War cannot be less deadly. People killing other people, no matter how good/bad their training and weapons are, is going to be lethal. Yes technology an training does often prevent casualties, it cannot prevent all.

Originally Posted by Bory

War cannot be less deadly. People killing other people, no matter how good/bad their training and weapons are, is going to be lethal. Yes technology an training does often prevent casualties, it cannot prevent all.

See, this is what I'm talking about. I think that technology and training results in more casualties. I think people are under a false sense of security because of the huge disparity in technology and training America has vs. it's enemies in the last 20 years.

But it still remains that one pissed of Islamicist in 1905 could just run around with an inaccurate bolt action rifel. In 2005 that same Islamicist can pack a truck with explosives and take down a high-rise building killing a wounding hundreds.

i think that these people are trying to make their hopes into reality. war is not less deadly. sure, we havent faced anyone who's inflicted real casualties on us in a long time (i dont mean this in disrespect of the people who have given thier lives in Iraq). they want to think that war is less deadly. if we had taken on a country like Iraq in the 1940's, there would not have been as many casualties.

also, another reason people think wars are less deadly is all those "precision" weapons, and bulletproof vests. we have placed a lot of importance on the safety of non combatants, and gone to great lengths to preserve innocent lives, but these people seem to think that that means that war is less deadly, when it is not, its just more focused on one area, the enemy combatants.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

I've heard this claimed in one way or another by the normal american I talk to VERY frequently. I find it quite disturbing, but I want your opinion on it.

When I compare the 300,000 death toll in WW2 that America suffered to the 1,900 in Iraq currently the response is frequently, "Yeah, but war is different now." Now this is true in a good number of ways, yes. But one thing that is constantly brought up is basically "war is less deadly, fewer people die in wars now" which makes my jaw drop in bufuddlement.

How can these people look at 120mm sabot rounds capable of taking down an enemy tank from 2 miles away, B-52 bombers that can drop 70,000 pounds of ordanaince each, and a world where anybody can take a truck and use it to blow up hundreds of people, and think war is 'less deadly'?

I see war as more deadly.

If you compare the 40's with modern day warfare.

Today every country has nuclear capibilities, germs and viruses are weapons, we can send a 500lb. bomb into a home through a window, we can hit target's in other counties and be back to catch the game, aircraft can fly over enemy territory and not be detected.

War is just as deadly, we have just adapted.

Medical care and technology has also advanced. Now casualtites that would have been fatal in WWII are not as great of a risk. People probally think war is safer now because of this and bullet proof risks. However, war is just as deadly and brutal as it ever has been. Since when the first two cavemen went at it with sticks to now. The end result is the same, people die. Technology just sometimes makes it more efficient, or difficult.

I believe ghost is on the right track bringing up the US focus on protecting non-combatants. Even in the 80's there was a focus on preserving enemy cultural centers, medical facilities, schools, etc. Iraq even tried to use this focus to it's benefit by storing weapons and supplies strategically in those areas. When we see nose-cone footage of retical patterns exploding, we begin to believe that every missile, rocket, and shell goes right where it's supposed to. When we here casualty reports consistently in the single digits, we begin to believe that, for the most part, our soldiers are fairly safe and secure. We become almost complacent and detached (unless someone we know personally is involved).

In the US at least, the civilian leadership of the armed forces has strived for years to put a positive spin on the death and destruction of war. While the military technology makes strategic strikes possible, the media technology makes putting a positive spin on warfare possible. But the bottom line hasn't changed: when you squeeze a trigger, press a fire button, or yank a lanyard, people die. The more "bad guys" you can kill in the shortest amount of time, the more "good guys" and non-combatants you can keep alive in the long run.

I guess as much as technology advances, the number of casualties decreases too.

In the near future, we will have less troops fighting in the battlefields and Armies will let unmanned machines fight the wars and on top of that, I guess we might be seeing Army of Clones!

Originally Posted by phoenix_aim54

I guess as much as technology advances, the number of casualties decreases too.

In the near future, we will have less troops fighting in the battlefields and Armies will let unmanned machines fight the wars and on top of that, I guess we might be seeing Army of Clones!

See, the only problem I see with robots fighting is that in the end people will still fight people, what have they got to lose? They are about to be conquered by their enemies and as of yet have not fired a shot themselves, defeating your enemy's army these days is not enough to be victorious because the populace must also be subdued and unfortunately we are more "civilized" these days and can not use the most effective tactics available to us.

Damien talks much sense.