War!

[Aloysius]

Modern technology has made war even more terrible than it ever has been in history... but... and I may just be being a bright eyed idealist... but what if technology were used to make war less terrible?

now more than ever we have the capacity for non-lethal ways of incapacitating people. since morality considers killing to be a last option, why don't we produce on a mass scale a way of incapacitating the other side and taking whole armies as POWs? imagine, automatic weapons that fired rounds of tranquilizers... bombs that dispersed knockout gas over wide ranges... et cetera. obviously, lethal force would still be an option when necessary, but what if we fought wars in which it was barely necessary? or at least, less necessary that it is now. would that be worth somethin to us? could it be done? and if not, why not? is it simply too difficult logistically to take that many prisoners of war?

am I just a bright eyed idealist, or is there something to this? what say you?

[Laudate_Dominum]

I believe nonlethal weapons could be developed and applied very broadly in the military (and esp. policing) but war is inevitably about killing. If war were like a game of paintball it might work, but in a real firefight stopping power is critical and the enemy would be using hot lead and deadly explosives. But of course there is a lot more to warfare than infantry skirmishes. It is hard to imagine a nonlethal solution to a squadron of strategic bombers, or to imagine a responsible commander opting for nonlethal tactics when there is a line of artillery poised to obliterate his men if they do not act immediately and with maximum force.

War is in the mind more than anything, so if all parties agree upon an etiquette of war I suppose anything is possible. We could resolve state conflicts with chess or have a WoW server dedicated to fighting our wars. But in the world of today (and the foreseeable future) war is hopelessly brutal and remarkably indiscriminate in destroying people.

I believe that war must be permanently retired. The non-lethal thing has more immediate promise in the area of policing in my opinion. In the future I hope to see weapons as effective as the conventional firearm but that are not tools of killing or torture (I imagine phasers on stun). The possibility of justifying lethal force in police work will become a virtual absurdity imo; especially if war becomes obsolete and the culture evolves away from violence and barbarism in general. Like in Star Trek I guess...

[Aloysius]

my point was that non-lethal means that are as immediate and effective might be able to be developed given current technology. and yes, I'm imaging one army using non-lethal means against an army that's using lethal means... ie, taking the higher road through higher technology.

obviously you'd have to use lethal force to take out bomber planes, and I suppose to attack naval vessels or tanks for that matter... but I'm thinking non-lethal technology could be advanced to be as immediate and maximum as anything such that a responsible commander could respond to a line of artillery with highly advanced non-lethal means... it doesn't even have to be phasers, with modern technology it would seem to me that there'd be ways to knock people out ("stun") and thus render them useless to attack. with the growing amount of unmanned technology, we could seriously do some awesomely non-lethal attacks with first waves of things like UAVs using knockout gas and tranquilizers followed by manned crews with their own advanced tranquilizers (I'm thinking of some possible automatic weapon that fired powerful tranquilizers rapidly)... it'd just be the logistics of what to do with all the incapacitated people on the other side before they woke up...

[Laudate_Dominum]

They do develop stuff like that by my understanding is that military culture favors the development of bigger and badder lethal technologies so the nonlethal do get the back burner for the most part. Saw a vid about the development of the Active Denial System which essentially made this point.

[Aloysius]

the military would certainly have to change its priorities...

what got me thinking of all this was catching up on Smallville... partially, it was in seeing the Green Arrow goin around generally being a non-lethal assassin (except when he was lethal, lol, but just thinking his day to day crime fighting, rather than the extra-ordinary cases where he was in favor of killing) and I just thought: wouldn't it be amazing to have an army of green arrows?\

[pat22]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='05 October 2009 - 05:14 AM' timestamp='1254734054' post='1978096']
Modern technology has made war even more terrible than it ever has been in history... but... and I may just be being a bright eyed idealist... but what if technology were used to make war less terrible?

now more than ever we have the capacity for non-lethal ways of incapacitating people. since morality considers killing to be a last option, why don't we produce on a mass scale a way of incapacitating the other side and taking whole armies as POWs? imagine, automatic weapons that fired rounds of tranquilizers... bombs that dispersed knockout gas over wide ranges... et cetera. obviously, lethal force would still be an option when necessary, but what if we fought wars in which it was barely necessary? or at least, less necessary that it is now. would that be worth somethin to us? could it be done? and if not, why not? is it simply too difficult logistically to take that many prisoners of war?

am I just a bright eyed idealist, or is there something to this? what say you?
[/quote]

believe me dude, im sure we would if we could. but how would we deal with missle bases? what happens when they pick up on our mercy plan and get gas masks? and all you need is a layer of kevlar to stop a dart from piercing you. good sentiment, but we'de have to surprize them with something the worlds never seen before, and i dont think we'll be able to fathom that on here
and then you have cultures such as the japenese who have a hard time with the word "surrender". ever wonder why you never heard of a WWII jap prison camp? ya. i just think there are so many factors that would prevent something like this from working, people just dont like to go down without a fight.

Edited October 5, 2009 by pat22

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='pat22' date='05 October 2009 - 08:20 AM' timestamp='1254745251' post='1978130']
believe me dude, im sure we would if we could. but how would we deal with missle bases? what happens when they pick up on our mercy plan and get gas masks? and all you need is a layer of kevlar to stop a dart from piercing you. good sentiment, but we'de have to surprize them with something the worlds never seen before, and i dont think we'll be able to fathom that on here
and then you have cultures such as the japenese who have a hard time with the word "surrender". ever wonder why you never heard of a WWII jap prison camp? ya. i just think there are so many factors that would prevent something like this from working, people just dont like to go down without a fight.
[/quote]
Yeah, I tend to agree with you on this, but...

The military seems to do many things besides fighting, such as peacekeeping, and seems to deal with civilians a lot and it could make sense to have a greater arsenal of nonlethal tactics and gear for such things so that danger to innocents is minimized. Again, I think the police would be better if they were dedicated to nonlethal force and didn't need man killing gadgets. I'm actually inclined to believe that this will happen in the future.

[Winchester]

I think armies should settle things with Red Rover.

Think how much fun it would be to see Kadhaffi giggling like a schoolgirl as he failed to break through the arm lock of Pelosi and Barney Frank.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Winchester' date='05 October 2009 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1254749685' post='1978154']
I think armies should settle things with Red Rover.

Think how much fun it would be to see Kadhaffi giggling like a schoolgirl as he failed to break through the arm lock of Pelosi and Barney Frank.
[/quote]


If only the world were that cool and awesome.

[Sternhauser]

No, I don't think less-lethal weapons will ever change the nature of war. Men love power. The ultimate power is to make someone else do something for you. And you can't do that forever, so men will resort to the next best power: the power over life.

As Albert Nobel said of his invention, dynamite, "[font="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular"][size="-1"]Perhaps my factories will put an end to war even sooner than your Congresses;on the day when two army corps will be able to annihilate each other in a second, all civilized nations will recoil with horror and disband their troops." [/size][/font]

I'll make a safer bet. Let's say that two sides in a conflict agree to use only less-lethal weapons. Whichever side starts losing is going to say, "Playing this game with one hand tied behind my back is stupid."

Non-lethal weapons? Why not go all the way? As Joshua said, "How about a nice game of chess?" Nice as it would be, it won't happen. We should only do that which is moral, of course, but you will probably want to be able to effectively defend yourself against an unjust aggressor.

A less-lethal arms race would become very lethal, very quickly.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 5, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='05 October 2009 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1254750363' post='1978160']
No, I don't think less-lethal weapons will ever change the nature of war. Men love power. The ultimate power is to make someone else do something for you. And you can't do that forever, so men will resort to the next best power: the power over life.

As Albert Nobel said of his invention, dynamite, "[font="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular"][size="-1"]Perhaps my factories will put an end to war even sooner than your Congresses;on the day when two army corps will be able to annihilate each other in a second, all civilized nations will recoil with horror and disband their troops." [/size][/font]

I'll make a safer bet. Let's say that two sides in a conflict agree to use only less-lethal weapons. Whichever side starts losing is going to say, "Playing this game with one hand tied behind my back is stupid."

Non-lethal weapons? Why not go all the way? As Joshua said, "How about a nice game of chess?" Nice as it would be, it won't happen. We should only do that which is moral, of course, but you will probably want to be able to effectively defend yourself against an unjust aggressor.

A less-lethal arms race would become very lethal, very quickly.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Well said.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='05 October 2009 - 09:48 AM' timestamp='1254750517' post='1978161']
Well said.
[/quote]

Thank you kindly.

~Sternhauser

[CatherineM]

We are always looking for that one weapon that will make war so costly, that no one wants to play anymore. My dad said when it comes to war, you never want a fair fight if you can avoid it.

There are lots of non-lethal options (not just tasers) being developed for policing, but they are designed for a single person or small group not for a large army.

[JimR-OCDS]

Its about seizing power, and if non-lethal weapons could be used, ruthless people would use them to seize power as well, but we'd be left with the same situation as before, stopping the ruthless from taking over control of the world, and the only way to stop them would be to kill them.

So, we're back to square one.

The only source for everlasting peace is Jesus Christ.

Jim

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 October 2009 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1254769360' post='1978335']
Its about seizing power, and if non-lethal weapons could be used, ruthless people would use them to seize power as well, but we'd be left with the same situation as before, stopping the ruthless from taking over control of the world, and the only way to stop them would be to kill them.

So, we're back to square one.

The only source for everlasting peace is Jesus Christ.

Jim
[/quote]
Bravo!

[Aloysius]

I do in general agree with the posters here... but I was more aimed at the idea of using non-lethal weapons when possible; obviously, as I already said, non-lethal weapons aren't possible to deal with tanks and missiles and such things... but when it comes down to armies against armies on a battlefield, it would pose an interesting idea to advance non-lethal technologies to the point of being as effective and as immediate as the current lethal ones. I'm not talking about two sides both agreeing to use "only" non-lethal means, I'm talking about one side deciding to prefer non-lethal means and mostly using them, even as the other side employs lethal means. unmanned UAVs being first waves to knock people out with knockout gas and tranquilizers before a strike which involved lethal means would be one idea... though gas masks would be the effective way to counter that, it would be very difficult and costly for an enemy to get all of their soldiers masked.

if non-lethal weapons could be used, I don't think the ruthless would use them... they'd likely continue to stick with conventional lethal weapons... if the non-lethal weapons could be developed to be as effective as lethal weapons, what motivation would any ruthless person have to use the non-lethal weapon? if non-lethal weapons were more effective than lethal weapons, then they'd try to get a hold of them; but I'm envisioning that one army advanced non-lethal technology to be as effective as lethal technology and attempted to primarily use it in its wars.. the only real motivation for doing that would be to attempt to preserve life. there is no government or military in the world now that would be thusly motivated, sadly IMO.

I suppose it is correct to say the technology doesn't exist that would be effective in a war situation (though in things like dealing with civilian populations and peacekeeping and such, it would be); we'd need straight up powerful phasers that can be put on stun settings. but it's interesting to dream of the option; and the point of the matter is that there exists no army on earth with the willingness to try to produce such technologies... as L_D said, the military culture prefers the lethal option over the non-lethal option. it's a what-if, and in the what-if I'm proposing throwing the funding into the research of non-lethal options and then choosing to have the priority to use them first even if it's more difficult and maybe even more risky to our own security.

[ardillacid]

I wonder if wars have ever started over something as trivial as $10

[Aloysius]

dude, lol... get a paypal account or something. it's hard to get to the post office. hmm... but thanks for reminding me, I'll do it tomorrow. prolly. if I can find my checkbook.

paypal would be easier.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='06 October 2009 - 12:09 AM' timestamp='1254802158' post='1978892']
I'll do it tomorrow. prolly.
[/quote]
Yeah well I'm moving out come December 2010, so you should hit that post office at some point before that

[goldenchild17]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-bA9FYB8HY[/media]