First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
War Ethics
Posted 5/6/11
We know of concepts such as rules of engagement, but do they even matter? Ethically, war itself is unethical, but necessary. When diplomacy fails, violence often becomes the only answer. War crimes often include the killing of innocent people and damage of anything unnecessary to a mission, but if you ask me, your enemies include not just those armed, it is everyone in the country you are at war with.

Say it is an idea you are against. A religion, political movement, some kind of scientific research, drug abuse, prostitution, and whatnot. There seem to be certain rules which must be followed. All too often, people are mistaken, and utilize any method at their disposal, no matter how underhanded and nefarious, to attain their end.

War itself has had war against it, and from the distrust commonly observed in people, war will always continue, ethically or otherwise.
50367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Inside My Head
Offline
Posted 5/6/11
War.....war never changes....."puts sunglasses on for maximum effect"
Posted 5/6/11

Preyar wrote:

War.....war never changes....."puts sunglasses on for maximum effect"


Not on a basic level, but the complexity in which it is waged increases with each passing day.
50367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Inside My Head
Offline
Posted 5/6/11

Sonovabitch wrote:


Preyar wrote:

War.....war never changes....."puts sunglasses on for maximum effect"


Not on a basic level, but the complexity in which it is waged increases with each passing day.


Yeah, because in the end it's gonna be atom-bomb against atom-bomb
We're screwed
Posted 5/6/11

Preyar wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:


Preyar wrote:

War.....war never changes....."puts sunglasses on for maximum effect"


Not on a basic level, but the complexity in which it is waged increases with each passing day.


Yeah, because in the end it's gonna be atom-bomb against atom-bomb
We're screwed


I doubt it, when most people are able to recognize the iconic level of destruction cause by nuclear weapons. Not just the initial explosion, but the aftermath itself.

Precision attacks are a better choice overall. Saves on complete obliteration.
50367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Inside My Head
Offline
Posted 5/6/11 , edited 5/6/11

Sonovabitch wrote:


Preyar wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:


Preyar wrote:

War.....war never changes....."puts sunglasses on for maximum effect"


Not on a basic level, but the complexity in which it is waged increases with each passing day.


Yeah, because in the end it's gonna be atom-bomb against atom-bomb
We're screwed


I doubt it, when most people are able to recognize the iconic level of destruction cause by nuclear weapons. Not just the initial explosion, but the aftermath itself.

Precision attacks are a better choice overall. Saves on complete obliteration.


I guess they're stocking more and more for no reason then....
But yeah, looks like they are beginning to dismantle them and such
What worries me the most considering nuclear weapons, is Al-quada. You never know what they will do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
Posted 5/6/11

Sonovabitch wrote:

We know of concepts such as rules of engagement, but do they even matter? Ethically, war itself is unethical, but necessary. When diplomacy fails, violence often becomes the only answer. War crimes often include the killing of innocent people and damage of anything unnecessary to a mission, but if you ask me, your enemies include not just those armed, it is everyone in the country you are at war with.

Say it is an idea you are against. A religion, political movement, some kind of scientific research, drug abuse, prostitution, and whatnot. There seem to be certain rules which must be followed. All too often, people are mistaken, and utilize any method at their disposal, no matter how underhanded and nefarious, to attain their end.

War itself has had war against it, and from the distrust commonly observed in people, war will always continue, ethically or otherwise.
So what about the media giants that's indoctrinating people, through distorted and romanticized model of warfare? Thereby generating voluntary consent from the people, in order for them to fight for whatever the dangerous memes that they were socialized into believing. While their feelings were being fooled by the mirage of security known as loyalty and patriotism.

I mean when there's a war documentary that's so real, not even Hollywood itself would dare to put it on the silver-screen amass. You know someone's up to no good.
Posted 5/6/11

Preyar wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:


Preyar wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:


Preyar wrote:

War.....war never changes....."puts sunglasses on for maximum effect"


Not on a basic level, but the complexity in which it is waged increases with each passing day.


Yeah, because in the end it's gonna be atom-bomb against atom-bomb
We're screwed


I doubt it, when most people are able to recognize the iconic level of destruction cause by nuclear weapons. Not just the initial explosion, but the aftermath itself.

Precision attacks are a better choice overall. Saves on complete obliteration.


I guess they're stocking more and more for no reason then....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons


They will out of fear, but those stockpiles can be disarmed through diplomacy, at least to some extent.

Now, if we all just let the nuclear weapons fly, yes, we will become extinct or at least nearly so. People allow their pride to cloud their reasoning, so regardless of the concern for the loss of everything, people will continue to manufacture Doom's Day.
50367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Inside My Head
Offline
Posted 5/6/11 , edited 5/6/11

Sonovabitch wrote:


Preyar wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:


Preyar wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:


Preyar wrote:

War.....war never changes....."puts sunglasses on for maximum effect"


Not on a basic level, but the complexity in which it is waged increases with each passing day.


Yeah, because in the end it's gonna be atom-bomb against atom-bomb
We're screwed


I doubt it, when most people are able to recognize the iconic level of destruction cause by nuclear weapons. Not just the initial explosion, but the aftermath itself.

Precision attacks are a better choice overall. Saves on complete obliteration.


I guess they're stocking more and more for no reason then....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons


They will out of fear, but those stockpiles can be disarmed through diplomacy, at least to some extent.

Now, if we all just let the nuclear weapons fly, yes, we will become extinct or at least nearly so. People allow their pride to cloud their reasoning, so regardless of the concern for the loss of everything, people will continue to manufacture Doom's Day.

Who will win the bet??
Doom's Day or 21th December 2012? I'm totally gonna watch "2012" on that day
But yeah, war is something that can't be stopped
Posted 5/6/11

DomFortress wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:

We know of concepts such as rules of engagement, but do they even matter? Ethically, war itself is unethical, but necessary. When diplomacy fails, violence often becomes the only answer. War crimes often include the killing of innocent people and damage of anything unnecessary to a mission, but if you ask me, your enemies include not just those armed, it is everyone in the country you are at war with.

Say it is an idea you are against. A religion, political movement, some kind of scientific research, drug abuse, prostitution, and whatnot. There seem to be certain rules which must be followed. All too often, people are mistaken, and utilize any method at their disposal, no matter how underhanded and nefarious, to attain their end.

War itself has had war against it, and from the distrust commonly observed in people, war will always continue, ethically or otherwise.
So what about the media giants that's indoctrinating people, through distorted and romanticized model of warfare? Thereby generating voluntary consent from the people, in order for them to fight for whatever the dangerous memes that they were socialized into believing. While their feelings were being fooled by the mirage of security known as loyalty and patriotism.

I mean when there's a war documentary that's so real, not even Hollywood itself would dare to put it on the silver-screen amass. You know someone's up to no good.


Laughable propaganda sends people into open conflict with a desire to become epic heroes. How romantic.

Can there be anything more illogical and unethical than killing for a fairy tale idea or being killed for it?
Posted 5/6/11 , edited 5/7/11

Preyar wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:



I doubt it, when most people are able to recognize the iconic level of destruction cause by nuclear weapons. Not just the initial explosion, but the aftermath itself.

Precision attacks are a better choice overall. Saves on complete obliteration.


I guess they're stocking more and more for no reason then....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
Nope, not when there are semi-automated war drones with machine accuracy and precision, without the unnecessary function of human empathy.

In other words, these are technology that grants us the power to kill with a God-like oversight of invulnerability. However I can't help but to worry about our collective future inspired by arrogance and an illusion of overconfidence, while there are obvious social benefits from within our power of vulnerability.
Posted 5/6/11


War is a necessity of nature, ethically or otherwise. We often feel that beasts in the wold do not have war, yet it happens every day.

Without war, the population would explode out of control. There will be a reliance on the stupidity of pro-war humans and other creatures alike so control is maintained. Ethically, we wage war in a sense to thin out the morons so we know who the reasoning individuals are.
Posted 5/6/11

Sonovabitch wrote:



War is a necessity of nature, ethically or otherwise. We often feel that beasts in the wold do not have war, yet it happens every day.

Without war, the population would explode out of control. There will be a reliance on the stupidity of pro-war humans and other creatures alike so control is maintained. Ethically, we wage war in a sense to thin out the morons so we know who the reasoning individuals are.
I strongly disagree, especially when there are alternative methods of population control other than war. While some animal species are so good at it, they practice population control naturally.
Posted 5/6/11

DomFortress wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:



War is a necessity of nature, ethically or otherwise. We often feel that beasts in the wold do not have war, yet it happens every day.

Without war, the population would explode out of control. There will be a reliance on the stupidity of pro-war humans and other creatures alike so control is maintained. Ethically, we wage war in a sense to thin out the morons so we know who the reasoning individuals are.
I strongly disagree, especially when there are alternative methods of population control other than war. While some animal species are so good at it, they practice population control naturally.


Pertaining to humans and their general lack of control, we could use a bit of war to thin out overabundance, since education is working so well for them. Perpetuation of war happens much through new generations and their lack of insight or close-mindedness to it.

Unethical as it is to see war as being population control, there is the grimness of this reality which will be accepted due to the fact that our aggression is hardwired. The Earth will rely on our mindless rage to keep us from exhausting natural resources, since not everyone will become updated to renewable resources. They will just steal them from someone else calling it ethical.
Posted 5/6/11 , edited 5/6/11

Sonovabitch wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

I strongly disagree, especially when there are alternative methods of population control other than war. While some animal species are so good at it, they practice population control naturally.


Pertaining to humans and their general lack of control, we could use a bit of war to thin out overabundance, since education is working so well for them. Perpetuation of war happens much through new generations and their lack of insight or close-mindedness to it.

Unethical as it is to see war as being population control, there is the grimness of this reality which will be accepted due to the fact that our aggression is hardwired. The Earth will rely on our mindless rage to keep us from exhausting natural resources, since not everyone will become updated to renewable resources. They will just steal them from someone else calling it ethical.
Again I strongly disagree, when the fact is well educated women drastically reduces population growth. That, combining with the women's right and freedom to control their own reproductive function, not only reduces population to a sustainable level, but also reduces crime rate by eliminating unwanted births. Furthermore, war has the characteristic of escalating wasteful consumption of resources. So it's ironic that war as a system actually demands overpopulation for furthering its effort.

Finally, your aggression being biologically "hardwired" hypothesis is but a myth. When there's the fact that human empathy is evolutionarily favored by natural selection.

So if you wish to moralize the ethics behind war, you must do so within the context of survival, meaning self-defense. And the fundamental philosophy in any and all human ethnic cultures regarding self-defense, is to never ever make the first strike.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.