Has technology removed all honour and skill from warfare?

[Vault101]

Assnip.

you know..back in the middle ages..when people were running at each other with swords I doubt it was always the killful word play we see in movies...jsut alot of luck

in fact back then seiges were more common....and they were flinging big rocks at each other...

skill or not war is war...killing is killing

 

[Najal]

To quote a character from ME3:

"Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honour matters. The silence will be your answer."

 

[WolfThomas]

I'm pretty sure people were bitching about the loss of honour in fighting as far back at least as Crecy where peasants with longbows and dirty arrows killed a third of the French male nobility.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Mankind has been asking itself this question since the invention of the bow & arrow.

 

[RedDeadFred]

If Game of Thrones has taught me anything it's that being honorable doesn't always work out for you... I doubt today's governments would be honorable if it meant that doing it would put them at a disadvantage.

I'm sure there is way less physical skill involved in war today but tactical skill is still a major part.

 

[Susurrus]

SNIP

I imagine much the same conversation happened after the battle of Agincourt:

"These English pigz! What a way to fight!"
"They caught us out in the open with their stupid bows"
"That's not a fair way to fight"
"I am a knight. Their knights should have fought me, for I am a noble - it is not my lot to be shot at by peasants with their stupid bows!"

 

[2fish]

Guns made all warfare democratic. Anyone can use a gun, skill helps but is not needed. A group of armed and untrained people is still a large threat.


Skill and honor still exist but if I were to enter a combat situation I would leave my honor at the door.

 

[mrdude2010]

A well trained group of soldiers will still dominate a much larger, strategically disadvantaged group of soldiers. Look at the comparative kill counts of NKA in Vietnam and insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan, or even the million man army Saddam had built himself before Desert Storm, and you'll see what I mean. Hell, the Russians in WWI had a massive army, but it was poorly equipped and trained, so the Germans knocked the stuffing out of it. The thing is, the face of war has changed. There aren't the same pitched battles between thousands of soldiers at once, but rather skirmish after ambush after engagement that makes "winning" against a populace that doesn't want to be beaten essentially impossible.

An untrained, emaciated, 14 year old was always a threat to anyone, simply based on bad luck. You seem to be glorifying a past way of warfare without understanding that luck played a huge part in it back then, as well. If you happened to slip on a rock and fall, even the most untrained novice would be hard pressed to not strike a serious blow against you.

Also, Roman infantry is an incredibly poor example: individually, they were nothing special. It was their centuries that won them their empire, not the ability of their individual warriors. The strength of their military tactics was that it didn't take long to train someone to fight effectively in their system.

 

[Dawns Gate]

Honour; yes that was removed with the invention of the machine gun when one man could kill twenty without breaking a sweat. But skill, that is something that has been retained, I don't know about the rest of the world but here in Canada as a reservist you learn almost as much as a regular and how to do a bunch of other peoples jobs too. As an armoured reservist with all the tech of a tank or whatever vehicle you're using you still gotta have aptitude with a bayonet or a mortar, everyone needs to know how to do everything just in case.

 

[Xangba]

Honor hasn't changed, unless you refer to "honorable combat" by facing your opponent without traps or tricks, which wasn't even done back then. As for individual skill, well I'd actually yes, required skill has diminished. Learning to use firearms is easier than learning to use a sword, spear, bow and shield, not to mention fighting from horseback and all the other crazy ways people fought. Now then, that said, the tactics required I think have actually been raised. With so many ways to kill people quickly and easily, people have to account for small elite teams, endless different traps, air attacks, precise artillery strikes, hidden snipers, suppressive fire, high explosives like grenades or grenade launchers, heavy vehicles, rapid reinforcements, hell even infantry attacking from the sky in a H.A.L.O. or H.A.H.O. jump, and that's just off the top of my head.

Also, I have to disagree with your one man not making as much of a difference, because one man can make all the difference. Simo Hayha killed 700 men by himself. In the Boxer Rebellion Dan Daly held his section of the wall by himself and got the Medal of Honor for it. Audie Murphy was a scrawny guy (think Captain America before the injections) and basically wrecked everyone he came across, even when horribly outmatched. It's easier to kill now, so one person can have a much larger impact.

If that was, say, 300 SAS men against even 2000 Taliban insurgents, I reckon the Taliban would end up winning.

I'd actually give the SAS a fair chance. First off, they are highly trained crazy people (my uncle once dated a woman who's father is in the SAS) and they wouldn't stand there while 2000 Taliban fire on them. Hit and run attacks, ambushes, high explosives, feints, sniping, and more. The SAS are all about working in small teams, so being greatly outnumbered is basically par for the course. Remember, it's way easier to kill someone in today's world, so fewer men can do larger damage. Besides, the SAS would be pretty hard to find with few numbers, while the Taliban would be pretty easy to find and kill in your situation.

Edit: Before anyone misunderstands, I meant required skill to use against another person singularly, not actual average skill people have/had, as in two people fighting with broadswords as compared to two people fighting with pistols or assault rifles.

 

[Iszfury]

There's honor; skill involved in warfare?

 

[Dags90]

Weaponry has always been in a constant state of improvement. To suggest modern weapons are dishonourable is akin to saying anything beyond a bunch of naked guys scrapping with their fists is dishonourable.

Sounds good to me. In fact, gay sex for everybody!

I actually think the OPs boner is so far up a suit of armor it's stuck there, so he misses out.

 

[Shock and Awe]

First off, there is no "honor" in the act of killing. Maybe your reasons are honorable, like protecting others, or your country. However, whether you do this with a Gladius or a JDAM makes no difference. As for skill, its just an entirely different set of skills, at 200 yards the untrained have no chance of beating those who know what they are doing.

 

[bullet_sandw1ch]

I'd personally rather fight a war with swords and spears and shit instead of guns, because it's true, nowadays you can have the most experienced, hardened soldier that there is, and all it takes is for him to step on an IED and it's game over. Look at the battle of Thermopylae, where 300 Spartan warriors held off an army of Persians estimated to be around the million mark. If that was, say, 300 SAS men against even 2000 Taliban insurgents, I reckon the Taliban would end up winning.

Context, my friend, context. And Thermopylae is always misrepresented... 4000 hoplites lead by 300 Spartans vs 125000 (logistical maximum considered by modern historians).

As for that SAS vs Taliban, it depends on the setting. If it's urban, hard to say, though I'd tip it to the SAS because they'll move far better as a team and pick off stray insurgents as they run circles around them. If it's British woodland, the insurgents won't have a hope in hell IMO, even if there are 2000 of them. Come to think about it, the only context in which I see the Taliban winning is open ground... -_-

they can move as a group, but even the SAS would get slaughtered by 2000 taliban. theres too many, in every senario they would be in a lethal crossfire. and they cant hide, 300 people is not a small amount of people. in the woods, the taliban woulod probably all climb in trees, bang. SAS dead in 5 min. or less.

 

[Zakarath]

Meh. Even in the age of knights, honor was a thing for the tourney field, not the battleground.

But I gotta say, predator drones are a pretty cold way to carry out a war.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Heaven forbid we lose the honour in killing fathers.

 

[communist dwarf]

I believe that there was never honour. Honour was started to keep the lords from abusing their peasants and prisoners during war. Skill is still an integral part of war. Whether it be in the form of a sword or Stinger. The only difference in my opinion is that in ancient warfare it was much easier to carve out a name as a good warrior because of the fewer number of combatants in the first place, so your attitude would often show in your reputation, and most people would rather be thought of fondly. The other side is that the bards are the ones who would spread stories of conquest and fame, and few people want to know that their lord goes around raping and pillaging at will, so the bards would often change the story to have a good vs. evil scenario. As for me, I would rather fight as a Viking because of my size and strength. In modern context that would make me an easier target for a stray bullet,and I like the idea of fighting in bloody melee.

 

[Xangba]

There are no more clear-cut villains, there are no more unambiguous victories, there's no more room for Jingoism, and nationalism, in warfare. And if you ask me? That's a good thing.

You really think there's none of that in the modern world? Oh geez...

P.S. Save for very few individuals, there have NEVER been "villains."

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Why do honor and skill matter in warfare? Trying to survive would be the only thing I care about.

 

[ArianaUO321]

A form of honor and skill has always continued to exist even in modern warfare. That kid with the AK-47 can still be killed just the same way. Tanks can still be destroyed. That plane dropping bombs on above can still be at risk, or forced into a one on one dogfight with another plane. There is still putting ones life on the line, which takes honor and bravery in itself. That has always been a constant.

Until now, anyway... Now that the ultimate form of cowardice has become the future of modern weaponry in the West. Drones. Unmanned weapons. No longer does that pilot have to put themselves at risk. No longer does the operator have to assess the situation, and make the decision whether to end the lives of their targets. Now, its just becoming a damn expensive video game.

Drones, like WMDs, in my opinion, are one technology that should not exist in warfare. If your cause isn't worth putting your very life at risk for, it isn't worth fighting for.