will there ever be a zero-Casualty war? - Page 2




 
--
 
June 27th, 2005  
vargsriket
 
I dont think the US suffered a single combat casualty in Kosovo.
June 27th, 2005  
CSmaster
 
ya, that was a pretty successful example, although there wasn't no ground operation there to really 100% defeat the enemy


but the operations in iraq pretty much contradicts the theory that high-tech, great-training will be able to create a zero-casualty war for U.S
June 27th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
There have been throughout history one sided battles where one side sustained ZERO casualties. For one example the American Civil War the Confederate victory at Sabine Pass, Texas. Capt. Richard W. Dowling, defending with 43 men and six cannon, drove off a Federal force of 15,000 men attempting to land. Capt. Dowling never lost a man!
--
June 27th, 2005  
CSmaster
 
sorry man, i am talking about zero-casaulty WAR


i am sure no one has won a war with no death or wound before 20th century
June 27th, 2005  
ghost457
 
 
i for one hope that there is never a zero-casualty war. i know i sound barbaric, but as Gen. Robert. E. Lee said, "It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it." as this states, if there are no casualties, then war wouldnt be bad, and it would run rampant. everybody would be fighting wars because they think "oh, i'll win, i wont lose a war, blah blah blah" and also, say we win a zero-casualty war, then we'll start thinking "oh, we're invincible, lets go kill some more" and we would pretty much go to war with every other country in the world, and we would conquer the world with no losses, and we would be oppressive dictators. and i believe that this scenario could happen with whatever country finds the most effective means to eliminate casualties.

btw, this is all just my opinion, i hope nobody is offended
June 27th, 2005  
CSmaster
 
wow....pretty deep thinkings, i have never thought of that before...


people should alway pay price for killing others and taking away their lands, otherwise, it won't be called war anymore..
June 27th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
I believe this may have been the impetus behind the development of the nuclear bomb.

It is a well known fact that the US dropped the two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II for, among other political reasons, to forego the alternative- an invasion of Japan that was projected at that time to probably cost over a million lives. If you have nuclear weapons and your enemy does not then yes, I would say you could win a zero casualty war and that this was an idea, along with others, that precipitated the nuclear arms race and development of things like the hydrogen bomb.

I agree with your post Ghost it would be horrific, IMHO, for someone to possess the ability to win a war by absolutely exterminating their enemy without the loss of a single life on their side. Not that I am a blood thirsty nitwit but if there are no consequences for undertaking such a grave enterprise as war then I believe Gen. Lee was right, we would grow too fond of it.
June 27th, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
Sorry Misazeno, but I have my doubts about what you're saying and you in general.

First off, by the time we can create an artificial intelligence capable of autonomously identifying targets and neutralizing them said AI will be able to identify hostile and non hostile targets. Hence you're robots would only go on a genocidal rampage if instructed to do so.

Secondly I highly doubt any such simulation exists. You cannot model human behaviour, current politics, unforseen mass political movements, and a world economic model with today's technology. It isn't the weather.

And who is "we"? Right, you're probably not at liberty to tell. But that wouldn't make sense because even if such a simulation was possible you'd need to rent a commercial super computer. And a quick FOIA check would reveal that outside of the NWS the government hasn't been doing much of that. And if the program is too classified for it renting a commercial supercomputer to be FOIA accessible then it's certainly too classified for you to be talking about it on a public forum.

Not to mention your profile, no one who is actually a spook, makes it obvious that they're a spook. Otherwise, they wouldn't be a spook.
June 27th, 2005  
behemoth79
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost457
i for one hope that there is never a zero-casualty war. i know i sound barbaric, but as Gen. Robert. E. Lee said, "It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it." as this states, if there are no casualties, then war wouldnt be bad, and it would run rampant. everybody would be fighting wars because they think "oh, i'll win, i wont lose a war, blah blah blah" and also, say we win a zero-casualty war, then we'll start thinking "oh, we're invincible, lets go kill some more" and we would pretty much go to war with every other country in the world, and we would conquer the world with no losses, and we would be oppressive dictators. and i believe that this scenario could happen with whatever country finds the most effective means to eliminate casualties.

btw, this is all just my opinion, i hope nobody is offended
i agree with you. war is a necessary evil. if a country becomes that superior to others that it can have a zero-casualty campaign, then the world will soon fall under that country's control. the casualties are what make wars a last option.
June 27th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Behemoth, I think there is a definite difference in saying that "war is a necessary evil" and saying that war should be horrible to help deter men. Is that what you meant or do you think we must have wars?