A Dream Fulfilled

[Professor S]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327205,00.html

I have been waiting for this day since I first popped MechWarrior3 into my computer.

Now they just need to get that damn GAUSS rifle to work...

[Angrist]

Yay! We're getting better at destroying stuff and killing people every day! :D

[Professor S]

Yay! We're getting better at destroying stuff and killing people every day! :D

My thoughts are that the better weapons we get, the less colateral damage we cause, and the fewer innocent citizens that are killed in war. War is an an inevitability of human existence. Its better to make it more "civilized" I guess? Sounds weird to put it that way...

[Dylflon]

My thoughts are that the better weapons we get, the less colateral damage we cause, and the fewer innocent citizens that are killed in war. War is an an inevitability of human existence. Its better to make it more "civilized" I guess? Sounds weird to put it that way...

I think war is somewhat less civilized than it used to be. Back before world war I, war was about tactics, the goal being to rout the enemy to attain victory (at least in warfare of the European kind) rather than kill everybody.

Since world war I though, war has been about attrition, and the increase in weapons technology just increases the horrible slaughter.

[GameMaster]

I don't know if war is an inevitability. Just so far it has proven to be but I wouldn't rule out a future where there is no war. What can I say? I'm an enternal optimist.

[Professor S]

I think war is somewhat less civilized than it used to be. Back before world war I, war was about tactics, the goal being to rout the enemy to attain victory (at least in warfare of the European kind) rather than kill everybody.

Since world war I though, war has been about attrition, and the increase in weapons technology just increases the horrible slaughter.

Well, war by attrition is an inevitability when you are fighting over ideals, and not just boundaries, lands and money. Old world european battle was for the most part rarely about freedom vs. servitude, capitalism vs communism, etc. It was about wanting to have a valuable scrap of land or a political concession. Hell, even Japan just wanted us to open up more trade with them. Little did they know we get REAL pissed off when you bomb us, and take it personally. Japan thought it was business. Whoops.

Also keep in mind that until WW2, wars were rarely about the subjugation/destruction of a state body (aka. statehood life and death). They are very much about that in todays day and age.

Our wars since WW2 are as much about clash of cultures as they are about political disputes. The greatest example of this was the Japanese conflict in WW2. Even though they started out just to get concessions, when they took a whooping they just would not give up, and the West could not fathom it because they had obviously lost. But they would rather die than admit defeat. This lends itself to much more vicious fighting, IMO.

And lets not kid each other, either. European warfare was often times brutal and awful, including the targeted slaughter of women and children and not just meat shields walking strait into musket fire. The English took attrition tactics with the Irish and Scottish for years, knowing that if there were no young ones to take the place of the old ones, there would be no one left to fight. That is the ultimate war of attrition.

You make a good point, though, as war of attrition does seem to be the norm in today's world. But keep in mind, the advent of the smart weapon has greatly decreased civilian deaths by formal nation armies since WW2. Perhaps technology, while intially creating much more death in war, will eventually turn the corner and help prevent it.

Wow, that was a lot more thinking in this thread that I had originally planned when I saw a cool gun. Good stuff.

[Fox 6]

I think that all these new weapons systems are putting a "out of sight, out of mind" aspect to warefare now. Its one thing to sit in a control room and watch a monitor miles away, as aposed to pulling the trigger at 100 yards. Though the ability to keep soldiers safe and off the front line is a noted benefit.

[Angrist]

Hm in that line of thought: we should give these rifles to our enemies as well. It's not about how good it kills, it's about reducing collateral damage.
(And who are we to decide who's better than the other?)

But I made my real point in my first post.

[Typhoid]

(And who are we to decide who's better than the other?)

"We" are always better than "the other".
Without that thinking there would be no war.
You don't (generally) go into a battle because someone is better than you.
That's terrible for morale.
That's why every nation on the planet (with tangible wealth and military) is the greatest.

[Professor S]

Hm in that line of thought: we should give these rifles to our enemies as well. It's not about how good it kills, it's about reducing collateral damage.
(And who are we to decide who's better than the other?)

But I made my real point in my first post.

Its not about who is better, its about self preservation. You want the bigger better weapon because you don't want to live according to what someone else dictates. It is assumed that you are a willing civilian of the country you live in (barring walls, gun towers and such), so if another country wants to overthrow the nation you live in, you want to the better weapon so that your nation of choice can survive.

Your country in better because it is the one you choose to pledge aliegance to.

[Fox 6]

Hm in that line of thought: we should give these rifles to our enemies as well. It's not about how good it kills, it's about reducing collateral damage.
(And who are we to decide who's better than the other?)

But I made my real point in my first post.

To be a stickler here, the weapon wasnt a rifle. It was a large calibur cannon designed to take the place of the the older ones on battle ships and such.