Bullshit. Governments may point at who to shoot, but none of todays politicians would last a second on the battlefield.IQuarent said:
Poll: Has war changed?
- Thread starter ForensicYOYO
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The phrase "war never changes" isn't really talking about war; it's referring to human nature, which makes the cycle of war inevitably continue, despite the pointless destruction and hell on earth that we all know it creates. In this way, and many other important ways, it's entirely true that war never changes.
A completely literal reading of the phrase will indeed show you that war has changed in substantial ways. That phrase doesn't start all of the Fallout games for you to read it literally, though.
A completely literal reading of the phrase will indeed show you that war has changed in substantial ways. That phrase doesn't start all of the Fallout games for you to read it literally, though.
Nope. Hasn't changed at all. Of course the tactics and the technology makes it seem like a change (at least to the less perceptive) but the motives for war and what is achieves has never changed.
In regards to the quote from Fallout, I think you are taking it a little out of context. The Fallout quote is presenting a "war is in man's nature" view. Kind of saying "so long is there is man, there is war".
In regards to the quote from Fallout, I think you are taking it a little out of context. The Fallout quote is presenting a "war is in man's nature" view. Kind of saying "so long is there is man, there is war".
...Evidence of this?00slash00 said:
I completely disagree. War has more mercy now than it used to thanks to international protocols, a world wide media and globalisation. In the past an invading force would rape the women, slaughter the boys, burn houses down and kill everyone or enslave them. Public image matters a lot now. Think of all the "war crimes" you are hearing about in Iraq and Afghanistan now. They are nothing compared to the disgusting things armies committed in the past. Also, in the past if a soldier even slightly disobeyed orders he would be strung up and left to die (especially true in Ancient Rome's time in power).
I agree it has become more devastating - mostly do to the sheer scope of it all and the technology but saying it is "more vile" and "more merciless" is being a little ignorant to history. Just my two cents.
War has only really changed technologically. New technology gave birth to new Tactics which in turn gave birth to new ways of fighting, but in the end, the goal remains the same. To crush the enemy. No matter what happen in the future, war will forever like this.
Go get a dictionary, and look up the word 'government'. I'll wait.katsumoto03 said:
But still, this is my mistake. I did a bad job of phrasing what I said. I'll make an edit.
The point of war's still the same. Kill the other side before they kill you, usually under the facade of self defense. But it's being done in a different way.
"The more things change, the more they stay the same" - Snake Plisskin
I think this statement sums it up neatly. New guns, new nations, same wars. I don't think the motivations behind war have changed all that much to be honest.
or to paraphrase Fallout..
I think this statement sums it up neatly. New guns, new nations, same wars. I don't think the motivations behind war have changed all that much to be honest.
or to paraphrase Fallout..
War has changed and it hasn't. Of course, war results in the deaths of people, some called soldiers and some called civilians. That will never change.
But war has changed in the last 100 years, more than just technology. We go to war for different reasons now. America invented the idea of going to war and supported revolution to protect overseas business interests. Hell, we made Panama an independent state so we could build a canal there; the Panamanians were less supportive of a revolution than we were. We went to war with Columbia over that (granted, I don't believe anyone actually got killed). You got independence movements. You got trade interests. We're at a point where land is becoming less relevant.
Communication hasn't just changed the tools of war, it has changed the point of war. Instead of land grabbing and conquering other states to support the main one financially, war is now about guarding trade routes and grabbing resources instead of the land they're on. In the past, if China wanted a mine in Mongolia, they would have to conquer the land that the mine is on. Now, they don't have to own the land: they can simply build a railroad to the mine and split the profits with Mongolia.
But war has changed in the last 100 years, more than just technology. We go to war for different reasons now. America invented the idea of going to war and supported revolution to protect overseas business interests. Hell, we made Panama an independent state so we could build a canal there; the Panamanians were less supportive of a revolution than we were. We went to war with Columbia over that (granted, I don't believe anyone actually got killed). You got independence movements. You got trade interests. We're at a point where land is becoming less relevant.
Communication hasn't just changed the tools of war, it has changed the point of war. Instead of land grabbing and conquering other states to support the main one financially, war is now about guarding trade routes and grabbing resources instead of the land they're on. In the past, if China wanted a mine in Mongolia, they would have to conquer the land that the mine is on. Now, they don't have to own the land: they can simply build a railroad to the mine and split the profits with Mongolia.
The reasons for war have and haven't changed, same thing with the way wars are fought. It's still politics and land, but there are other factors I can't quite place. The weapons have changed quite a bit too.
However, war has changed because it's no longer as honerable or masculin as it used to be. I mean, --and many people are going to disagree with me on this-- war nowadays is just standing on the opposite side of a large space of ground from another guy, both of you have guns, and both a trying to shoot the other. People who go into war aren't nearly as brave as they used to. Back in the old days, and I mean the REALLY old days, people had to actually go up to you and bassically say "I'm going to stab you through the stomach" or "I will cut your head off" before actually doing so. Even archers were liable to get their legs cut off at the hip. Soldiers today are cowards becuase you have to make sure your enemy can't see you before striking to make sure everything goes well. It was never really like that in the middle ages. To fight a war back then, you took a few hundred people, gave them spears, organized them into lines, and said "Kill everything that is not wearing the same kind of armor as the people you see standing around you."
Take, for example, Japan. In mideval Japan, generals of warring armies sent each other gifts, such as poems or salt, so to honor each otehr before battle. Some of the time, battle would end the moment the gifts were delivered, and both generals would all off their troops.
Disagree with me all you like, war is endlessly more cowardly then it used to be.
However, war has changed because it's no longer as honerable or masculin as it used to be. I mean, --and many people are going to disagree with me on this-- war nowadays is just standing on the opposite side of a large space of ground from another guy, both of you have guns, and both a trying to shoot the other. People who go into war aren't nearly as brave as they used to. Back in the old days, and I mean the REALLY old days, people had to actually go up to you and bassically say "I'm going to stab you through the stomach" or "I will cut your head off" before actually doing so. Even archers were liable to get their legs cut off at the hip. Soldiers today are cowards becuase you have to make sure your enemy can't see you before striking to make sure everything goes well. It was never really like that in the middle ages. To fight a war back then, you took a few hundred people, gave them spears, organized them into lines, and said "Kill everything that is not wearing the same kind of armor as the people you see standing around you."
Take, for example, Japan. In mideval Japan, generals of warring armies sent each other gifts, such as poems or salt, so to honor each otehr before battle. Some of the time, battle would end the moment the gifts were delivered, and both generals would all off their troops.
Disagree with me all you like, war is endlessly more cowardly then it used to be.
That's not cowardice, it's learning. Armies don't have massed engagements today the way they used to because doing so guarantees they'll get slaughtered by machine guns or artillery - if you want to get all your soldiers killed it's simpler to just poison their food. Also, it could be argued that soldiers in the middle ages had an easier time of it because they generally had some advance warning before someone tried to kill them. In the 20th century it's technologically possible to destroy anything as long as you know where it is. Likewise, if your enemy knows that you're there you can be killed with little or no opportunity to defend yourself, ergo the military importance of hiding and the social importance of PTSD.ShatterPalm said:
OT - Yes & no. Weapons and armor are changed and improved, tactics and strategies change to exploit their strengths and weaknesses so certainly, warfare today is not what it was 1000 or 100 years ago. On the other hand, the reasons for war and the combatants' basic motivations are unchanging.