Poll: Has war changed?
- Thread starter ForensicYOYO
- Start date
War is war you have each side fighting the other either for God, gold, or glory. People still die widows and orphans are made. Old men either at the back of the field or back home still continue to make cold calculating decisions
However war has also changed. The easiest example is in America. Before modern combat and I mean pretty much WWII and earlier, citizens were usually told that the people we are fighting are either bad need to be put down, attacked us and so we must defend ourselves, or that in the ever growing conquest must continue to conquer more lands. However, these days with the media sensationalizing everything, war has become more and more an ideaological and containment centered. No longer do we have one common enemy but more so either a group or a group's ideas. In these past conflicts and I mean from Korean War to now when have we ever fought a war or conflict that was purely defensive. Then think when have we fought a war to prevent Communist takeover. Now think is there any specific country that we are fighting now go ahead Ill wait........There is none we are simply fighting to prevent other ideas from being spread so that ours can. And on top of all of this the US has been fully running a military industrial complex since Eisenhower which is more or less America is in the business of war. This might have been able to work in the 20th century but now that system cannot work and is one of the reasons that America is i the current situation that it is now.
However war has also changed. The easiest example is in America. Before modern combat and I mean pretty much WWII and earlier, citizens were usually told that the people we are fighting are either bad need to be put down, attacked us and so we must defend ourselves, or that in the ever growing conquest must continue to conquer more lands. However, these days with the media sensationalizing everything, war has become more and more an ideaological and containment centered. No longer do we have one common enemy but more so either a group or a group's ideas. In these past conflicts and I mean from Korean War to now when have we ever fought a war or conflict that was purely defensive. Then think when have we fought a war to prevent Communist takeover. Now think is there any specific country that we are fighting now go ahead Ill wait........There is none we are simply fighting to prevent other ideas from being spread so that ours can. And on top of all of this the US has been fully running a military industrial complex since Eisenhower which is more or less America is in the business of war. This might have been able to work in the 20th century but now that system cannot work and is one of the reasons that America is i the current situation that it is now.
meleê weapons now have range. artillery have ridiculous range. Two wars from now, will be back to sticks and stones.
Wasn't common to have a war purely for the liberation of someone completely unrelated to you in the earlier days. That seems to be pretty common now
Wasn't common to have a war purely for the liberation of someone completely unrelated to you in the earlier days. That seems to be pretty common now
War has not changed fundamentaly from tibes beating each other with sticks, side A wants to kill/conqure side B who is also trying to kill/conqure side A.
What has changed is how people go about war. Obviously as technology has advanced so has warfare. Going back only as far as the american civil war (1860s) people went to spectate as each side moved on to the battle field, exchanged vollys and bayonet charged each other. Moving forward 40 or so years to 1905 and we see the begining of trench warfare that was to dominate ww1. This is again far removed from the blitzkrieg and bomber campains of ww2. Post ww2 with the nuclear bomb none of the main players in world politics were game to go to war with each other so they took the fight to places like korea. Vetnam saw the first lage scale telavised war which changed the way war was presented to the puplic. It also saw the begining of the type of war still conducted by the iraqies and afgans to day, guerrilla warfare against a vastly better reasorced coalition of super power.
War back before the 1900s between european powers was a civil afair both side took to the field and there was ussually an mutually aknowlaged victor at the end of the day. contrast this with the 'dirty' war of to day and war has deffinately changed in the weopons and tactics employed without the fundimentals of war having of changed since the first tribal allegences. Both arguments are equally justfied and to propperly argue one way or the other the question needs to be narrowed down a bit.
Have the basic principles of war changed? No
Has warfare evolved with the advancements of weopons? Yes
What has changed is how people go about war. Obviously as technology has advanced so has warfare. Going back only as far as the american civil war (1860s) people went to spectate as each side moved on to the battle field, exchanged vollys and bayonet charged each other. Moving forward 40 or so years to 1905 and we see the begining of trench warfare that was to dominate ww1. This is again far removed from the blitzkrieg and bomber campains of ww2. Post ww2 with the nuclear bomb none of the main players in world politics were game to go to war with each other so they took the fight to places like korea. Vetnam saw the first lage scale telavised war which changed the way war was presented to the puplic. It also saw the begining of the type of war still conducted by the iraqies and afgans to day, guerrilla warfare against a vastly better reasorced coalition of super power.
War back before the 1900s between european powers was a civil afair both side took to the field and there was ussually an mutually aknowlaged victor at the end of the day. contrast this with the 'dirty' war of to day and war has deffinately changed in the weopons and tactics employed without the fundimentals of war having of changed since the first tribal allegences. Both arguments are equally justfied and to propperly argue one way or the other the question needs to be narrowed down a bit.
Have the basic principles of war changed? No
Has warfare evolved with the advancements of weopons? Yes
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.
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.
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)
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)
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
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
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.IQuarent said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tactics have changed, war hasn't. People kill each other faster, but they still kill each other.
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.crudus said:
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.