WW2 japan was a pain, stalingrad was a nightmare, vietnam was a hellhole, WW1 was a massacre...
And gulf war and iraq war considered 'tough'? no disrespect, but i'll go thru iraq over the above wars/battles anytime...
Has war gotten soft?
WW2 japan was a pain, stalingrad was a nightmare, vietnam was a hellhole, WW1 was a massacre...
And gulf war and iraq war considered 'tough'? no disrespect, but i'll go thru iraq over the above wars/battles anytime...
Primicerius
Re: Has war gotten soft?
You can't compare those conflicts because the US was much more powerful than a nation like Iraq who was essentially helpless against them. WW2 and WW1 were essentially global conflicts that were fought by very powerful nations. If we have a 3rd World War, I assure you that it would not be "soft"Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Re: Has war gotten soft?
that just about ended this thread lol
Campidoctor
Re: Has war gotten soft?
Wow voice of reason seems to be speaking +rep for you i think..
GSTK: Richard Trevelyan [47] - Lord of Lyonesse
quaeri, si sapis
Re: Has war gotten soft?
War is not 'soft'. There hasn't been a war since WW2, only little skirmishes, small scale civil wars and america bombing most of the middle east, vietnam and korea back to the middle ages they are still in, then realising it has no idea how to fight guerillas and terrorists who's sole objective is to die in battle.
Terrorism and roadside bombs are not war, small skirmishes in the hills of afghanistan do not make a war.
When we do have a war, you will know about it. There will be at least a million people fighting in it for each side, not about 2000 people flying planes around and manning small pacification forces.
A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.
A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."
Praeses
Re: Has war gotten soft?
utterly diffrent conditions, beligerents, weaponry, and environments.
I'd happily be a knight in the Medieval period, full plate making you virtually invunerable, a huge amount of retainers, and the enemy don't want to kill you anyway (Ransom produced more profit that outright kills).
Thats a soft war,
I would not want to be a Nepoloinic Soilder, that war looks bad.
War has not gone soft, but as always, it is constantly evolving, in both the peoples, techniques and technolgy of war, one thing is certain, however, war will never look like it does now again.
Hammer & Sickle - Karacharovo
And I drank it strait down.
Decanus
Re: Has war gotten soft?
I want to take this into a different direction..
When I first read the thread title (before I read the question posed) My reaction was YES it has become soft...
By this I mean that warfare as waged by the West in the 21st century has become soft.... War must be fought with gloves on... warfare must be politically correct.
During the Second World War... ALL SIDES Allied and Axis fought the war to win... by this I mean... they threw everthing they had against the enemy....
Even if we ignore the dropping of the atomic bombs.... several cities were totally destroyed. Dresdin was Fire Bombed, as was Tokyo... London was bombed almost into rubble ect ect ect...
On the battlefield soldiers were trained to kill... they didnt have to worry about a liberal press of leftist legislators prosecuting them for doing what they were there to do...
America above any other nation has been nutered.... I LOVE how many people think we have lost the Iraq War.... (First off the actual war is long over and we dominated) But aside from that... even if you want to argue sementics and say the war is still on... Id America was unleashed allowed to fight ... it would be over in about 2 seconds....and I dont mean nukes... I just mean allowing the bravest, strongest, best equipped, best trained fighting force in the history of man...to be warriors... nothing could stand against us....
Warfare has gotten soft..war isnt allowed to be waged in the same manner that it has been for the last 5000 years...
Now Im not arguing that an army should purposely target civilians and innocents (i.e women and children) BUT if an enemy uses them as a shield protecting some vital companent to thier war machine... that doesnt mean you should not take ot the target... casualities are unacceptable in war today... This is a sad state of addairs... this is what gets people killed...we are more worried about protecting the possible innocents of the enemy then the soldiers of or own nation...
Basically (and I know Im not putting together the most succinic of arguments...) in the "Western World" the soldier has been nutered...nuturered by the press, by the legislators, and by the weak willed people who think we should all hold hands and sing songs about birds and clouds and fluffy kittykats...
I believe in equality. Equality for everybody. No matter how stupid they are or how superior I am to them.
- Steve Martin
Liberals are against nuclear war but have yet to propose a soy based substitute that can obliterate cities"
Praefectus
Re: Has war gotten soft?
O RLY? :hmmm:This would be why they run over Taxis with an Abrams in Iraq, neutered, indeed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLI6e...eature=related
Last edited by Pious Agnost; December 03, 2008 at 12:02 AM.
Dux Limitis
Re: Has war gotten soft?
No.
Comes Domesticorum
Re: Has war gotten soft?
The bravest and strongest are definately not Americans (although I am not sure th best equipped and best trained though).
If you want the bravest and strongest the best way is probably go Foreign Legion...
Praefectus
Re: Has war gotten soft?
Bravest - JapaneseThe bravest and strongest are definately not Americans (although I am not sure th best equipped and best trained though).
If you want the bravest and strongest the best way is probably go Foreign Legion...
Strongest - Scandinavians
Best trained - S.A.S or former colony versions (N.Z.S.A.S for example) or Israelis
Best equipped - The Germans, absolutely no doubt about it
Comes Domesticorum
Re: Has war gotten soft?
If Japanese was/is the bravest then Chinese probably was/is immortal.
If Scandinavians were/are the strongest Norway could be held indefinately against Russian.
If Israelies (I have no doubt about SAS) are the best trained then they already conquered half of Middle East.
Finally, if Germans are the best equiped today I don't see why they are leaded by French in EU.
Re: Has war gotten soft?
Unfortunately, the war against Lebanon a couple of summers ago showed the failings of the Israeli military...
Primicerius
Re: Has war gotten soft?
Come on, this is just as bogus.
for-profit death machine.
Tally Ho!
Re: Has war gotten soft?
There is a reason for that. It legitimises the Western soldiers in the conflict, whilst if the enemy resorts to 'underhand' tactics, deligitimises (sp?) them.
Nobody fights a war to lose. But now, it is plainly understood by enemies of the West, or indeed any militarily strong power, that a war is never a purely military affair. Indeed, Vietnam, Algeria and Northern Ireland et al. show us that in fact many conflicts are won by the political conflict more so than the military conflict, the sphere where the West usually has an advantage over it's enemies.During the Second World War... ALL SIDES Allied and Axis fought the war to win... by this I mean... they threw everthing they had against the enemy....
There is a reason why Western soldiers are taught to act under rules; because when soldiers run amok, atrocities occur. Without rules, soldiers rape, pillage and kill indiscriminately - that would be a massive political defeat. The leashes on the West are there for a reason. Perhaps often not for a particularly good one from the military POV, but if Abu Ghraib happened Iraq-wide, America would be neck-deep in the brownstuff, rather than waist-deepOn the battlefield soldiers were trained to kill... they didnt have to worry about a liberal press of leftist legislators prosecuting them for doing what they were there to do......
No. The conventional military conflict is over. You are still fighting the unconventional, domesticand political conflicts. In US military terms, you are still in the MOOTW phase - 'Military Operations Other Than War'.America above any other nation has been nutered.... I LOVE how many people think we have lost the Iraq War.... (First off the actual war is long over and we dominated)
No, it's gotten even nastier than before, save on a smaller scale.Warfare has gotten soft..war isnt allowed to be waged in the same manner that it has been for the last 5000 years...
Freindly military casualties are bad for a Western country - large numbers of enemy civilian casualties are far worse.we are more worried about protecting the possible innocents of the enemy then the soldiers of or own nation...
But without these rules, however maddening they are, our soldiers are no better than the enemy they are fighting, and the act is, in order to legitimise military action by Western democratic forces, our soldiers have to have this legitamy.Basically (and I know Im not putting together the most succinic of arguments...) in the "Western World" the soldier has been nutered...nuturered by the press, by the legislators, and by the weak willed people who think we should all hold hands and sing songs about birds and clouds and fluffy kittykats...
Citizen
Re: Has war gotten soft?
Bellicose nonsense.
The whole reason we take our approach to war today is the fact that the whole world had blood on its hands by 1945. There's a reason people wanted WW1 to be the "war to end all wars". Humanity saw enough war in those 10 years of carnage to last generations. I'd hope to think that we could say "forever". But that would be utterly naive.
Our societies have been irreversibly changed since 1945 now. Our economies are globalised and interlinked. Infrastructure is organised on the basis of economic prosperity, not organising for total war. We've become adverse to war. And this isn't a bad thing.
Last edited by Stalins Ghost; December 04, 2008 at 08:23 AM.
morecuriousthanbold.com
Re: Has war gotten soft?
Correct. After the carnage and blood bath of last two WW, things doesnt reach that level anymore, fortunately. Peoples can be impresed by today images with IED`s and fire fights in Irak or Afghanistan, because they didnt experianced that before, most western ( european or american ) peoples ( as i think we are in this forum, and i am sorry if i mistake ) haved a peace time since 1945. But all such scenes are smaller, and most of the time much less in intensity then scenes from WW I and WWII ( especialy eastern front ), which some of them are beyond the imagination today.
Well, such loses was encountered, due to topography or enemy tactical skills. And that saying of spartan mothers means to "come back victourios or dead", some principle that other peoples used too, in a form or other.
About modern toughtness of war, vs. ancient war, what i wanted to say, based on that study, is that today peoples are not that use to idea of killing, most of them, up to 98 % even having a very hard time to do that, and that was comparing the ammo fired in WW II, compared with victims. Most of kills was done by bombs, and a lesser number by shots, even much lesser by hand to hand fight. But, in ancient times soldiers dont haved that "luxury", and was "forced" to kill the enemy, face to face, and using a stabing, cutting, crushing weapon, so a greater physical "work".
Yes, now, as then, you can be killed anytime, in diferent ways, but the danger is lower in asymetric warfare, for the most powerful part, ofcourse.
In ancient wars danger was present as well, all the time, and the two world wars was usualy the exception of modern times, nothing like that, as ferocity and scale, ever hapened since then.
Last edited by Valus; December 04, 2008 at 11:59 AM. Reason: double post
Re: Has war gotten soft?
Cut off retreats obviously happened, but IMHO they where the exception, and not the norm. An the point I wanted to make with the shield was, that discarding it allowed to loser a head start while fleeing. And given references in greek writing (e.g. comedies written in the peleponesian war) give reason to assume that it was common practice to do so.
As another poster remarked, this is marshalls study done after WW2 (Men Against Fire), though there are two problems with it:About modern toughtness of war, vs. ancient war, what i wanted to say, based on that study, is that today peoples are not that use to idea of killing, most of them, up to 98 % even having a very hard time to do that,
-Marshalls methology and results where frequently called into question by historians
-I'm not aware of any other studies, especially not in antiquity, that could be used as comparison, i.e. how do we know how many hoplites or legionaries actively tried to kill their opponent in gory, close-up style and how many merelly engaged in happy shield pushing?
We are therefore unably to assertain if people in antiquity had less problems killing other people than modern people.
The danger has certainly grown from caesars days to modern war. At least I'm not aware of antique formations comming under heavy fire 5km away from the battlefield.and that was comparing the ammo fired in WW II, compared with victims. Most of kills was done by bombs, and a lesser number by shots, even much lesser by hand to hand fight. But, in ancient times soldiers dont haved that "luxury", and was "forced" to kill the enemy, face to face, and using a stabing, cutting, crushing weapon, so a greater physical "work".
Yes, now, as then, you can be killed anytime, in diferent ways, but the danger is lower in asymetric warfare, for the most powerful part, ofcourse.
In ancient wars danger was present as well, all the time, and the two world wars was usualy the exception of modern times, nothing like that, as ferocity and scale, ever hapened since then.
Another assertion I have problems to accept is to regard the two world war as absolutely singular and not recreated since then. On a global scale, that might be true, but for the individual soldier, on a battlefield, it is pretty irrelevant if his country is engaged all around the globe, or just on this stretch of a front.
Other people pointed out the first gulf war (iraq-iran), but conflicts like Korea, the open battles of vietnam (Dien Bien Phu, Khe San, Hue), the liberation wars in africa, also resulted in lengthy conflicts and large casualties. Remember, the point is not about the big picture, but the normal soldiers perspective.
The main point remains the individual experience of the soldier, the stress he undergoes, ranging from physical exhaustion, constant exposure to danger,social interactions (support from other members of his unit or lack thereof) to threat of death or wounding.
The psychologic strain from fear from danger gets worse the longer it takes, and people exposed constantly to the danger of immediate death tend to have more issues afterwars than people engaged in a short victorious war.
As far as I have heard, the strain in asymmetric warfare is high, mainly because it is constant, as an attack can occur at any time.
ANd to close my post, for normal "internet" people like you and me, it is difficult to understand the plight of people engaged in combat, as this is a situation so fra way from normal life that it hard to grasp.
Comes Domesticorum
Re: Has war gotten soft?
I would like to see what you said when my Morning Star broke your skull.
Comes Rei Militaris
Re: Has war gotten soft?
one word, Nukes.
according to exarch I am like
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Simple truths
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
