[nucklepunche]

I believe that warfare in the modern context can simply no longer be justified. It is simply too possible for "collateral damage" to result from collective violence. The bombs and other technology that exists today is simply too powerful for us to reasonably justify using, there is no doubt that whenever it is used, children die. I reject all non-initatory violence, but I am at the point now where I believe the only way to live ethically in modern times is by a radical application of pacifism. Indeed as Jesus said he who seeks to save his life shall lose it. I don't care whether or not I live or die, I just want to exit this life without any blood on my hands. I can say at this point in my life I have no blood on my hands, but I am not sure I could say that participating in modern warfare. In ancient times warfare was a "close quarters" affair where men would line up on a battlefield and shoot or stab each other, there was little possibility an innocent child could end up in the way. Ever since the airplane was invented this is none of the case. I simply don't feel warfare can be justified for any reason anymore, and must be avoided at all costs. In the light of the technology exists today, every argument humans can think of is simply too petty to justify warfare. Indeed even the wars the humanitarian interventionists justify cannot be justified on these grounds, since it simply rakes up the body count.

So what do you think, does the risk of massive collateral damage make warfare no longer justifiable in modern times?

[Rei Murasame]

That's a funny thing to ask about now, military-industrial complex is presently having the exact opposite of that conversation. Which is to say, over time the ability to deliver kinetic force to targets from the air with precision, along with the advent of a greater diligence in reducing collateral damage caused by armoured divisions due to the use of CAS and so on, and the implementation of stringent ROE parameters on infantry to prevent anyone from shooting someone who has dropped their weapon (and other such rules), has all rolled together to create a situation where conflict closure does not really happen.

In short, we are now in a situation where it is possible for a developed country to wage war against someone in such a precise way that the target population can in fact experience net growth during the time that it is being attacked.

In times past, one of the things that would be a factor in bringing people to the negotiating table, is when they lose a large segment of their male and female population between ages 15 and 45. Now, that doesn't happen, so potentially a guerilla war can just go on for an extended period of time, possibly infinitely.

What this means is that for a modern organised military to get victory over guerillas, it would have to deliberately set out to cause more 'collateral damage' than is presently occurring. So there is a recognition that there is 'not enough killing happening', simply put. However, this thought has implications which violate presently existing international law and a whole host of national laws as well, so that's the conundrum.

[oppose_obama]

who gives a fuck about collateral damage? the use of war is justified for a nation to achieve its goals. if it cannot do so by regular means then its time to start dropping bombs.

nations interests > poor fuck at the wrong place at the wrong time

[quetzalcoatl]

who gives a fuck about collateral damage? the use of war is justified for a nation to achieve its goals. if it cannot do so by regular means then its time to start dropping bombs.

nations interests > poor fuck at the wrong place at the wrong time

Perfectly reasonable, as long as you don't cry foul the next time you are the poor fuck.

In short, we are now in a situation where it is possible for a developed country to wage war against someone in such a precise way that the target population can in fact experience net growth during the time that it is being attacked.

Ironically, it is also possible for the attacker to experience negative growth as a result of such an attack.

[oppose_obama]

i have been consistent always in my world view. I dont hold a grudge for the arabs trying to kill us, but i am in favor of killing them better, faster, and more efficiently then they can fly planes into our buildings. We all gotta go sometime. Whats important is that they took 3000 on 9-11 and we took 100,000 in iraq.

[roxunreal]

I don't care whether or not I live or die, I just want to exit this life without any blood on my hands.

That's nice. But do you care if your loved ones live or die a most horrible death, or live a life of oppression or slavery for example?

I used to think like what is written in the OP. For a large part I still do, war is the cancer of humanity's existence and we could have been a century or two ahead of where we are now had we not concentrated most of our efforts for development of things that kill us, but having blood on your hands is sometimes justified. See, it's easy to die. It is however the worse thing imaginable to watch those closest to you suffer in agony. So if someone attacks my home with the intent of doing me or the ones I love harm, I will fight back as vigorously as I possibly can. This is opposed to, say, if my country is ran by a psychopathic despot and some other country intervenes to overthrow him, which I would of course fully support as I cannot consider my country my country in the case of it being ran by an elite that hijacked it for their own purposes.

[SecretSquirrel]

I believe that warfare in the modern context can simply no longer be justified. It is simply too possible for "collateral damage" to result from collective violence. The bombs and other technology that exists today is simply too powerful for us to reasonably justify using, there is no doubt that whenever it is used, children die. I reject all non-initatory violence, but I am at the point now where I believe the only way to live ethically in modern times is by a radical application of pacifism. Indeed as Jesus said he who seeks to save his life shall lose it. I don't care whether or not I live or die, I just want to exit this life without any blood on my hands. I can say at this point in my life I have no blood on my hands, but I am not sure I could say that participating in modern warfare. In ancient times warfare was a "close quarters" affair where men would line up on a battlefield and shoot or stab each other, there was little possibility an innocent child could end up in the way. Ever since the airplane was invented this is none of the case. I simply don't feel warfare can be justified for any reason anymore, and must be avoided at all costs. In the light of the technology exists today, every argument humans can think of is simply too petty to justify warfare. Indeed even the wars the humanitarian interventionists justify cannot be justified on these grounds, since it simply rakes up the body count.

So what do you think, does the risk of massive collateral damage make warfare no longer justifiable in modern times?

I agree with you 100%. I am not even sure I would justify killing to save my own life in self defence.

[layman]

i have been consistent always in my world view. I dont hold a grudge for the arabs trying to kill us, but i am in favor of killing them better, faster, and more efficiently then they can fly planes into our buildings. We all gotta go sometime. Whats important is that they took 3000 on 9-11 and we took 100,000 in iraq.

So this is a racial war, not even a religious one?

Or are you just trolling?

[PeterPaulRubens]

I believe that warfare in the modern context can simply no longer be justified. It is simply too possible for "collateral damage" to result from collective violence. The bombs and other technology that exists today is simply too powerful for us to reasonably justify using, there is no doubt that whenever it is used, children die. I reject all non-initatory violence, but I am at the point now where I believe the only way to live ethically in modern times is by a radical application of pacifism. Indeed as Jesus said he who seeks to save his life shall lose it. I don't care whether or not I live or die, I just want to exit this life without any blood on my hands. I can say at this point in my life I have no blood on my hands, but I am not sure I could say that participating in modern warfare. In ancient times warfare was a "close quarters" affair where men would line up on a battlefield and shoot or stab each other, there was little possibility an innocent child could end up in the way. Ever since the airplane was invented this is none of the case. I simply don't feel warfare can be justified for any reason anymore, and must be avoided at all costs. In the light of the technology exists today, every argument humans can think of is simply too petty to justify warfare. Indeed even the wars the humanitarian interventionists justify cannot be justified on these grounds, since it simply rakes up the body count.

So what do you think, does the risk of massive collateral damage make warfare no longer justifiable in modern times?

First of all, there was considerably more scope for "collateral damage" in the military conflicts of earlier ages, so the basic premise of your argument is flawed. In ancient times warfare involved the slaughter and/or enslavement of whole cities and peoples.

As to your pacifist conviction, it is obviously your right to stand on principle against any use of violence. But you must realize that this means you are saying that if tens of millions of people are slaughtered, it is beter to let this happen than to oppose it with military force.

[Movement]

Knucklepunche’s argument seems to have dismissed the idea of using warfare as a deterrent. SecretSquirrel's supporting words of “I agree with you 100%. I am not even sure I would justify killing to save my own life in self defence” are pretty shocking if he’s being serious. But it depends on what outcome you’re looking for though to be honest. If you want to be submissive to the point of being enslaved and worked until death because of some misguided religious belief you have, then by all means Secret Squirrels attitude would be a great idea.

Those who want to see a world of stability, social order and progress would do better to understand that sometimes it’s necessary to remove an enemy that would seek (by force) to bring your people no end of harm. If that means some collateral damage then it’s a small price to pay to avoid the constant harassment you would receive by not doing enough or worse, not doing anything. And like Rei Murasame pointed out, it not all that unreasonable to go all out and see to it that the enemy are brought to their knees and have nothing left to fight with- the real danger is in not going far enough and leaving them with enough resources to effectively act on their hatred.

“A radical application of pacifism” would only be effective if everyone had the mentality of Jesus. Unfortunately we’re far from that and if you even tried to apply pacifism “radically” you can be sure you’d be the first to be exploited by those who don’t do the same.

[Rich]

As to your pacifist conviction, it is obviously your right to stand on principle against any use of violence.

Not in my book it isn't! For the time being we live a very pampered existence in the West, but when a community really needs to defend itself, then narcisistic pacifist indulgence can become an ill affordable luxury. In a hard fought conflict such people can not be allowed to run around spreading fear and doubt amongst the population. I hope that if I am ever in such a conflict and it is necessary, I have the moral fibre to be able to apply extreme measures against all shirkers and defeatists.

[Potemkin]

Not in my book it isn't! For the time being we live a very pampered existence in the West, but when a community really needs to defend itself, then narcisistic pacifist indulgence can become an ill affordable luxury. In a hard fought conflict such people can not be allowed to run around spreading fear and doubt amongst the population. I hope that if I am ever in such a conflict and it is necessary, I have the moral fibre to be able to apply extreme measures against all shirkers and defeatists.

You would have made an excellent Bolshevik, Rich. And I mean that as a compliment.

[QatzelOk]

...we could have been a century or two ahead of where we are now had we not concentrated most of our efforts for development of things that kill us...

I have a major problem with the linear progress that is evoked here.

If killing "bad guys" has been a terrible waste of energy and resources, it's possible that we are no longer even on the correct road.

This means we wouldn't be "further along" this (incorrect) road if we hadn't let ourselves be distracted by greedy but charismatic liars. We would be on an entirely different road altogether.

And this isn't a MINOR point. Believing mankind has been only slightly diverted by all these centuries of battling nature, other people, and our own selves is dangerously naive.

We're on the wrong dead-end highway, and we've been accelerating for a few centuries.

[magnocrat]

Barbaric acts stretch back through recorded history. Blood is on all our hands even if it is only animal blood. We live on life because we live other life must die to sustain us. The food chain looked at in detail can be horrifying.
The horror comes from our moral nature which hates the biological machine we are.

[EuropeanConservative]

I believe that warfare in the modern context can simply no longer be justified. It is simply too possible for "collateral damage" to result from collective violence. The bombs and other technology that exists today is simply too powerful for us to reasonably justify using, there is no doubt that whenever it is used, children die. I reject all non-initatory violence, but I am at the point now where I believe the only way to live ethically in modern times is by a radical application of pacifism. Indeed as Jesus said he who seeks to save his life shall lose it. I don't care whether or not I live or die, I just want to exit this life without any blood on my hands. I can say at this point in my life I have no blood on my hands, but I am not sure I could say that participating in modern warfare. In ancient times warfare was a "close quarters" affair where men would line up on a battlefield and shoot or stab each other, there was little possibility an innocent child could end up in the way. Ever since the airplane was invented this is none of the case. I simply don't feel warfare can be justified for any reason anymore, and must be avoided at all costs. In the light of the technology exists today, every argument humans can think of is simply too petty to justify warfare. Indeed even the wars the humanitarian interventionists justify cannot be justified on these grounds, since it simply rakes up the body count.

So what do you think, does the risk of massive collateral damage make warfare no longer justifiable in modern times?

This is an argument that is very old. The exact same arguments were used before WWII and before WWI. They rest on a complete lack of historical perspective. the relative amount of collateral damage is far less nowadays than it was hundreds and thousands of years ago. From your posting it is clear you don't have a clue what warfare in the ancient world was like.

One can make a case for extreme pacifism, but only if you are willing to be consistent and plead for the abolition of police forces as well as armies and for a complete refusal to fight against any kind of violence or injustice with anything other than words.

[Rich]

They say ar army marches on its stomach and ancient armies generally lived off the land. With people living close to subsistence levels requestioning could mean starvation for the local populace. Armies and sieges were the most terrible incubators for decease. Combine that with the general rapes, violence and thievery, that accompanied the far less disciplined pre modern armies and the disruption of trade networks and war was pretty ghastly for the civilian populace.

But really as soon as you fire a gun you risk injuring innocent life. You are committing an act of aggression. Look deep into any moral system and you will always find it hypocritical and inconsistent. Morality is always immoral. Morality always ends up as a dishonest game to legitimise the actions that help us or what ever individuals or groups we identify with and favour and to de-legitimise the actions of of those who are opposed to us.

[RedPillAger]

...So what do you think, does the risk of massive collateral damage make warfare no longer justifiable in modern times?

there's nothing morally justifiable about war in the first place. war is the complete absence of morality.

[One Degree]

War should never be fought without massive collateral damage.
Nuclear weapons allowed people to see the massive collateral damage that could be possible.
It disgusted them and this prodded them to try to find more peaceful means to settle their differences.
The power hungry imbeciles that thrive on war got to gather and agreed not to use them so the people would let them go back to killing.
As Rei pointed out, the research has been geared to weapons that reduce collateral damage.
This makes war more acceptable to the public.
It is easy to find reasons for war if there is no threat to you personally.

As far as Pacifism, I would love to live somewhere where any physical violence was prohibited. As for the real world, you need to be prepared to protect you and yours.