The Future of War

[Superstring]

"In World War I, only some 5% of the casualties (directly caused by the war) were civilian - in World War II, this figure approached 50%."

I never heard that said before. This trend suggests to me that world war has always been headed in the direction you thought it was headed in when you were 8 years old: all-out civilian massacre. Coincidence? Terrorism targets civilians exclusively. Even legitimatized wars these days kill more civilians than they do soldiers. So I guess that means World War (3? 4?) (is? was?) as shitty as it can get.

[nomir_dva]

I fail to see a great deal of difference between civilians and conscripts anyway, but over time wars have gotten shorter, and more recently (since World War II), the scale of wars has tended to decrease. If there will be a World War III, I cannot imagine that there will be many people left to analyze its effect on the civillian population. World War IV is inconceivable due to the existence of nuclear weapons.

[Superstring]

I fail to see a great deal of difference between civilians and conscripts....

I think there's a huge difference. The old style of war is about gaining resources by fighting away the people who pysically protect it. The new style is about massacring random people out of hatred and spite because you hate the organization they belong to so much (or, believe so much in defeating its leaders if you're the 'good guys') you would kill anyone having to do with it to achieve that aim....and YOU could be a target, why not?

[Superstring]

If there will be a World War III, I cannot imagine that there will be many people left to analyze its effect on the civillian population. World War IV is inconceivable due to the existence of nuclear weapons.

A lot of people refer to the last fifty years as World War III, and consider any upcoming, or even current conflicts to entail World War IV. I like that way of describing things..

[Stillwater]

I think there's a huge difference. The old style of war is about gaining resources by fighting away the people who pysically protect it. The new style is about massacring random people out of hatred and spite because you hate the organization they belong to so much (or, believe so much in defeating its leaders if you're the 'good guys') you would kill anyone having to do with it to achieve that aim....and YOU could be a target, why not?


I think both new and old style wars as you described them have existed since man first picked up pointy sticks. Only today, the 'old' style motives are more hidden behind the 'new' style. The elite exploit people's emotions of fear and hatred for real gains of control and geography. You don't have to own a country to control it. The boundaries and the names on the map may look the same after a modern war, but rest assured when the dust settles, the real power has shifted.

[Superstring]

I think both new and old style wars as you described them have existed since man first picked up pointy sticks. Only today, the 'old' style motives are more hidden behind the 'new' style. The elite exploit people's emotions of fear and hatred for real gains of control and geography. You don't have to own a country to control it. The boundaries and the names on the map may look the same after a modern war, but rest assured when the dust settles, the real power has shifted.

I don't doubt that to be the case. It's just that the old style was so much nicer for everyone. It's a shame that war is becoming a child's worst nightmare, is my point. What could you say to your own children nowadays when they ask if they're a target in their country's war. Can you say it's only the soldiers that are on the front lines? ..Actually yeah, I guess you could. NEVERMIND! I just hope that things stay that way though, is kind of my point.

Wow, if you really stare at this pair of emoticons they REALLY come close to tearing one another a new arse-hole! :duel: Imagine of one of them jumped too late and got stabbed that hard? I wonder what an emoticon's guts look like..

[Stillwater]

I don't doubt that to be the case. It's just that the old style was so much nicer for everyone. It's a shame that war is becoming a child's worst nightmare, is my point.


Yeah, its easier to surrender when someone simply wants what you have versus who you are. The straight up resource war is like getting mugged and handing over your wallet- both are rational positions that can be negotiated: the aggressor wants something and you don't want to be harmed.

If someone has a beef with you because of who you are, you've got a situation that can't be resolved rationally. You can't simply surrender your race, religion, or ethnicity.

I agree it is tragic when wars move out of the trenches and into peoples homes. Then again I'm sure there were 'innocent' conscripts in the trenches of WWI.

[C.J.Woolf]

"In World War I, only some 5% of the casualties (directly caused by the war) were civilian - in World War II, this figure approached 50%."

I never heard that said before. This trend suggests to me that world war has always been headed in the direction you thought it was headed in when you were 8 years old: all-out civilian massacre. Coincidence? Terrorism targets civilians exclusively. Even legitimatized wars these days kill more civilians than they do soldiers. So I guess that means World War (3? 4?) (is? was?) as shitty as it can get.
The state of warfare is returning to historical norms. You speak of a trend beginning with World War I, but I see WWI as the end of a period in a cycle instead.

The Thirty Years War (c.1630-1660) saw undisciplined and mostly unpaid mercenary armies lay waste to Germany. This style of warfare was more the norm than the exception throughout history, but the Thirty Years War was so bad that revulsion to it led to the European great powers agreeing to make limited war: soldiers killed each other but left the civilians alone. Also, armies were expected to supply themselves from home and not live off the land (i.e., steal supplies from civilians).

This agreement more or less held up through World War I. It sounds absurd to call it a "limited" war considering how many men were killed, but it really was.

Limited war is exceptional because it requires a lot of discipline on the part of the soldiers on both sides. Once one side commits atrocities the other tends to follow suit. The two sides' peoples must identify with one another at least somewhat; war with the "other" is almost never limited. During the European limited war period Europeans fought non-Europeans, and they were nasty affairs.

[Stillwater]

The state of warfare is returning to historical norms. You speak of a trend beginning with World War I, but I see WWI as the end of a period in a cycle instead.

Interesting...so what happened in WWII to change things? Imprecise aerial bombardment hitting civilian areas?

[C.J.Woolf]

Interesting...so what happened in WWII to change things? Imprecise aerial bombardment hitting civilian areas?
I think the first factor was psychological. Fascism tapped into some ugly passions; it gave Germans another excuse to see their enemies as less than human, another way to define "otherness". (Few Western Europeans considered Russians to be fully European anyway.)

Another factor came from World War I. In a total war, both sides knew they were fighting not just an army but an economy. The economy was considered a legitimate target. Civilians supported the war effort through running the enonomy. Therefore, both sides bombed civilians. At first it was justified as attacking the factories and such, never mind the inaccuracy of the bombing that led to other civilians getting killed. But the slippery slope led to "terror" bombing, targeting civilians without pretending to attack economic targets.

By the way, strategic bombing was actually tried during World War I, but the aircraft of the time couldn't carry enough weight to make much of an impression. So you can take what I said about WWI being a limited war with a grain of salt. Limited does not always mean self-restraint.

[Stillwater]

But the slippery slope led to "terror" bombing, targeting civilians without pretending to attack economic targets.


Yes, I was thinking of London and especially Dresden. Not to mention Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Seems everyone's hands were dirty in this game.

[Superstring]

Interesting...so what happened in WWII to change things? Imprecise aerial bombardment hitting civilian areas?

The holocaust took care of about 20%, approximating 10 million out of a wartime total of 50 million. Also Japan slaughtered all kinds of civilians on their Pacific conquest. So maybe those things combined with the aerial bombardments, the general ruthlessness of the nazis on their fronts, the Stalinistic starvation of the Ukraine....and then the assfucking of Berlin at the very end.

[dubbeltop]

I think people forget that war is a kiling machine which doesnt care for anything but is goal. Its goal is but one to make an enemy totally and utterly incapable of any form of attack. So basically in WWII the allied attack the supplies of the german and vica versa. So Hitler decided if he cant win the war lets use V1 and V2 on London. So allied command decided too return a favor and blast them too surrender with bombers. This was of course a very very drastic choice. But in Stalingrad etc they used katuscha and artillery for the same goal too hit the enemy on his own territory. Now terrorist are no soldiers but there goals is to create terror and since civilians are unarmed and unprepared they form an excellent target for terrrorgroups. The problem from a military perspective is of course the blur that is created by the so called insurgents/guerillas who are soldiers wearing civilian outfits and use cheap but very effective tactics against the allies. So the future of warfare is depends on the partys involved and the goal of the war/conflict. And as allways life is cheap very cheap.

[Xander]

The future of war is not targeting civilians but targeting hardware. The latest developments are all concerned with accuracy and identification. Their chief goals are to make war more reliable with higher technology. The new assault rifles and air burst timed grenades should mean that a soldier can more precisely target the enemy.
Of course the problem with all of this is that the enemy has learned that we do not wish to harm civillians and so they can use this against us by putting their hardware in the middle of civillian populations. It then becomes impossible to fight them without civillian casualties. Even special forces would have problems in taking out an ammo dump without causing a large explosion and killing surrounding people. It's a tactical nightmare.
Alongside this is the fact that mostly targets are now closer to civilian populaces and so make casualties more likely no matter what you use.

[dubbeltop]

Well lets not forget star wars, the next war might be in space or with those sneaky little unmanned planes and maybe satellites. Also check out those military sites. They have a whole new range of intelligent mines the ultimate soldiers nightmare but you can deactivate them if you wish to prevent frienly fire etc . And of course the corner rifle to shoot around a corner.Anyway killing is still a profitable business. And somehow wars involving superpowers tend too ingore the human casualties at a large scale because losing the war is mostly not an option for the leaders on both sides. Maybe female leaders have another solution. MSN -wars

[Biff_Loman]

The idea of "limited" versus "total" war has been around for a long time - as long as warfare itself. The next total war between nuclear powers will probably be the last one. Not a good thing.

The claim that total war came about as a result of industrialism is common, but quickly falls apart with close examination. Armies defend populations. One can either destroy the army and force one's will against the populace, or one can remove the populace.

Cato the Elder pronounced that Delenda est Carthago, or "Carthage must be destroyed." Carthage was eventually razed, its population massacred and sold into slavery, and salt sown into the surrounding fields to, ostensibly, make them infertile.

Nothing new - only now, it's very difficult to place an army or city walls between an attacker and a civilian population.

[Superstring]

The future of war is not targeting civilians but targeting hardware. The latest developments are all concerned with accuracy and identification. Their chief goals are to make war more reliable with higher technology. The new assault rifles and air burst timed grenades should mean that a soldier can more precisely target the enemy.
Of course the problem with all of this is that the enemy has learned that we do not wish to harm civillians and so they can use this against us by putting their hardware in the middle of civillian populations. It then becomes impossible to fight them without civillian casualties. Even special forces would have problems in taking out an ammo dump without causing a large explosion and killing surrounding people. It's a tactical nightmare.
Alongside this is the fact that mostly targets are now closer to civilian populaces and so make casualties more likely no matter what you use.

Son of a BITCH! That is a twisted new problem....and not to mention things like Iran's underground-and-tactically-impossible-to-penetrate-without-warfare nuclear sites.

[mgb]

Of course the problem with all of this is that the enemy has learned that we do not wish to harm civillians and so they can use this against us by putting their hardware in the middle of civillian populations. It then becomes impossible to fight them without civillian casualties. Even special forces would have problems in taking out an ammo dump without causing a large explosion and killing surrounding people. It's a tactical nightmare.
Alongside this is the fact that mostly targets are now closer to civilian populaces and so make casualties more likely no matter what you use.

I love that, "the enemy". Think you could be more rightous?

I'd argue that the speed of war has gotten a lot faster over the years. This probably doesn't give civilians a chance to relocate and get out of the way.

Also, the reasons for war is really going to determine how many die. If it's a religious war, you are going to kill everyone who doesn't look like you (see the Crusades, Yugoslavia, etc.). If it's a war about property, you are probably more interested in keeping the people on the property and killing the property owners. An ideological war is going to work the same as a religious one.

Now, no war is started over one single cause, but I think there are some main reasons when closely examined.

[Xander]

I love that, "the enemy". Think you could be more rightous?
Yep.
Come here.... I'll intorduce you to smite evil!!!

[Dom]

Wars of ideology always kill more than wars for policital or national interest.

WWI was predominatly about the balance of power, even if you lost it you knew your nation would continue to exist, would proablem NOT become enslaved to teh winnign powers etc, there would be terms, that were certianly heavy, but it wasn't a do or die situation... WWII was.....

Believe it or not, WWI was a limited rather than total war, thats the difference, if another religous or ideological war arrises we are all in deep doo doo!

[Stillwater]

The future of war is not targeting civilians but targeting hardware. The latest developments are all concerned with accuracy and identification. Their chief goals are to make war more reliable with higher technology. The new assault rifles and air burst timed grenades should mean that a soldier can more precisely target the enemy.

I think there are two tracks in modernizing warfare. You mentioned one. The other is weapons and tactics designed to have maximum psychological impact. These aren't necessarily precise and they often purposefully terrorize civilian populations. The target of psy-ops is not hardware but people: military and civilian. The countries possessing nuclear weapons hold one of the most intimidating psychological weapons. Nukes aren't practical for precise destruction of targets, but their very existence is quite effective at scaring the shit out of people.



Of course the problem with all of this is that the enemy has learned that we do not wish to harm civillians and so they can use this against us by putting their hardware in the middle of civillian populations. It then becomes impossible to fight them without civillian casualties. Even special forces would have problems in taking out an ammo dump without causing a large explosion and killing surrounding people. It's a tactical nightmare.
Alongside this is the fact that mostly targets are now closer to civilian populaces and so make casualties more likely no matter what you use.

This is an adaptaption of a technologically outmatched enemy using psychological impact to their advantage. Hitting targets in civilian areas, with all the expected "collateral damage", extracts a heavy mental price on both the attacking force and their civilian political support. The shielding civilians are a psychological defensive weapon; willing or more often not.

Terrorists turn civilian populations into targets for the same reasons: maximum psychological impact. It seems to me the psychological war is the war of the future, not the precise destruction of nuts and bolts hardware. The technical mastery of precison weapons has a psychological impact of its own-think about being chased through the desert by an armed predator drone, watching the car in front of you being blown to bits out of nowhere. Highly effective on both levels: technical precision and psychological impact.

[mr. treat]

i think full-scale wars are a thing of the past. with the amount of globalization that's happened, and will continue to happen, and the ease of obtaining information, it's just not productive in any way.

[Superstring]

i think full-scale wars are a thing of the past. with the amount of globalization that's happened, and will continue to happen, and the ease of obtaining information, it's just not productive in any way.

So you think it's become more difficult to wipe out civilians? Hm..

[htb]

This trend suggests to me that world war has always been headed in the direction you thought it was headed in when you were 8 years old: all-out civilian massacre.That trend is made possible if history were to have begun in 1914. There have been certain conventions protecting aristocracy, from the startlingly low casualty rate for medieval cavalry to odd incidents like Saladin's sparing of a noble wedding during the siege of Kerak; and Napoleonic warfare, from whence Great War tactics and strategy were drawn, had about it a sense of chivalry. But most organized armed conflicts through history have been led by strongmen, and unarmed populations have suffered greatly, often exclusively.

The last sixty years brought a profound change in the free world's perception of acceptable military conduct, most evident in the technological focus on precision rather than payload. Ironically, the free world's enemies doctrinally target the defenseless.

[mr. treat]

So you think it's become more difficult to wipe out civilians? Hm..

no, it's easier than ever to kill civilians, but when it comes to carpet bombing, starvation, and attempts to wipe out means of production (as is the goal of any nationally-scaled war), those things just aren't going to happen anymore. most of the conflicts today seem to be ethnic and/or religious disputes between a rather small group of people when compared to past wars.

[C.J.Woolf]

The future of war is not targeting civilians but targeting hardware. The latest developments are all concerned with accuracy and identification. Their chief goals are to make war more reliable with higher technology. The new assault rifles and air burst timed grenades should mean that a soldier can more precisely target the enemy.
Of course the problem with all of this is that the enemy has learned that we do not wish to harm civillians and so they can use this against us by putting their hardware in the middle of civillian populations. It then becomes impossible to fight them without civillian casualties. Even special forces would have problems in taking out an ammo dump without causing a large explosion and killing surrounding people. It's a tactical nightmare.
Alongside this is the fact that mostly targets are now closer to civilian populaces and so make casualties more likely no matter what you use.
The US military wishes the future of war was about hardware. They won spectacular victories in Kuwait/Iraq 1991 and Afghanistan 2001 with standoff firepower. But America's enemies are not stupid. The North Vietnamese showed the way. To beat American forces you:

1. Conceal yourself. They can't hit what they don't know about.

2. Attack at point-blank range. They can't use artillery and air strikes when their own troops are nearby.

3. Be willing to die.

The Iraqi insurgents are doing all these, and they're showing no signs of running out of insurgents.

Something amazing happened in Iraq. Since nominal independence from the Ottoman Empire, Iraq's army was about the most sorry-ass group of soldiers on the planet, getting trashed by inferior numbers of British, Israelis, and Americans. But now that the Americans are in their own neighborhoods instead of in the desert with 4000m lines of sight, they are holding their own -- in the propaganda sense, at least.

The same thing happened with the PLO/Hezbollah vs. the Israelis in Beirut.

Lesson: Unless you absolutely must, don't go into the fucking cities! You only make your army look worse and the homeboys look better.

[Superstring]

The US military wishes the future of war was about hardware. They won spectacular victories in Kuwait/Iraq 1991 and Afghanistan 2001 with standoff firepower. But America's enemies are not stupid. The North Vietnamese showed the way. To beat American forces you:

1. Conceal yourself. They can't hit what they don't know about.

2. Attack at point-blank range. They can't use artillery and air strikes when their own troops are nearby.

3. Be willing to die.

The Iraqi insurgents are doing all these, and they're showing no signs of running out of insurgents.

Something amazing happened in Iraq. Since nominal independence from the Ottoman Empire, Iraq's army was about the most sorry-ass group of soldiers on the planet, getting trashed by inferior numbers of British, Israelis, and Americans. But now that the Americans are in their own neighborhoods instead of in the desert with 4000m lines of sight, they are holding their own -- in the propaganda sense, at least.

The same thing happened with the PLO/Hezbollah vs. the Israelis in Beirut.

Lesson: Unless you absolutely must, don't go into the fucking cities! You only make your army look worse and the homeboys look better.

It's been pointed out that one problem with the future of war is that potential enemy states are increasingly moving their would-be military targets into the center of urban populations, so that war with them becomes far messier.

[Nighthawk]

Lesson: Unless you absolutely must, don't go into the fucking cities! You only make your army look worse and the homeboys look better.

I concur. Tanks and medium armor do not do well in cities. Too many blind spots, and a kid with a molotov cocktail can do tremendous damage. All the stand off superiority (able to hit your opponents while you are still out of their range) is also negated.

However, from communications I've had with people there on the ground ... mostly lieutenants and captains ... U.S. forces do have the upper hand. They experience far less casualties than their opponents. The main problem is that U.S. forces have to follow rules of engagement and their opponents do not. That was the same problem I faced in the first gulf war. There is also the additional problem of the almost endless supply of Muslims willing to fight the U.S. forces currently in Iraq. That combination makes the situation just about "unwinnable" I see the U.S. either remaining there in an increasingly unpopular military action ... or Iraqi civil war after a withdrawal following the next election here.

[Nighthawk]

"In World War I, only some 5% of the casualties (directly caused by the war) were civilian - in World War II, this figure approached 50%."

I never heard that said before. This trend suggests to me that world war has always been headed in the direction you thought it was headed in when you were 8 years old: all-out civilian massacre. Coincidence? Terrorism targets civilians exclusively. Even legitimatized wars these days kill more civilians than they do soldiers. So I guess that means World War (3? 4?) (is? was?) as shitty as it can get.

My personal belief is that there will be less civilian casualties ... at least from conventional forces that follow rules of engagement, which include most of the Western armies. Weapons systems have become so accurate that it is possible to surgically strike targets with little collateral damage to surrounding areas. World War 2 was an interesting point in time where nations had incredible amounts of weaponry, with very little accuracy. This resulted in huge amounts of ordnance being hurled at indefinite targets. Very messy with lots of collateral damage. Back then, Western forces also had no qualms with terror bombing civilian populations to force an end to the war. They are not quite so ready to do that nowadays ... at least not in the realm of limited warfare.

During my military years, we were taught that it took 3,000 bombs to take out a target during WW2 (with many bombs missing the target and hitting civilians) ... 300 bombs during the Korean war ... 30 bombs during Vietnam ... and just one bomb during the First Gulf War. We also faced dire consequences for taking out non-combatants, even accidentally ... at best the loss of career, and at worst jail time. It was a rule of engagement that was not taken lightly. We would let enemy get away, even absorb some shots from them, rather than endanger non-combatants who were in the line of fire. From what I hear from people currently on the ground in Iraq, the rules are still the same. There will always be mistakes and sometimes cowboy commanders on the ground who don't give a damn ... but by and large, care is taken to avoid civilian deaths.

[Biff_Loman]

... but by and large, care is taken to avoid civilian deaths.

And rightly so, given that the reductio ad absurdum consequence of killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians is nuclear war. The idea of terror bombing, well: we want to stay as far away from that as possible for as long as possible. The U.S. shouldn't go around legitimizing that practise, or some shitty little new nuclear power will start popping off nukes like it's going out of style.

I'd be far more willing to keep the old game alive, and accept that populations die in warfare, if we had not opened the possibility that all populations would die in a future war.

[Dom]

So you think it's become more difficult to wipe out civilians? Hm..

I don't think he means more difficult, merely counter productive.....

The problem is that there are people who don't care about any of it...

If they are prepared or able to wage total war then needs must that their targets respond...

[Dom]

It's been pointed out that one problem with the future of war is that potential enemy states are increasingly moving their would-be military targets into the center of urban populations, so that war with them becomes far messier.


Just nuke em/carpet bomb them... or rather one...

In this game, calling the bluff is far too costly...

These people, nominally charged with the protection of these populations, use them as a shield, and thus put them in harms way, therefore responsiblity for them lies with them, not on the other side.....

You'd only have to do it once for the very populations of other cites to THROW out the hardware!

eat that for SHOCK AND AWE

[mr. treat]

Just nuke em/carpet bomb them... or rather one...

These people, nominally charged with the protection of these populations, use them as a shield, and thus put them in harms way, therefore responsiblity for them lies with them, not on the other side.....

You'd only have to do it once for the very populations of other cites to THROW out the hardware!

you may have a point here, but one wonders if such an entrenched leader wouldn't be able to keep the populus under complete control and prevent them from resisting.

if only everyone would stop babying humanity, and admit what we all know to be true: life is cheap. :banana:

[Dom]

My personal belief is that there will be less civilian casualties ... at least from conventional forces that follow rules of engagement, which include most of the Western armies. Weapons systems have become so accurate that it is possible to surgically strike targets with little collateral damage to surrounding areas. World War 2 was an interesting point in time where nations had incredible amounts of weaponry, with very little accuracy. This resulted in huge amounts of ordnance being hurled at indefinite targets. Very messy with lots of collateral damage. Back then, Western forces also had no qualms with terror bombing civilian populations to force an end to the war. They are not quite so ready to do that nowadays ... at least not in the realm of limited warfare.

During my military years, we were taught that it took 3,000 bombs to take out a target during WW2 (with many bombs missing the target and hitting civilians) ... 300 bombs during the Korean war ... 30 bombs during Vietnam ... and just one bomb during the First Gulf War. We also faced dire consequences for taking out non-combatants, even accidentally ... at best the loss of career, and at worst jail time. It was a rule of engagement that was not taken lightly. We would let enemy get away, even absorb some shots from them, rather than endanger non-combatants who were in the line of fire. From what I hear from people currently on the ground in Iraq, the rules are still the same. There will always be mistakes and sometimes cowboy commanders on the ground who don't give a damn ... but by and large, care is taken to avoid civilian deaths.

Ban on dear boy!

I got so mad at people complaining about the number of civilian deaths, I was angered, because I had an understanding of how much pressure the guys on the ground would be under not to endanger non-combatants (if you can even tell who is and isn't after all no helpful coloured names above peoples heads, in this game)

The thign is if we didn't care, the number would be astronomical, I mean a formation of b52s could litterally flatten Baghdad in one pass, and people complain that the current numbers show a frightening disreagard for human life??

rubbish..

I disagree aboutfuture war though, if we ever end up with a ww2, o or die situation, then I fear terror bombings and total war would return.....

[Dom]

you may have a point here, but one wonders if such an entrenched leader wouldn't be able to keep the populus under complete control and prevent them from resisting.

if only everyone would stop babying humanity, and admit what we all know to be true: life is cheap. :banana:

thats the problem.....

It isn't....

Cheap, and we all know we can behave like it is, but we all also want to be able not too.

Also what would you do, risk Atomic fire, or being shot trying to throw out the git? (bearing in mind the guys with the atomic fire may well come help?)

[mr. treat]

thats the problem.....

It isn't....

Cheap, and we all know we can behave like it is, but we all also want to be able not too.

Also what would you do, risk Atomic fire, or being shot trying to throw out the git? (bearing in mind the guys with the atomic fire may well come help?)

of course, i agree that life is the most sacred thing of all and should never be taken. but when people decide that fighting is going to solve their problems, i think they should at least have the conviction and sense to realize that you cannot fight selectively. if the decision to go to war is made, there is no way for it to be civilized, it's either an all or nothing effort. if one trully believes who they are fighting is their enemy, they would hold no qualms about killing so-called civilians.

[Dom]

of course, i agree that life is the most sacred thing of all and should never be taken. but when people decide that fighting is going to solve their problems, i think they should at least have the conviction and sense to realize that you cannot fight selectively. if the decision to go to war is made, there is no way for it to be civilized, it's either an all or nothing effort. if one trully believes who they are fighting is their enemy, they would hold no qualms about killing so-called civilians.

but we've jsut got more sophisicated and realised the average joe in the street, doesn't give a tuppence.....

[mr. treat]

but we've jsut got more sophisicated and realised the average joe in the street, doesn't give a tuppence.....

unfortunately, the average joe on the street isn't the one in power. were that true, all would be golden.

[Xander]

What about the possibility of future warfare becoming so integrated with modern technology that you can't even declare war before you have found a way past it? If your opponent can know exactly where you are with an overhead super duper satellite feeds then your at a large disadvantage, especially if you can target using the feed! So you have to attack the technology, a tactic which is becoming more common these days and was a job which promoted the idea of special forces and fighting behind enemy lines. These tactics work on the idea that the larger the opposing force is and the more technology it weilds then the more it relies upon supply lines and genorators. These things are easier to combat than the army itself (or at least require less risk of life) and can severely hamper or dissolve the army itself. If in the future this technology is even more sophisticated and integrated into the regular army then wouldn't it be logical that combatting this hardware will become more of a focus for the military?

I think that warfare will change to more technological roles and specialist troops with high tech hardware and communications that would rival CNN (instead of getting their live feed from CNN). This will be a war where electronic warfare will be essential to make progress.

One thing however will always remain, a determined force in their own territory who are willing to give up everything to win, will still wage a very costly war. I just hope that at some point they do get the sense to throw out the hardware from the populace centres and not to deify the combatants.

[Dom]

What about the possibility of future warfare becoming so integrated with modern technology that you can't even declare war before you have found a way past it? If your opponent can know exactly where you are with an overhead super duper satellite feeds then your at a large disadvantage, especially if you can target using the feed! So you have to attack the technology, a tactic which is becoming more common these days and was a job which promoted the idea of special forces and fighting behind enemy lines. These tactics work on the idea that the larger the opposing force is and the more technology it weilds then the more it relies upon supply lines and genorators. These things are easier to combat than the army itself (or at least require less risk of life) and can severely hamper or dissolve the army itself. If in the future this technology is even more sophisticated and integrated into the regular army then wouldn't it be logical that combatting this hardware will become more of a focus for the military?

I think that warfare will change to more technological roles and specialist troops with high tech hardware and communications that would rival CNN (instead of getting their live feed from CNN). This will be a war where electronic warfare will be essential to make progress.

One thing however will always remain, a determined force in their own territory who are willing to give up everything to win, will still wage a very costly war. I just hope that at some point they do get the sense to throw out the hardware from the populace centres and not to deify the combatants.

It's an interesting future you're decribing, but there are several reasons why this would lead to exactly the kind losses we saw in WW2.

behind enemy lines is one thing, in theatre, but terror bombings and hitting of industrial target is behind enemy lines and it is in your interest in reducing your enemy's ability to wage war.

North africa will show you what happens if your forces run out of supplies, so what do you do, you hit supply lines AND the means of producing those supplies. Arms factories, oil depots, power stations, are all civilian targets....

In a Limited war, maybe it would run as you describe, but Total war??? no way. Take Iraq, IRaq is a long way form beign Total war from our side, however from their point of view it is... they would not heistate to hit civilian targets if they feel it will weaken the coalition war effort... even targets here and on the continental US if they could....

I think we are a long way for a good clean techonological fight.... a good long way. Not to mention international agreement limiting weapons development, (mostly in an attempt to prevent any furhter arms races) The kind of tech you describe would be more easily depolyed from an orbital weapons platform, this kind of tech development is banned by international treaty

[Xander]

I was thinking more along the line of the future warrior concept where each soldier is connected by computerised communications and can bring down barrages with accuracy. This would obviously be a good thing for the enemy to knock out. The question is, if they knock it out then are your forces less able to fight than one which never had access to the technology in the first place? I think perhaps yes.

[david2341.]

http://judicial-inc.biz/10_marines_ambush_Flour_Mill.htm

speaking of war ... this present war is fought for control of middle east and eventual pushout of muslims from jerusalem.