Glorious War VS War is Hell

[Willinium]

In fantasy and fiction and history, prior to WW1 I want to say, war is often viewed as something honorable and something to be proud of for there would be glory in fighting for your nation. For your people. And yet as of late War has been seen as something to be avoided at all costs, for it is horrible and does nothing to help anyone, an attitude that I think first started appearing either during or after WWI due to the horrors of trench warfare and chemical warfare(mustard gas and the like).

My question for y'all is this, expanding on the above mind you, where do y'all lie in this? Would y'all prefer a return to old and see Glory and honor return to warfare? Or would you rather things continue as they are? I can't help but want to return to . . . I don't know a mix I suppose? I want war and fighting our enemies for a cause that YOU believe in to be honorable, but on the other hand I also want to minimize innocent casualties. Something that I think could be done if we backed off of drones and what not and brought war back into the human element rather then this. . . impersonal warfare.

 

[Zhukov]

Umm... what?

Are we talking fiction or reality here?

If fiction then I prefer the war-is-hell variety, especially when referring to real wars. Lighthearted "glorious" war works better in a totally fictional context where the heroes can be fighting demons or torture-cultists or whatever instead of people with families and whatnot.

If we're talking about reality then, well... suffice to say I'm pretty sure PTSD isn't caused by being exposed to excessive amounts of glory and honour.

Also, I have no idea why people are down on drone warfare specifically. I mean, getting blown up by a drone is terrible but getting bludgeoned to death with a trench club is just awesome? All about that human element as you feel your skull being staved in, right? Dropping bombs from on high is The American Way but if you drop them from a remote control plane then suddenly it's icky?

 

[DefunctTheory]

Oh boy.

It's a complicated subject, but generally, the start of the 'War is Terrible' perspective goes way further back then WWI. Way further. Generally, people who are the 'victims' of war (Those who personally experience it, whether they be participants or bystanders) always think war is shit, because it is. But prior to, say, the American Civil War (I'm going with the ACW because it's the oldest war I'm fairly familiar with, but if anyone wishes to correct me on this, please do), people like that didn't participate in historical or popular perception making. It was the upper class, who were largely immune to the worst of war, who were able to define it in popular and historical terms, and they did so in a way that served their interest and largely distant perspective.

That all changed, as all things changed, when industrialization and improved communications ran face first into it. Suddenly, war is not only more expansive and widely experienced, but also more accurately portrayed by things like photography and first hand accounts from a better educated populace with access to means to disseminate their accounts (Writing, the more advanced versions of the printing press, and the ever increasing capabilities of the communications industry). And it was down hill from there - Industrialized warfare, as time went on, affected more and more of the population, who's ability to document it's atrocities also continued to increase through improved education and more effective communications systems.

Until you get to today, where a colossal quantity (Something like 80-90%) of the world population is literate on at least a basic level, and platforms like twitter and facebook allow people to share the horrors of war almost immediately, some of them as it's all actually happening. There's no filter, no gatekeeper, no one to pretty it up and write poetry about it - It's there for everyone to see, bleeding all over the carpet.

As for making it more 'honorable'... no. War is a tool - A dreadful tool, one which everyone should try their best not to use. Necessary, perhaps, but nothing we should be cheering.

 

[Willinium]

Oh boy.

It's a complicated subject, but generally, the start of the 'War is Terrible' perspective goes way further back then WWI. Way further. Generally, people who are the 'victims' of war (Those who personally experience it, whether they be participants or bystanders) always think war is shit, because it is. But prior to, say, the American Civil War (I'm going with the ACW because it's the oldest war I'm fairly familiar with, but if anyone wishes to correct me on this, please do), people like that didn't participate in historical or popular perception making. It was the upper class, who were largely immune to the worst of war, who were able to define it in popular and historical terms, and they did so in a way that served their interest and largely distant perspective.

That all changed, as all things changed, when industrialization and improved communications ran face first into it. Suddenly, war is not only more expansive and widely experienced, but also more accurately portrayed by things like photography and first hand accounts from a better educated populace with access to means to disseminate their accounts (Writing, the more advanced versions of the printing press, and the ever increasing capabilities of the communications industry). And it was down hill from there - Industrialized warfare, as time went on, affected more and more of the population, who's ability to document it's atrocities also continued to increase through improved education and more effective communications systems.

Until you get to today, where a colossal quantity (Something like 80-90%) of the world population is literate on at least a basic level, and platforms like twitter and facebook allow people to share the horrors of war almost immediately, some of them as it's all actually happening. There's no filter, no gatekeeper, no one to pretty it up and write poetry about it - It's there for everyone to see, bleeding all over the carpet.

As for making it more 'honorable'... no. War is a tool - A dreadful tool, one which everyone should try their best not to use. Necessary, perhaps, but nothing we should be cheering.

. . .That was very articulate mate. And I can see the point you're making. I think anyhow. With the people able to see all the horrific points of warfare far far more easily then in the past centuries. The Brutality can scar the minds of those both on the field of battle and those at home. That combined with, well, the much much larger scale of war and weaponry has caused things to be ugly and short in a way. Hell nowadays at home people are so desensitized by what they see on the news that they simply CANNOT bring themselves to care anymore.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Oh boy, here we go. I just made another 6 paragraph dissertation. :s Buckle up.

I'm not sure if you're just young, or very naive.

War is hell and has ALWAYS been hell. Innocents have ALWAYS been caught in the crossfire and always will. It's just that prior to more modern communication, it's been harder to see and it used to be easier to just think of the enemy as "the other, inhuman, so it's ok if they die". You think that medieval wars were honorably fought? Hell no. The only time war was even REMOTELY civilized was when the british lined up two columns of troops against each other and had them fire off a bunch of rounds and whoever had the least casualties won. Which didn't last long before their opponents decided "Fuck the rules, if I take cover behind this tree and pop off shots between their shots, I'll kill them all and not get killed!".

War is never really "just" or "noble" because there's ALWAYS an aggressor. Yes, as the defender, or someone who jumps into help the defenders, there's justice and nobility involved. But someone always has to START the damn war to begin with. And to do that is almost always done for incredibly selfish reasons.

There's rarely an "honorable" reason to start a war which will kill thousands or more of your own people and your opponent's people. Because all it does is beget more death.

And it's not like returning to "human element" warfare will help any. Do you know what happens when you have boots on the ground? Best case, some Soldiers get jumpy and see the enemy everywhere and will shoot innocents by accident at some point. Worst case? "Burn, Rape and Pillage"

Also, it's not like going back to a "mix" is even possible. The only nations that can fight in that manner are the bigger nations and superpowers. Which are either in a large tangled web of alliances which means one declaration of war leads to a World War, or it means that the forces in conflict have access to nukes in case they lose. That and no one wants to send thousands to millions of their own citizens into a deadly meat grinder conflict when there are more efficient and less bloody (for your side) ways to fight. I mean, seriously if someone's coming at you about 40 paces away with a knife, are you going to prefer to fight him with a knife of your own, or pull out a shotgun and kill him before he risks killing you? Most people will choose to not take the risk and use the safer option.

...That and the nations with less military power (Say...The various terror groups?) aren't going to want to fight a VASTLY superior army man-to-man on the open field. They know they have a better chance of winning or at least staying alive longer if they use guerilla tactics and human shields. Like, we have the Geneva conventions for a reason. But does it stop ISIS or whoever from openly flaunting them? NO! They don't give a shit about not being dicks, they know they're unable to win in a way that's not shitty, so they fight shitty so they can stand some small chance to win!

-

Now, I'd ask WHY you want to return to a "mix" so there can be fighting for honorable causes, but I already know the answer. "Competition"

Competition is WIRED into all our DNA. It's why we've all survived this long. And the purest form of competition is conflict. Combat. This is what makes us regard combat as "honorable". It's what attracts all of us to the idea of Combat and War.

Hell, I'm 90% a pacifist and even I have fun playing violent games, and have fantasies of how much criminal ass I'd kick if I had superpowers, and stuff of that nature. It's wired into all of us in a primal way.

But here's the thing. War isn't honorable. It's never "Clean". It's always because someone who has the power to order around the protectors of the nation (the military) to do their bidding and they want something. No rational person goes "I want to fight an honorable war" and just does it for the hell of it, because they know their people and likely them will die.

And even if we replaced actual War with a simulation or sports game or paintball or competitive chess between the leaders of the nations or some other kind of nonlethal conflict, do you REALLY think that a nation who stands a physical chance of winning will submit to a loss on the field of "pretend" battle? Or do you realize it's more likely they might go "Well, fuck this fake war, then. I know we can win this in ACTUAL battle, so if you wanna take your win, come and fucking take it from our cold dead hands *commence land war*"?

Like, imagine if tomorrow some tiny little nation said "We challenge the USA to war, which will be fought as Full Contact Rugby, the loser has to surrender half their land" and the US somehow accepted, and lost, do you REALLY think that the US would follow the terms? Or would they go "You want it, come and take it by force"?

You want honorable conflict? Play a sport. Get into MMA or boxing. Play competitive videogames. Go sign up for Lacrosse (Fun fact, Lacrosse is sometimes called "War's Little Brother").

Or hell, go do paintball (I can confirm it's REALLY fun, and cemented in my mind FIRMLY that while I enjoyed the experience, I NEVER want to join the military. It's scary having "bullets" fly right past your head when you know one hit = you're "Dead")

Real war is hell. Innocent people die. Soldiers die pointlessly. The only time it's ever justified is if someone attacks you first. Which makes THEM the bad guys for starting it. At least unless the defenders do something unforgivable and vicious in response.

 

[Saelune]

Id imagine the Gory of War came a lot from the time of swords and spears. When a man can go onto a battlefield and prove their skill, strength, and combat ability. Not to say that everyone then felt that way, especially if they were unskilled, didn't want to be part of it, or were merely casualties of war. But now with modern warfare, its less about people versus people but tools/tech vs tools/tech leading to a more miserable experience for everyone.

Just a thought anyways.

 

[Willinium]

Oh boy, here we go. I just made another 6 paragraph dissertation. :s Buckle up.

I'm not sure if you're just young, or very naive.

War is hell and has ALWAYS been hell. Innocents have ALWAYS been caught in the crossfire and always will. It's just that prior to more modern communication, it's been harder to see and it used to be easier to just think of the enemy as "the other, inhuman, so it's ok if they die". You think that medieval wars were honorably fought? Hell no. The only time war was even REMOTELY civilized was when the british lined up two columns of troops against each other and had them fire off a bunch of rounds and whoever had the least casualties won. Which didn't last long before their opponents decided "Fuck the rules, if I take cover behind this tree and pop off shots between their shots, I'll kill them all and not get killed!".

War is never really "just" or "noble" because there's ALWAYS an aggressor. Yes, as the defender, or someone who jumps into help the defenders, there's justice and nobility involved. But someone always has to START the damn war to begin with. And to do that is almost always done for incredibly selfish reasons.

There's rarely an "honorable" reason to start a war which will kill thousands or more of your own people and your opponent's people. Because all it does is beget more death.

And it's not like returning to "human element" warfare will help any. Do you know what happens when you have boots on the ground? Best case, some Soldiers get jumpy and see the enemy everywhere and will shoot innocents by accident at some point. Worst case? "Burn, Rape and Pillage"

Also, it's not like going back to a "mix" is even possible. The only nations that can fight in that manner are the bigger nations and superpowers. Which are either in a large tangled web of alliances which means one declaration of war leads to a World War, or it means that the forces in conflict have access to nukes in case they lose. That and no one wants to send thousands to millions of their own citizens into a deadly meat grinder conflict when there are more efficient and less bloody (for your side) ways to fight. I mean, seriously if someone's coming at you about 40 paces away with a knife, are you going to prefer to fight him with a knife of your own, or pull out a shotgun and kill him before he risks killing you? Most people will choose to not take the risk and use the safer option.

...That and the nations with less military power (Say...The various terror groups?) aren't going to want to fight a VASTLY superior army man-to-man on the open field. They know they have a better chance of winning or at least staying alive longer if they use guerilla tactics and human shields. Like, we have the Geneva conventions for a reason. But does it stop ISIS or whoever from openly flaunting them? NO! They don't give a shit about not being dicks, they know they're unable to win in a way that's not shitty, so they fight shitty so they can stand some small chance to win!

-

Now, I'd ask WHY you want to return to a "mix" so there can be fighting for honorable causes, but I already know the answer. "Competition"

Competition is WIRED into all our DNA. It's why we've all survived this long. And the purest form of competition is conflict. Combat. This is what makes us regard combat as "honorable". It's what attracts all of us to the idea of Combat and War.

Hell, I'm 90% a pacifist and even I have fun playing violent games, and have fantasies of how much criminal ass I'd kick if I had superpowers, and stuff of that nature. It's wired into all of us in a primal way.

But here's the thing. War isn't honorable. It's never "Clean". It's always because someone who has the power to order around the protectors of the nation (the military) to do their bidding and they want something. No rational person goes "I want to fight an honorable war" and just does it for the hell of it, because they know their people and likely them will die.

And even if we replaced actual War with a simulation or sports game or paintball or competitive chess between the leaders of the nations or some other kind of nonlethal conflict, do you REALLY think that a nation who stands a physical chance of winning will submit to a loss on the field of "pretend" battle? Or do you realize it's more likely they might go "Well, fuck this fake war, then. I know we can win this in ACTUAL battle, so if you wanna take your win, come and fucking take it from our cold dead hands *commence land war*"?

Like, imagine if tomorrow some tiny little nation said "We challenge the USA to war, which will be fought as Full Contact Rugby, the loser has to surrender half their land" and the US somehow accepted, and lost, do you REALLY think that the US would follow the terms? Or would they go "You want it, come and take it by force"?

You want honorable conflict? Play a sport. Get into MMA or boxing. Play competitive videogames. Go sign up for Lacrosse (Fun fact, Lacrosse is sometimes called "War's Little Brother").

Or hell, go do paintball (I can confirm it's REALLY fun, and cemented in my mind FIRMLY that while I enjoyed the experience, I NEVER want to join the military. It's scary having "bullets" fly right past your head when you know one hit = you're "Dead")

Real war is hell. Innocent people die. Soldiers die pointlessly. The only time it's ever justified is if someone attacks you first. Which makes THEM the bad guys for starting it. At least unless the defenders do something unforgivable and vicious in response.

As to young and naive I am only just about to turn 21 so that may be a factor, as to the rest. . . Yes I dare say that you are right. In fact you put far more thought into the answer then I did into the question. "War's Little Brother" Is there a story behind that?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Also, I have no idea why people are down on drone warfare specifically. I mean, getting blown up by a drone is terrible but getting bludgeoned to death with a trench club is just awesome? All about that human element as you feel your skull being staved in, right? Dropping bombs from on high is The American Way but if you drop them from a remote control plane then suddenly it's icky?

I think the main problem people have with drone strikes is policy, not the act of using a drone. Like, could we not use hellfire missiles to kill foreign nationals in countries we aren't at war with that aren't active war zones? Even if we're, like, 80% sure they're probably terrorists and not a wedding party? If we were using drones exclusively to provide air support for combat actions, that'd be a different thing entirely.

On the other hand, a US air strike just killed enough civilians fleeing a battle that the death total exceeded the Orlando shootings, but we aren't down on air strikes. Played right into ISIL's propaganda on that one.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

As to young and naive I am only just about to turn 21 so that may be a factor, as to the rest. . . Yes I dare say that you are right. In fact you put far more thought into the answer then I did into the question. "War's Little Brother" Is there a story behind that?

Oh, you're not THAT young. (Still within "Peak Competitiveness Age", but not young). Hell, I'm only 28.

Glad my post was well received.

As for "War's Little Brother", I'm not totally sure. It's just a fact that came up in a LARP I'm part of.

My best guess is that since Lacrosse was originally a Native North American sport, some tribes got together and said, "ok, we're kind of sick of having to settle land disputes by killing each other, it's not productive and makes us all individually weaker to attack by other outside tribes. Why don't we just have a violent but nonlethal sport where we can hit each other and we can still display the full strength and skill of our warriors without risking losing any?"

 

[Scarim Coral]

Yeah no, I seen no glory nor do I relish upon see the death of my enemy!

Even without taking a person life aside, I recently read a fact that there is a part in France that is still ridden of WW2 weapony and damaged to the point that they fence off the area to the public (they did try to cleanse off the weapons but there still more buried). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_rouge Where's the glory in that? Scouch Earth style?

Ok sure there are people who have no problem taking a human life but I do. I value human lives above most stuff.

Also OP, I suggest you joined the army or if you got hold of a time machine, travel back to past battles to get a "real" sense of war than to just fantasize it!

 

[Glongpre]

The honor and glory thing came from past civilizations like Rome, Vikings, Samurai, etc.

It was a legitimate way of life which could confer popularity and special treatment if you were good enough. So guys being all macho were like, yeah bro, war is the manliest thing there is, and if you win you get 100 virgins and get to go to heaven.

But in reality, war was always a shit show. I am pretty sure seeing anyone get mutilated is not fun, even with all the macho-ness that was going around.

Nowadays, also with the expansion of exposure and literacy, the use of tech that can kill thousands at a time and give horrible injuries and despair, has distanced people from the 1v1 sword and shield ideologies.

I think sword and shield is more honourable because you must be the one to carry out the act. Using a drone is like playing a videogame, you are so far away from the outcome that you cannot comprehend the action. All you have to do is push a button and you can kill whole cities!

TLDR: War is the worst.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Anyone who still thinks there is "glory" and "honor" to be had in war has either never fought in war, or has a few screws loose in my book.

Yeah, I like to play video games. I like to pick up a sword (read: stick) and pretend I'm cutting through swathes of enemies from time to time. It's fun because it's supposed to be entertaining. But the reality of it? I never want to step foot onto a battlefield. Just the moments in video games where you see civilians getting lined up and shot, or executed simply for being there, makes me a bit sick. I can't imagine how I'd handle it in real life.

Maybe back in ancient times, where it was considered worse to live life as a coward than to die in combat, glory and honor was a popular belief. But now that we have weapons that a single man can use to kill dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people? Finding honor and glory in that is hard.

 

[Smygskytt]

Okay, now I have to refute a few claims. There has never existed an age when all war was glorious; humans have always been humans after all. Take the vikings for example, here is an excerpt from the book of proverbs of the vikings - Odin's havamal:

"More blest are the living than the lifeless,
'tis the living who come by the cow;
I saw the hearth-fire burn in the rich man's hall
and himself lying dead at the door.

The lame can ride horse, the handless drive cattle,
the deaf one can fight and prevail,
'tis happier for the blind than for him on the bale-fire,
but no man hath care for a corpse."

(Cow = wealth, we had no coins then).

You see, even the vikings considered being alive much better than dead in some foreign land.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Glory and honour "return" to warfare?

What is glory and honour and how does it apply to warfare?

 

[Veylon]

Of course there is glory and honor in war. Don't we revere people who led armies to victory, recount with excitement their achievements, build statues of them riding horses in our public squares, and elect them to public office? Would anyone bother to remember names like Ulysees Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower - whether today or in the polling booth - had they been content to be makers of fine cheeses and not makers of corpses? So long as the landed nobility and/or ranks greater than lieutenant exist, there will be glory and honor in war.

 

[khoryos]

Also, I have no idea why people are down on drone warfare specifically. I mean, getting blown up by a drone is terrible but getting bludgeoned to death with a trench club is just awesome? All about that human element as you feel your skull being staved in, right? Dropping bombs from on high is The American Way but if you drop them from a remote control plane then suddenly it's icky?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm down on Drone warfare because it encourages governments to reach for violent solutions that bit faster if they don't have to worry about losing their own soldiers.

The less skin you have in the game, the more willing you are to play.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

There's no real glory in war. None of its elements are particularly lovely. Basically the only hlorigication of war you can have is when you so effectively paint the opposition as so undeserving of existing and so thoroughly inhuman that the war is merely inevitable rather than honourable to suddenly just decide to fight. Glory goes to the victor, not to warriors and soldiers.

Glory comes from manipulation of narrative.... not inherent qualities of the person. Guy guns down two enemy soldiers and tosses a grenade into a supply truck and destroys a vehicle full of guns and 3 other soldiers within.... whatever reasonable qualities disappear if you merely change the setting.

If I was a revolutionary and had such a 'gloriful' exchange against a police force of a government I want to overthrow, people won't see the 'beauty' if they do not want to.

Let's say the Empire had no death star, no Tarkin, no Vader, and just had an old guy sitting on a throne getting tossed into an abyss by Chewbacca when he surrenders... and just what would you feel? I'd imagine the same way as 'Han shot first'. That Han makes an awesome scumbag-turned-hero in a sci-fi story of repentance.