The way wars are going....

Wouldn't preserving your own life be an action that could be classified under Egoism?

As for "honor", that's for people who have breathing room. In a battle of life and death, no one with any intelligence is going to care how they appear to others.

@ZeroOBK: yea, it would, only problem is that Egoism is a more easily seen driving force in peoples' ethics, and as for warfare, get the job done in the best, most efficient manner possible. (With the exception of nuclear warfare which would reduce the population to nothing.)

Though it is true that efficiency is at the forefront of military technology, the life-saving tech comes hand in hand. Once we develop the tech to perform how we want to, we work on perfecting it to reduce our casualties and maximize those of the enemy. (See Javelin Missile System or Future Warrior System)

@Jericho Antares: I'm not sure if it's about life-saving technology but more on collateral damage/casualty reducement which leads to greater precision-aim pin-point technology and weapons. Wars aren't conducted to save lives, not from what I've witnessed as there's always a selfish motive attached to it.

There had never been any "honour" or "chilvary" in wars. when you kill a person, you kill a person. Wars are started by egos and survival. The later often serves as a pretext for the first one and a justification for invading ones home and country.

Even on horseback, there wasnt any "honour" at all, take the battle of Agincourt for example, the British after defeating the French Knights, they killed all the French peasents they captured because they couldnt be ransomed. Would that be honourable?

I disagree with your opinion that tech relies on too little skill, rather on the contrary, it rlies on more skilled then physical labour then ever before. Those planes are not gonna fly themselves (unless theyre unmanned ones), those tanks and electronic equipment for electronic warfare. Whatabout other training soldiers undergo such as drills, equipment maintenance or strategies. the average US soldier needs to learn to read maps, learn how to operate a computer or electronic device, and operate complex machinery. thats the average soldier butwhat about engineers?

Fire control systems for artillery also needs a high level of skills such as mathmatics lke trigonomerty for calculating trajectories and a level of coordination and initiative to know when to stop firing so that they don't kill their own men half the time.

Warefare has been developing since the first ape-men hit each other with rocks to the invention of metal and finally gun powder. Warefarre remains the same all those tens-of-thousands of years :to kill the other fellow on the otherside which disagrees with you. Wars have not changed, theyre mearly fought in a biger scale.

Actually the only reason for the Future Warrior system was to make the foot-mobile Spec. Ops. operator able to easily navigate a hazardous urban environment and keep himself hidden while observing and exploiting enemy positions and weaknesses through use of such tech as heartbeat sensors, gun-cams, and a working Heads Up Display. Obviously even if "Big Brother" just wants the next killing machine, the developers of the system have operator safety in mind.

The Javelin, on the other hand, does nothing to lower collateral damage. An exploding tank or vehicle is an exploding tank or vehicle, no matter how you look at it. The Javelin was intended to phase out the At-4 system because despite the fact that each missile costs in excess of 80,000 USD, the firer can fire from a long distance, discreet position and move immediately after firing the missile. The missile itself can also execute an attack from above, hitting the weakest armor on any vehicle (the top), whereas the AT-4 could only fire in a straight line and the firer could not be sure of a successful shot until visual confirmation can be made. The Javelin, on the other hand, misses once in a blue moon.

These weapons were designed to save American lives, if not for the fact that each serviceman is worth saving, then for the fact that one 80,000 USD Javelin missile is still less expensive than burial of a squad, along with the training, equipping, transportation, and deployment of a replacement squad. Either way you look at it, tech has evolved to save lives, because lives are money. Look at it on the good side of the coin or the bad, some facts are just irrefutable.

@Jericho Antares: your points are valid. I have to agree that newer technology does save lives, but I'm still not too sure if that was the original or primary motive for said technology. It could be that plus another motive, whether it be for public image or humanitarian issues or larger success by actually hitting the target.

Yeah, I agree with you there. Like I said, it's mostly how you want to see it. Personally, I like to think the DoD is full of less assholes than it is, so I like the whole 'saving lives' approach to it

there's nothing like chivalry or honor in our world nowadays, when it comes to war.

there's only 2 types of war,

1. Strong picks on the MUCH weaker one (USA vs Iraq)
2. Cold war - the wannabe bad ass nations keep increasing their weaponry + technology on it, to scare the shit out of each other.


Good old times are over, no point in grieving over them.

Wars are to be avoided anyway, they're bad either with or without fair-play.