The way wars are fought today causing more problems?

[randomrogue]

I'm not an expert on warfare but aren't we fighting them way differently than before? A cursory look at modern warfare seems to indicate that we've become way too concerned with civilians and not hurting anyone and it's drawing out conflicts much longer than needed. Looking at the Gaza situation it seems that this whole problem could have been solved a long time ago and at far less cost in lives than letting it go on for dozens of years.

In previous wars the objective was to wound and kill as many people as humanly possible while getting to their capital and taking over or having them simply cede part of their lands and treasure.

Then they decided that wounding was cruel and they changed the shape of our knives to produce nicer puncture wounds.

Chemical warfare is made illegal.

We get more creative and start firebombing and using nuclear weapons to end WWII. The enemy uses concentration camps. All of these are considered a foul today.

We go back to salting the lands by dropping chemical agents all over Vietnam and start using Napalm. Nope that's not good either.

The Russians destroy all infrastructure in Chechyna. Not cool. The Serbs use snipers in Yugoslavia. Foul!

Today we use smart weapons, drones, and surgical strikes. If any civilian is killed it's considered barbaric. If a town center is destroyed it's an international outrage. What are we left with is these drawn out conflicts that are not solvable. Well what about Diplomacy? Diplomacy only works between two rational parties. It would not work with the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge and it's not working with the Taliban or the Palestinians.

At what point are we going to wake up and realize that Wars should be waged to be won?

 

[piasabird]

Rob a store with a weapon - Death Sentence
Steal a Car - Death Sentence
Use a gun in a crime - Death Sentence
Give guns to criminals - Death Sentence
Break into a house - Death Sentence
Use Illegal Drugs - Death Sentence
Rape or Murder - Death Sentence

 

[Braznor]

At one time, the trenches of war only existed in the battlefields of history. But then these trenches shifted, not on land or army maps, but in the hearts and minds of the people of the free world. But then even this is only a half truth, the truest trenches of war today are the murky interests of the elite of this world. This has been the only battlefield of the war that is continuing today before us in terms of madness in our own worlds.

Propaganda always existed in matters of war when it comes to dehumanizing the enemy since men knew how to fight. The enemy is always impure, heretic, barbaric, insane, evil, pervert, lost, deluded, self hating and so on it goes. All armies prefer to think of their enemies as demons or beasts and themselves as saviors, such a self accorded status is much more psychologically preferable than becoming known as a slayer of a fellow man of flesh and blood.

 

[blackangst1]

Well, not only has the way we wage war changed, so has our "enemy". In WW2, for example, we were at war with a country. Now, we are at war with a dynamic...movement for lack of better terms. These terrorist groups arent countries, and certainly dont attack on behalf of a country. Thus the it gets a bit more complicated. If some lone gunman or terrorist group flies an airplane into a building, thats an act of terror. It would be quite different if a country sent its military jets into a building instead. In a case like that, all bets are off.

 

[unokitty]

I'm not an expert on warfare but aren't we fighting them way differently than before? A cursory look at modern warfare seems to indicate that we've become way too concerned with civilians and not hurting anyone and it's drawing out conflicts much longer than needed. Looking at the Gaza situation it seems that this whole problem could have been solved a long time ago and at far less cost in lives than letting it go on for dozens of years.

In previous wars the objective was to wound and kill as many people as humanly possible while getting to their capital and taking over or having them simply cede part of their lands and treasure.

Then they decided that wounding was cruel and they changed the shape of our knives to produce nicer puncture wounds.

Chemical warfare is made illegal.

We get more creative and start firebombing and using nuclear weapons to end WWII. The enemy uses concentration camps. All of these are considered a foul today.

We go back to salting the lands by dropping chemical agents all over Vietnam and start using Napalm. Nope that's not good either.

The Russians destroy all infrastructure in Chechyna. Not cool. The Serbs use snipers in Yugoslavia. Foul!

Today we use smart weapons, drones, and surgical strikes. If any civilian is killed it's considered barbaric. If a town center is destroyed it's an international outrage. What are we left with is these drawn out conflicts that are not solvable. Well what about Diplomacy? Diplomacy only works between two rational parties. It would not work with the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge and it's not working with the Taliban or the Palestinians.

At what point are we going to wake up and realize that Wars should be waged to be won?

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Uno

 

[Jaskalas]

At what point are we going to wake up and realize that Wars should be waged to be won?

An old and decadent western society will not re-learn its animal instinct. That'll be up to the Palestinians to teach us those lessons after Israel is gone.

 

[xj0hnx]

Well, not only has the way we wage war changed, so has our "enemy". In WW2, for example, we were at war with a country. Now, we are at war with a dynamic...movement for lack of better terms. These terrorist groups arent countries, and certainly dont attack on behalf of a country. Thus the it gets a bit more complicated. If some lone gunman or terrorist group flies an airplane into a building, thats an act of terror. It would be quite different if a country sent its military jets into a building instead. In a case like that, all bets are off.

This is exactly why.

 

[randomrogue]

Look, I think we can all agree that if you can solve the problem without a fight then you win. However that's not what I'm referring to. Clearly the above examples involve conflict.

The Revolutionary war had "Americans" who wouldn't fight conventionally. Ultimately to win though we did have to defeat the enemy. Otherwise it would not have been won.

So if we want to go at it from the other side what's the point of an endless guerrilla struggle? How have the Palestinians improved their lives by having an armed struggle? They haven't. They are currently one of the most pathetic people on the planet with no hope, no dreams, and absolutely no future. What would be better for them - Israel coming in with a decisive victory or their "struggle" to continue for another couple decades? It would be better for both parties for the conflict to end and for a winner to persevere.

Why not fight wars to win?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I love it, we kill a million civilians in Iraq yet we are WAY TOO CONCERNED WITH CIVILIANS.

Why not fight wars to win? I got one for you, why fight wars at all? All they are is another business venture for some fat, rich douchebags that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper sack.

OP is stupid, move along.

 

[Nebor]

We're concerned about the feelings of our enemy. We try to win with the most judicious use of force possible. That's why we don't win. It's a policy based on guilt and grandiosity, predicated on the lie that we're responsible for our enemies attacking us.

We should be burying the enemy dead in graves with pigs so that they know for a fact that fighting the United States guarantees them damnation. Of course, if we started practicing that, leading Imams would immediately issue a fatwah saying that when infidels soil your corpse, it doesn't count. Islam is always able to adapt to the current world stage, as it was designed to subvert and destroy more liberal societies, because at it's core, it's a religion and a political movement.

 

[Matt1970]

I love it, we kill a million civilians in Iraq yet we are WAY TOO CONCERNED WITH CIVILIANS.

I hop you are kidding with that number.

 

[randomrogue]

I love it, we kill a million civilians in Iraq yet we are WAY TOO CONCERNED WITH CIVILIANS.

Why not fight wars to win? I got one for you, why fight wars at all? All they are is another business venture for some fat, rich douchebags that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper sack.

OP is stupid, move along.

Your numbers are way off.

Also the thread is not about not fighting wars.

 

[Ausm]

Rob a store with a weapon - Death Sentence
Steal a Car - Death Sentence
Use a gun in a crime - Death Sentence
Give guns to criminals - Death Sentence
Break into a house - Death Sentence
Use Illegal Drugs - Death Sentence
Rape or Murder - Death Sentence

How many times would you have gotten fried?

 

[cwjerome]

There are very good reasons for practicing "just war" and "laws of war" principles... you can easily find the rationale behind them on google. And despite total war advocates saying it would discourage war or end them sooner, there is much less war today than there ever has been since the invention of the modern nation state in the mid 1600s, and probably in all of human history.

The reality we face today is one of failing states, rogue states, and non-state actors. Nations very rarely war with each other today and wars between major powers is, dare I say, obsolete. The types of battles being fought today are more about the international community or a coalition trying to "police" a broken part of the world. This does not lend itself to total war theory very well at all.

If there were ever to be a serious war of survival between major powers, expect to see WWII style "at all cost" fighting, but even worse.

 

[MovingTarget]

I suppose so. However, you must take a step back and realize that war in and of itself is THE problem. We are too quick to step into war without fully thinking through its consequences. There is no such thing as "limited war" to those directly affected. At the end of the day, the people sending us off to war are not the ones actually fighting it and dealing with the consequences.

 

[Nebor]

I suppose so. However, you must take a step back and realize that war in and of itself is THE problem. We are too quick to step into war without fully thinking through its consequences. There is no such thing as "limited war" to those directly affected. At the end of the day, the people sending us off to war are not the ones actually fighting it and dealing with the consequences.

But the "limited war" contributes to our willingess to involve ourselves in wars. If it were like WW2 where we were committing to killing enormous amounts of people and doing trillions of dollars in damage until the other side surrendered, no matters our losses, then we'd be less likely to step into the breach.

 

[xj0hnx]

I love it, we kill a million civilians in Iraq ...

This is a lie.

 

[xj0hnx]

Rob a store with a weapon - Death Sentence
Steal a Car - Death Sentence
Use a gun in a crime - Death Sentence
Give guns to criminals - Death Sentence
Break into a house - Death Sentence
Use Illegal Drugs - Death Sentence
Rape or Murder - Death Sentence

Completely irrelevant and stupid list.

 

[randomrogue]

I'm not sure many wars would be fought today if we knew that the objective was total destruction. What's the point of starting a conflict with someone when their retaliation is the firebombing of your 3 largest cities and the daming of the rivers that provide water to your people? People don't fight wars like this though.

The fact that it's not always states fighting is a good point but if you look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict it does involve one state and they do know where and who the combatants are.

One problem is that very few people can cause problems for so many. Whether it's corporate greed driving a war machine or fundamentalists driving terrorism.

 

[xj0hnx]

I'm not sure many wars would be fought today if we knew that the objective was total destruction. What's the point of starting a conflict with someone when their retaliation is the firebombing of your 3 largest cities and the daming of the rivers that provide water to your people? People don't fight wars like this though.

The fact that it's not always states fighting is a good point but if you look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict it does involve one state and they do know where and who the combatants are.

One problem is that very few people can cause problems for so many. Whether it's corporate greed driving a war machine or fundamentalists driving terrorism.

While it is true our forces have been geared more towards todays asymmetrical warfare, because that is what todays' wars are, if we were attacked by a nation state, and had a clear target then we do still have more than capable forces for dealing with that type of warfare.

You're getting it with your last sentence.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Rob a store with a weapon - Death Sentence
Steal a Car - Death Sentence
Use a gun in a crime - Death Sentence
Give guns to criminals - Death Sentence
Break into a house - Death Sentence
Use Illegal Drugs - Death Sentence
Rape or Murder - Death Sentence

Be innocent but deemed guilty in a court of law - Death Sentence

When you later discover it - Pray

It's the christian way.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

This is a lie.

Depends on how you're counting, latest invasion, no, sanctions + 2 wars then yes.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

While it is true our forces have been geared more towards todays asymmetrical warfare, because that is what todays' wars are, if we were attacked by a nation state, and had a clear target then we do still have more than capable forces for dealing with that type of warfare.

You're getting it with your last sentence.

It's STILL the ONLY type of warfare both our nations are actually capable of handling, fighting terrorism isn't viable politically for either of our nations and the main reason is because we cannot do it properly.

If i were to propose a way to deal with it it would be how we dealt with factions in SA during the 90's

It was extremely successful, so successful that without looking it up most people who were as old as i am have no idea what happened.

 

[JesseKnows]

....

The reality we face today is one of failing states, rogue states, and non-state actors. Nations very rarely war with each other today and wars between major powers is, dare I say, obsolete. The types of battles being fought today are more about the international community or a coalition trying to "police" a broken part of the world. This does not lend itself to total war theory very well at all.
...

Iraq vs. Kuwait was nations. Argentina vs. UK was nations. Serbia vs Croatia was nations. Even "coalition" vs. Iraq was nations.

"Rogue state" is a term for a nation you don't like.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Iraq vs. Kuwait was nations. Argentina vs. UK was nations. Serbia vs Croatia was nations. Even "coalition" vs. Iraq was nations.

"Rogue state" is a term for a nation you don't like.

Serbia vs Bosnia was nations too.

Rogue state is a term for a nation that is not led by a recognized government.

That is it, that is ALL this term means and it IS defined so you can't just make up your own definitions either.