. The goal was to secure the unconditional surrender of Japan. At least 120,000 people died immediately from the two attacks combined, and many more would die in years to come from the effects of nuclear radiation. About 95% of the casualties were civilians. Japan sent notice of its unconditional surrender to the Allies on August 15, a week after the bombings. These bombings were the first and only nuclear attacks in world history.

I could be wrong about the quote, and I greatly apologize if I am.

 

[Chang Wufei]

hes right..just because its happened once with nukes..doesnt mean it happens in every war now..that was a one time thing so far..and i highly doubt we will unleash the nukes again unless the situation desperatley calls for it..

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

If you're going to bring up nukes in world war II at least throw some relevance into them. Is dropping a nuke more 'hardcore' or 'manly' than sending a legion of ground troops into the fray? Personally I think you could sway that one either way. You could say a nuclear warhead is a massive symbol of man expressing how much more power he has over another nation, and that murdering over a hundred thousand people by muttering the go-ahead to that flight crew is incredibly hardcore. War is never romantic, it's always beastly, and today, with over-the-top incredibly destructive weaponry like mustart gas, napalm, and cruise missles, it's a lot more 'hardcore' in that every 'swing' causes more destruction than those of our fore-fathers. The individual sitting on the battlefield with a rifle experiences war about the same as he would have a thousand years ago, with chaos, but the commanders and generals now have an incredible amount of power at their disposal with which to anihilate entire battalions. War is much more 'hardcore' from the commander's seat than it used to be.

 

[KidMan]

Dropping a bomb does not take guts one bit. Beating your enemy to a blood pulp using a club and a shield takes guts. A freaking baby could hit the button by mistake and destroy half the world and do you think he would be a hero? Probably because America sucks. GO CANADA!
Note: I am american, just ashammed of bush

 

[Chang Wufei]

i think ur putting too much "honor" into sword fighting...its a freaking fight..theres no real honor...u do what u can to survive..even if its cheap shots and sucker hits...u think someones gonna stop in the middle of a sword fight because the other one stubbed his toe or something?...cmon man..it was the midevil ages....there wasnt really honor...its more like..u go out and fight to survive..u fight for what u beleive in...that is what u take honor in...not how u kill the other person...if im trying to save my family by killing someone im not gonna worry about how honorable i do it...im gonna worry about getting the job done...the honor i take..is in the fact that i did it for my family..not how i did it...when it all comes down to it...it matters not how u win the war, but who won the war..also..this thread has nothing to do with bush,canada,or howmuch america sucks...so i dont see why u would bother blurting that out..

 

[tolore]

you keep saying that guns and bombs take no guts to use, any baby/idiot could pull a trigger and kill some fool. But remember your rushing into this fight AGAINST guns too, i agree if we rushed a medievel civilization with bombs and guns that owuldn't be manly or gutsy at all. But charging across a field where explosion come from the sky, from the sides, undergroun and enemies are all firing at you, and at any moment the air could turn into a corrosoive burning substance that'll destory you lungs, i think it take an AMAZING amount of courage to do that. Its been said before doing either would take an amazing amount of courage and guts, but in old warfare you could see the dangers, you could see the enemies, in modern warfar you can be standing there one second and dead the next no matter how safe your position was. In my opinion courage isn't abotu what your fighting with, but what your fighting against, and fighting against all the modern weapons(even if you have them yourself) is way scarier to me.

Also chang is right, get over the whole honroable melee thing, the first thing you'll learn in any real self defense/fighting system is where the human body is weak, and hitting those points is often consdiered cheap or unhonerable for whatever reason(the groin, the throat, the knees). even the japanese who are commanly portrayed as people of great honor(at least in the samurai era and stuff) fought very dirty, in those ages you had to know how to fight or die, there was no room for honor.

 

[g0jack]

Oh and i missed Cap J's response, so here is mine to you: Remember the alamo? Around 200 american soldiers won against a thousand or so soldeirs. I don't think numbers really matter.

I don't believe it was our victory. If I'm not mistaken, every man was killed by the opposing army.

i would much rather go into war with swords and shields, i know where my enemies are and i can see them coming for me. Like someone said earlier, in todays wars you have no idea where the attacks can come from or even what they will look like, heck even the AIR can become your enemy, it takes guts to fight those odds.

This is debatable. As already stated, no matter how skilled you are, you don't come out of a massive battlefield unscathed. You are human, you will tire, your muscles will become fatigued, you can and probably will die.

As always, it's important to look at both sides of an argument.
There is no doubt that in modern wars, you need some sort of courage to go on an operation with little or no visibility of the enemy.
In wars of ages past, you can see mostly everyone. That's great but if your two armies are close to evenly matched, there is a great chance you will die.
Someone brought up World War II. That's a good point too. Everyone knows about the invasion of Normandy, or the battles in the Pacific. Those were not easy victories, or could be considered as such. Too many people died for us to think of it like that. They weren't playing FPS, they were fighting for their lives and the lives of their country (to an extent).

War is war. The greatest soldier can die, many soldiers do die. In my opinion, wars will generally be the same forever; not in a technological sense but more of a theoretical or philosophical sense.

 

[MC]

I don't believe it was our victory. If I'm not mistaken, every man was killed by the opposing army.

Yes, we lost at the battle of the Alamo.

 

[nge]

Consider this.

One guy is a manly man, and being so manly uses swords and the like!

Mr. Manly is on the floor in a pool of his own blood. Standing above him is some guy with a gun. This guys only remark is, "You go. You da man."



Being super cool looking or whatever, that's kinda stupid. I consider intelligence in a fight much more manly than being some amazing pro with a sword, or what not.



If we count the death toll as to what ranks this "manlyness," we look at wars today and realize that both the casualty and death rates are much higher now than they were hundreds of years prior. War was looked upon as an honorable thing in days of old because the risk of death was indeed much lower. Now, we see it for what it really is. It's beyond a game. It's beyond a matter of honor. It's terrifying, and along with death it is the only thing in this world that is absolute.

 

[bile]

Dropping a bomb does not take guts one bit. Beating your enemy to a blood pulp using a club and a shield takes guts. A freaking baby could hit the button by mistake and destroy half the world and do you think he would be a hero? Probably because America sucks. GO CANADA!
Note: I am american, just ashammed of bush

do you have the guts to pressthe button that could very well name you the worlds biggest **** up? how would you feel if you were the guy who had to press the button that dropped the two bombs on hiroshima and Nagasaki...

120,000 people died on the spot from one ****ing press of a button.

could you live withyourself if you knew that because you pressed that button .. tens of thousands of innocent children and women died.


with all that said.. personally i'm a heartless **** I honestly wouldnt really care.

but you have to admit there would be alot of pressure with pressing that button.. What if something went wrong .. too many variables with big bombs like that ..

Modernized fighting imo there is more going on. more planning .. more Violence, more destruction, In todays warfar .. a whole city can be completly demolished in an instant...

war should just be a fight to the death between leaders if you ask me... Political Deathmatch ftw. put them in a huge dome, arm them, and let them go at it. Send the Politicians to war. I guarentee you there would be less wars. It doesnt seem like such a great idea when your the one who has to die for your own beliefs.

plus it would make a great tv show, help the economy you know.

=p

 

[g0jack]

It doesnt seem like such a great idea when your the one who has to die for your own beliefs.

and how true that is... good point.
Many people are or have been persecuted, possibly dying for not changing their beliefs. I believe the politicians should think more about the commoners.

 

[Deman]

Silly people romanticizing old warfare

My beef with war nowadays is collateral damage. I'll be really sad when nukes become common in use