Poll: Has war changed?

[CrazyFikus]

This has already been said but I'm gonna say it anyway;
War has changed:
First there were rocks, then came swords, spears, bows and arrows, then came gunpowder and with them cannons and muskets, a few mechanical improvements and we have assault rifles. Tanks replaced cavalry and siege engines in one move. Airplanes replaced catapults and trebuchets and they too changed their payload from rocks to atom bombs.

War hasn't changed:
It is still fought by young men for the sake of some old men who spend too much time sitting on their arse thinking about numbers. It is still won by killing the other guy before he kills you. And the reasons never change, greed, hate, some bizzare sense of duty, politics, geopolitics, economics, they're all essentialy the same, take your pick.

 

[Axzarious]

I would say war has changed in one very real fundimental way since we have industrialized. The civilians would become the primary target in any real war that is likley to happen. Every person in an industrialized nation is able to contribute in some form to the war effort. Almost very person has the potential to be a soldier with conscription laws now.

Obliterate the people who supply the fighters with food, weapons, and equipment, and you stop the whole thing. This will probably be limited to the larger cities and/or other places where such industry could be done.

Prior to industrialization, the military during war consisted of people who took that on for a job, and civilians were largely left out of it. (The absence of conscription)

 

[just ban me]

It is both in the end.

The way War is conducted as changed over the centuries since technology has changed but on that same token the effect that has not changed is people die in war and that is what war is about, killing people towards a goal and that is what war has always been

 

[ChaoticLegion]

People do not fight each other;
governments fight each other.
War has not changed.
Read "the memory of earth" by Orson Scott Card. It's a great book that goes straight to the heart of this exact question.

I would disagree with this to some extent. While I do agree that in current circumstances governments are the real fighting "group" behind war, it has not always been so.

It can be argued that as far back as the 1700's (Back when the English monarch had the majority of power) it was still just one government (or monarch) against another, but the major difference however does not lie in the reasons for going to war, the reasons for war have not changed as human nature has not changed... However it is the way in which war is faught that has altered.

By this statement I do not mean the weapons one uses, as this is in constant change regardless due to scientific advancements, but rather who fights in the wars. In centuries gone by the leading men would be stood on the front lines, actualy leading their men into battle and keeping up morale by their meere presence. In modern times however the leaders and creators of these wars sit at home in mass comfort, while thousands upon thousands of, what are to them, faceless numbers charge into combat for a cause that truly isn't their own.

I could create this post in much more depth but I feel this quick overview sums up adequately what I am trying to say.

Overall, the face of war has not changed, and I doubt it ever will, but the participants and the effected certainly have.

 

[Hashime]

It has gone from a gentleman's honor type deal to no holds barred slaugterfest.
In ww1 things got different, killing got easier, and civilians were targeted. Now with terrorist groups it has changes again, because there are no battle lines, the enemy will kill them self to kill you, and don't care who gets hurt in the process.

 

[SonicKoala]

The phrase "war never changes" as it's used in Fallout is not to be interpreted literally - of course technology has changed over the centuries, but the concept of war has, and always will be, the same; people killing other people. That's all it is - the motivations and technologies are always going to differ, but war, when reduced to its bare bones, has been the same for thousands of years.

 

[helldragonX]

Tactics have changed, war hasn't. People kill each other faster, but they still kill each other.

 

[Arfonious]

The ways to wage war has changed but the fact that war brings death despair and destruction will never change

 

[markisb]

how we fight has changed; the reasons why we fight haven't

 

[ZephrC]

People used to stand in a line and shoot each other. Officers used to be off limits.

That first item was only true for a tiny window of time, and the second item was never really true, although officers liked to pretend it was as long as they were on the winning side for a while there.

As for my answer to the question, well, technology has changed the methods and scale of war, so it certainly looks a lot different then it used to, but really it's all the same stupid shit as it's ever been, and it's unlikely to change in any substantial matter as long as humans remain anything even remotely human.

 

[flaming_ninja]

"War" is word, like "love".

War never changes, if war changed it would no longer be war.

 

[Ara69]

Main difference to war is the media and the unemployed housewives at home, the germans under world war one called this "The Silver Knife", meaning that the troops are all portraid as murderes, lest we forget that they are kinda there, trying to make things better. Soldiers that ship off have poor weaponry, no support from home, and no idea why they are even there (sans the american soldiers who actually belive the bs from their pea-brained leaders).

In short the biggest difference between war now and before is reason, it used to have one...

 

[Thurmer]

well yea theres this weapon called a nuke and unless their control stations are as poorly guarded as shown in tv and movies noones going to attack the other guys because 'OH SH*T incoming nuke!'

add that to the whole globalisation of the worlds trade markets (ie. why grow rice in australia (little water) when you can mass produce it in wet countries and in return we give them something they cant produce effectively. If China suddenly decided to attack america for example, their economy would bomb as its so interwoven with the us's and all americas allies and so on.

ps. this topic is silly lol

 

[Estarc]

It depends on whether you are asking from a philosophical point of view or not. I mean, the way we wage war has obviously changed over the millennia, but the underlying reasons for why we fight, the sheer pointlessness of it all, is the same as ever.

 

[LT_Razgriz]

I think what they mean by the saying "War never changes". Is it boils down to the same reasons.
Yeah the way war is fought has changed but it stil boils down to utter violence and destruction.

Its same old thing in a new trendy look.

 

[Lyx]

War in general hasn't changed. However, some aspects of it have changed - in many cases, combatants distance has increased. Shooting someone with a gun, or even aircraft, may still have a strong psychological impact, but its not the same as stabbing and cutting him/her down. Also, weapons have been developed that allow a single person to kill way more people then i.e. would be possible with a sword.

 

[Beartrucci]

Most people here have said it far better than I can be bothered even attempting to. I just wanna post this video:
God damn I love Metal Gear Solid 4.

 

[crudus]

People used to stand in a line and shoot each other. Officers used to be off limits. Now officers are fair game and we have guerrilla wars. It is also getting to the point where wars are being fought by robots.

Skirmishers and sharpshooters.

Enough said.

Sure you could read the part you bolded and feel superior with your response, or you could read the next five words. Your choice.

People used to stand in a line and shoot each other. Officers used to be off limits.

That first item was only true for a tiny window of time, and the second item was never really true, although officers liked to pretend it was as long as they were on the winning side for a while there.

As for my answer to the question, well, technology has changed the methods and scale of war, so it certainly looks a lot different then it used to, but really it's all the same stupid shit as it's ever been, and it's unlikely to change in any substantial matter as long as humans remain anything even remotely human.

Battle of Cressy. Most histories agree that this was the beginning of the end of classic chivalry in war. Things like don't kill prisoners and don't kill officers were held to be "gentlemanly" and that sort of stopped with this battle.

Yes I know people only stood in a line and shot at each other for a short period. The point wasn't for how long people did it. The point was people did it, and now they aren't.

Funny story, we actually have to out of our family to be far enough from human to not go to war. Chimpanzees actually go to war with each other.

 

[The Cheezy One]

I don't remember napolean having heat vision goggles

 

[Soviet Steve]

The motives for war haven't really changed, in fact they've gone back to their roots for a while with Bush declaring war whenever some small country offended his prestige, but that's not the juicy bit.

The juicy bit is that war has gotten too bloody expensive for anyone to carry it out on a large scale. I know that this was up in the air around the 20ies but they didn't have nukes, guided bombs and lovely computers.

So yeah, war has changed, prices have gone up so we see less of them.