Poll: Has war changed?

Recommended Videos

Tanner The Monotone

I'm Tired. What else is new?
Aug 25, 2010
646
0
0
It has become more civilian friendly. The U.S. has some pretty strict rules that are inplace to minimize civilian casulties. Unfortunately, these rules can make a war extremely hard to win, due to the fact that are enemies are dressed in civilian clothing. So, war has changed by becoming more complicated.
 

MikailCaboose

New member
Jun 16, 2009
1,246
0
0
War hasn't changed, just the way it's carried out has changed. The concept is still largely the same.
 

Wes1180

Wes1180
Jul 25, 2009
369
0
0
You should change the it has changed option to war never changes and the it does change to War has changed. :)

Well it is both and neither, the reasons for war generally don't change but the methods do change.
 

harv3034

New member
Sep 23, 2010
224
0
0
Well, the Escapists have gone philisophical today huh?


Well, it depends on what you mean by "war".

If you mean the weapons, tactics, and motivations behind it, then certainly war has changed. We've gone from fighting as (Insert religion here) in holy cursades/jihads to fighting as great international alliances against great international alliances to individual or small groups of nations fighting religious or idealogical extremists in wars that cost billions of (Insert national currency here) and thousands lives without any real concrete achievments to show for it.
We've moved out of the age of beating each other over the head with sticks and rocks to lopping off heads wis swords and axes (and mounting them as grotesce trophys on spears and pointy sticks) to now where we pull a trigger from 100 or so meters and watch as the head of our target becomes an expanding cloud of blood, bone, flesh and brain matter.
We've evolved from calling in the cavelry to fireing batteries of cannon to calling in multi-billion dollar air craft to put a 500 pound bomb within 2 meters of our target.

But the more things change, the more they stay the same.

We have always looked upon soldiers with a kind of romantic fantasy. We shout words of patriatism from the highest peaks of the world and challenge any who would question our athority. And when the time comes that our nation should find it self upon the eve of battle with some distant, shadowy, and unquestionably evil enemy, we gather our courage, say goodbye to our friends and our families, and leave our homes to enlist and fight alongside our likeminded brothers.
Then we reach the field upon which the great and glorious battle shall be waged, our hearts filled with the fires of righousness of our cause, our backs bearing the load of our nations pride, and our arms hefting the weapons with which we have been trained to kill the enemy. Upon that field we charge into the waiting arm of the foe, confident in our ability to slay him in pitched combat.
And it is then and there that we come to have our first true taste of the nature or our grim business. All around us, we hear the roar of the battle and the sounds of our weapons upon those of the enemy. Amoungst the cacophany, starting softly at first but rising as time passes, can be heard the sounds of death and suffering. Men young and old, scream and cry as they are cast from the realm of mortals into the oblivion of death. We hear the wounded moans of those that await the sudden sting of the Reaper's blade. Suddenly it is clear that the souds of suffering and death have eclipsed those of battle, and that more now lie upon the ground, wounded and dead, than remain on their feet.
We see the broken and mutalated bodies of foe and friend alike strewn across the land now a quagmire of blood and gore. We see the shadows of the great flocks of black birds who did gather here as they fly upon the bloody winds above our heads. We see men on both sides, waging desperate battles, not for king and country, but for their very survival.

In this way, war has not changed.

Nor, I fear, shall it ever.
 

crudus

New member
Oct 20, 2008
4,410
0
0
RAKtheUndead said:
Officers were fair game during the days of muskets, and skirmishers and sharpshooters were specifically targeting officers. That was three hundred or so years ago.
Officers were of limits closer to 800 years ago.
 

LawlessSquirrel

New member
Jun 9, 2010
1,102
0
0
The motivations behind war haven't changed, and it's purpose/purposelessness remains intact, but what has changed is how it's handled. Back in ancient history, if you wanted to lead a nation to war, you better bloody be going with them. If you didn't, you weren't worth fighting for.

Now, you want to wage war, you throw some money down and wait for periodic reports on how many you've killed vs how many you've sent to their deaths.

I prefer the former. It's unfair for the people waging war to not be the ones involved in it.
 

Magnusjen

New member
Oct 15, 2010
1
0
0
I would rather say that the principal behind war has not changed, but the way war is carried out has most certainly changed.
The way i like to view it war has become long distance, sure there are urban warfare but the rest of the time it is far away, Rodger Waters wrote a song and i have forgotten the name but he says a great thing, "The bravery of being out of range" These days a "real" war not the war against under equipped people but nation on nation, would be fought first of in the air with rockets and planes then with long distance weapon and then in the final end with some ground troops.
So in my eyes yes war has changed

Magnus
Denmark
Chemistry
 

Fraught

New member
Aug 2, 2008
4,417
0
0
sylekage said:
War hasn't changed. It's just people killing people, and that's the way it will always be.
Well, yeah, that's the definition of war, but the method how it's done has changed.

That's why two games say different things, as do people: It's not really something that has as easy an answer as you just gave.
 

ZephrC

Free Cascadia!
Mar 9, 2010
750
0
0
crudus said:
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.
It was most certainly not the first battle where prisoners were killed. It wasn't even the first battle in the Hundred Years War where prisoners were killed.

Also, the reason officers were killed at that battle for the first time in a long time was simply that for the first time in a long time the regular grunts had weapons capable of piercing their armor from a distance. It's easy for the officers to say it's not "gentlemanly" to kill them when they're damn near invincible, but that doesn't mean war was ever actually "gentlemanly". It's sick and wrong and a bunch of plated douche-nozzles running around the battlefield talking about how awesome they are doesn't make it any nicer.
 

Steve Butts

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,003
0
0
The question is far too broad for a simple "yes" or "no" answer. I tend to fall on the "no" side of the argument. If you read Clauswitz, Liddel-Hart, Keegan and Thucycdides, you'd be bound to say no, because of the tremendous continuity in war over thousands of years. Motivations for going to war haven't changed. Fundamental strategies haven't changed. The psychology of combat hasn't changed. The limits of human perception haven't changed. The extent of our errors hasn't changed. It remains, as David Byrne said, "same as it ever was."

What has changed is how and why we use war. I don't just mean in terms of technology or doctrine. Yes, an M-16 is not a spear, but that's a superficial difference. What's really distinct about modern combat is its indecisive nature, which is a consequence of the new ways that wars are being fought, as well as the disconnect between a nation's policy leaders and its military goals and methods.

You should read Victor Davis Hanson's The Western Way of War. According to Hanson's thesis, the Greeks invented the decisive infantry battle as a way of limiting the destructive potential and duration of wars. The West adopted the overall pattern of this type of warfare, but we've lost the sense of the overall purpose of it all. Of course, if you trace Hanson's continuity of warfare from classical Greece, it shows how much things have changed from the warfare of the earlier Greeks as represented by the Homeric heroes.
 

Srdjan

New member
Mar 12, 2010
692
0
0
Really who you are going to belive masterpiece RPG series or something Hideo Kojima had any contact with?
 

BlackStar42

New member
Jan 23, 2010
1,222
0
0
Only the weapons have changed. We still use more or less the same tactics from more 2000 or so years ago, and it's always for one of these reasons: religion, resources, expansionism or profit.

War. War never changes.
 

Latinidiot

New member
Feb 19, 2009
2,214
0
0
It is a well known fact that war does not change, For Ron Perlman said it wouldn't. Do not question him.
 

Necrofudge

New member
May 17, 2009
1,242
0
0
In the sense of weaponry, yes. We can kill people in way more flamboyant ways than in the past.

Guerrilla warfare has also become more commonplace (though not to say it wasn't used before), compared to the gentlemen's wars that the British and French fought.
 

Chris^^

New member
Mar 11, 2009
769
0
0
in the end war will always be the same thing: young men dying and old men talking..

cookie.
 

Scott Guthrie

New member
May 20, 2010
169
0
0
both and neither,
we still fight over similar issues and we still kill each other

only the method of killing each other has changed
 

BENZOOKA

This is the most wittiest title
Oct 26, 2009
3,919
0
0
Tremendously. It's not millions of casualties like during the World Wars. It's more like in the dozens now.
 

monkey_man

New member
Jul 5, 2009
1,163
0
0
war, war never ch.... PUNCH!
you did that last game stfu
but seriously. it has been said. war never chang...