The art of war
- Thread starter Warborg
- Start date
Hello; I started reading a novel by Patrick Robinson a few days ago, Intercept. This is a work of fiction and a plodding read, but the first chapter spells out fairly well the different points of view between terrorists, western politicians and the western military. For a point of reference Robinson also co wrote the non fiction story named Lone Survivor from which a movie was made.
Some enemies have little to no restrictions, moral or otherwise, about the way they wage a conflict. Using civilians as shields, using chemical or biological weapons, mistreatment of prisoners and so on.
War is not a civilized thing any more. The may have been some decent rules way back but the basis for those rules started to go away around the time of the American Civil War. That was among the first wars pretty much decided by industrial might, technology (telegraph) and powered equipment ( railroads).
By the Second World War carpet bombing of civilians was acceptable. It seems to me that the current "rules" try to keep conflicts to be fought somewhere short of all out nuclear war.
It seems pretty clear that the Syrian ruler (Assaid sp?) will use everything he has to stay in power, including gas. If he did not have the backing of a major powerful country, I think he would already be gone. The question seems to be do the major powers want to go to it over Syria?
China is pushing things in the South China Sea. Another place where major powers might escalate things to an all out war.
Some enemies have little to no restrictions, moral or otherwise, about the way they wage a conflict. Using civilians as shields, using chemical or biological weapons, mistreatment of prisoners and so on.
War is not a civilized thing any more. The may have been some decent rules way back but the basis for those rules started to go away around the time of the American Civil War. That was among the first wars pretty much decided by industrial might, technology (telegraph) and powered equipment ( railroads).
By the Second World War carpet bombing of civilians was acceptable. It seems to me that the current "rules" try to keep conflicts to be fought somewhere short of all out nuclear war.
It seems pretty clear that the Syrian ruler (Assaid sp?) will use everything he has to stay in power, including gas. If he did not have the backing of a major powerful country, I think he would already be gone. The question seems to be do the major powers want to go to it over Syria?
China is pushing things in the South China Sea. Another place where major powers might escalate things to an all out war.
On the subject of North Korea, and very apt for this site, have any of you read the book "the aquariums of pyong yang"?
No, it was the first war where tech allowed people to know that the 'rules of honor' were not being followed.
It was weird then too. Hiroshima and Nagasaki where bombed, killing out hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but in Europe they got shaken up after about fifty thousand were killed at Dresden. Somehow the US saw German lives as worth more than Japanese ones? Mass murder was justifiable when dealing with the mostly innocent Japanese, but not to the primarily Nazi German population? There is very little intelligence in these decisions. It is better not to think of such things.
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.
If you want to call yourself a human being, there are certain rules you must follow........
