will there ever be a zero-Casualty war?

C

CSmaster

Banned
zero-casualty has been a pretty hot topic after Gulf war in which coalition force defeated mass Iraqi troops with very little casualty.

since than, most of war U.S participated in had very few american death and wounds, largely due to U.S force's superior training and technology

many believe that in the future, with great training, and superub military technology and equipments, there can be a zero-casualty war.

but in recent U.S' occupation in Iraq, there have been over 1600 american death and 15000 more wounded despite its supeior training and tech and despite the fact that its enemy is a loosely orgnized, badly-equiped insurgent "army".

so will there ever be a zero-casualty war?
 
No. If there are no casualties, then there is no loss, which means there cannot be victory, which means war would be pointless. When wars are zero-casualty, they will stop being fought.
 
by zero-casaulty, i mean to the side with great training and great tech..


not the enemy side

they can kill 1000 enemies with no losses, that is what i mean by zero-casualty war
 
we already had a zero casualty war

I forgot what time period....

the war was about to start under a afternoon sun. both countries were raring to go, then they had an eclipse. Scared, both countries descided not to continue the war, because "the gods" said other wise. :)

I still get a smile everytime I hear that.
 
do i have to explain again..

by zero casualty , i mean for the winner, and he must WIN, not cancel the battle...
 
no problem man


and i think as long as humans fight in the battle (no matter how high tech), there will always be death and wounds,

but maybe a robot war in the future?
 
robot wars will be more deadly. with a robot soldier, the science is unlimited. robots will not suffer, depression, or have feelings for killing civilians. robots will march through towns with women and children and kill everything that breathes. don't look to robots. we ran that simulation already. the genocide factor is to high.
 
Misazeno said:
robot wars will be more deadly. with a robot soldier, the science is unlimited. robots will not suffer, depression, or have feelings for killing civilians. robots will march through towns with women and children and kill everything that breathes. don't look to robots. we ran that simulation already. the genocide factor is to high.
Click to expand...

What do you mean you ran a simulation? Can you inform me more about this?
 
easy.. take a computer and program as much war data, presidental data, civilian data, everything thats connected to war, to make "the computer smart"

make a program, then introduce foreign "life forms" into the system. very easy concept. you'd be suprised at all the simulations we've ran. You guys haven't done this yet. Whats taking you guys so long?

I'm not violating any government laws about this, mostly because it's old news, so I'll give you the stuff thats not under the confidential files. Just ask the question and I'll give you the answer. But know I can't answer all you questions, some info is still secret.
 
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
 
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!
 
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
 
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
 
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..
 
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.
 
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.
 
ghost457 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top