The art of war

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
It's not that's it about being humane or following rules. It's about not opening pandoras box.

Generally in war it is best to take the state intact, to ruin this is inferior. To take it intact is better than destroying it...or something like that from art of war.

Really its a business strategy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chub_by and J. H.
Warborg said:
I thought I heard the civil war was a very bloody and brutal war. I wouldn't think they had any kind of rules or honor back then.
Click to expand...
Hello; You are correct in that it was bloody. Even with the single shot muskets many thousands were killed or wounded in large battles. They had six shot revolvers and cannon as well. There were rules in place at first. For example during the early battles I think civilians would go out to watch. I think civilians were left alone pretty much at first.
After a few years some of that changed. General Sherman's march thru the south while creating a swath of destruction is an example of war waged on civilians.

I guess the term "honor" depends on a persons definition. Compared to what the Japanese did to military prisoners and Chinese civilians during WWII, the treatment of prisoners during the civil war was likely better. I know the confederate prison at Andersonville was a hell hole, but I think some of that was that because the south simply did not have enough supplies. Not enough for their troops. I am not sure who decided to stop pow exchanges during that war, but it forced each side to hold any soldiers captured.
 
Warborg said:
I thought I heard the civil war was a very bloody and brutal war. I wouldn't think they had any kind of rules or honor back then.
Click to expand...
Hello; You are correct in that it was bloody. Even with the single shot muskets many thousands were killed or wounded in large battles. They had six shot revolvers and cannon as well. There were rules in place at first. For example during the early battles I think civilians would go out to watch. I think civilians were left alone pretty much at first.
After a few years some of that changed. General Sherman's march thru the south while creating a swath of destruction is an example of war waged on civilians.

I guess the term "honor" depends on a persons definition. Compared to what the Japanese did to military prisoners and Chinese civilians during WWII, the treatment of prisoners during the civil war was likely better. I know the confederate prison at Andersonville was a hell hole, but I think some of that was that because the south simply did not have enough supplies. Not enough for their troops. I am not sure who decided to stop pow exchanges during that war, but it forced each side to hold any soldiers captured.
 
J. H. said:
No, it was the first war where tech allowed people to know that the 'rules of honor' were not being followed
Click to expand...

Hello; OK. Civil War had much less sophisticated technology available for sure. Not a point I will quibble over. The machine guns, petroleum powered machinery, assembly line mass production, airplanes and more all led to much more efficient killing. Perhaps mustard gas being the bigger "loss of honor" item.
 
skjl47 said:
Hello; OK. Civil War had much less sophisticated technology available for sure. Not a point I will quibble over. The machine guns, petroleum powered machinery, assembly line mass production, airplanes and more all led to much more efficient killing. Perhaps mustard gas being the bigger "loss of honor" item.
Click to expand...
Misunderstanding. I meant that with the advent of the telegraph, railroad, daily newspaper, etc., people began to find out about what went down. If someone is tortured on a deserted island, noone will know about it, and it won't go down in the history books, but that does not mean it did not happen.
 
What is right and just in war is in the eye of the beholder. An Islamic "terrorist" fighting against Western infidel invaders in his homeland, an American GI fighting western Europeans on foreign soil, a Chinese sailor plying the waters around the Paracel Islands, a child soldier marching through the forests of Central Africa; all have different world views and hence, hold different opinions on what is justifiable in war.

Asking if the ends justify the means is an abstract luxury in desperate times... all means are justified in victory... at least that's how it usually works out in reality.
 
I started reading books on north korea a couple of years ago. I just hope we never get dragged into a war with them because whatever rules you allude to, or lack of, simply will not apply to this country. The place is simply brutal and there's masses of literature detailing it, most of it from lucky defectors who've escaped, some of them lowly civilians, and some very high ranking officials from within the government. It almost holds a morbid fascination over me now, you just cannot believe some of the stuff that happens there. "The aquariums of pyong yang" and "escape from camp 14" are just two of the better ones.
 
Imsobored152 said:
So you can get shot and maimed by explosives and die, but you cant drown in your own fluids caused by mustard gas??? Not sure how one is more humane than the other, other than collateral damage to civilians.
Click to expand...
you misunderstand me entirely, I'm fine with no rules in war. Its war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom