Peaceful Warfare

[Andrew Gubb]

Do you think it would be viable at any point to wage war using weapons designed to incapacitate an enemy rather than kill them?

If a country's defense was constructed with the mandate that enemy lives were to be considered as valuable as friendly lives, and that military objectives would be to neutralise a threat while causing the minimum damage to both sides, what would warfare look like?

[Brutha]

Do you think it would be viable at any point to wage war using weapons designed to incapacitate an enemy rather than kill them?

The idea of smart weapons sounds better than the reality.

Taser's are the classic example. When you give police Tasers instead of giving them guns they start to shot at more people than before.

[Alstar]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Do you think it would be viable at any point to wage war using weapons designed to incapacitate an enemy rather than kill them?

If a country's defense was constructed with the mandate that enemy lives were to be considered as valuable as friendly lives, and that military objectives would be to neutralise a threat while causing the minimum damage to both sides, what would warfare look like?

• It's more expensive and would take resources to develop something just as effective as lethal weapons. They'd have to surpass lethal weapons in effectiveness if anyone were to use them.
  
• Non-lethal weapons are easier to defend against; put on a thick jacket and tasers/tranquillisers are useless.
  
• If humanity were at the point that enemies are respected as much as allies, why would there be war in the first place?
  
• What do you do after they're incapacitated? Prison camps so they can starve instead?
  
• Nobody is going to handicap themselves by using non-lethal weapons in a war. Every side wants an advantage.

Personally I would be in favour of chemical weapons being used as opposed to guns and bombs. Chemicals are just as cowardly as the current favoured tactic of bombing third-world cities, but at least it's less painful for the victims and causes less damage.

[Andrew Gubb]

If humanity were at the point that enemies are respected as much as allies, why would there be war in the first place?

I won't answer all your questions, but as for this one, we're assuming that we happen to be the enlightened side and someone else has attacked us and won't listen to reason.

It's certainly true that we're not in a world where any country as a whole functions on this level.

[Andrew Gubb]

What do you do after they're incapacitated? Prison camps so they can starve instead?

I don't really know, which is why I stated this thread as a question.

But perhaps prison camps. Possibly we could also cause the fighters to defect by - get this - being nice to them?

Hear me out

Offer a conscription soldier a nice job and a good life in your country. Will they want to go back ?

That's only in a certain sort of situation. Otherwise it would be prison camps until the war is over. Costly... but maybe you could find some way of them balancing out the cost...

I don't know. This is just a nebulous idea. I imagine that it would be mostly prohibitively expensive and ineffective. But who knows?

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The idea of smart weapons sounds better than the reality.

Taser's are the classic example. When you give police Tasers instead of giving them guns they start to shot at more people than before.

Personally, I'd rather take a 100% chance of being shot with a Taser than a 50% chance of being shot (in a vital area) with a gun.

There are some precautions against Taser abuse. In the state where my uncle's a cop, you have to be shot with a Taser before they let you work a job where you carry it (usually it's done in the before they finish hiring you).

I don't necessarily think that's the best precaution, but it is being done.


Smart weapons on a military scale only seems like it would be even tried by a country trying to stay neutral--and/or with a history and cultural climate of pacifism--that was being attacked. And in that case, it likely wouldn't have much of a military anyway, and would unfortunately need every advantage just for defense.

[Sfumato]

I like the ideal, but if we could get everyone to agree not to kill each other in war, then I dare say war would become meaningless as a tool of diplomacy.

Ever watch kids play airsoft, paintball or laser tag? There is not real threat of loss so the value of the conflict is limited to the realm of "for fun" even when teams bet money or chores on the contest, each side takes the game only as seriously as the value of the prize. NFL players play their hardest in part because they love the game, but I wonder what would happen if you paid NFL players the same wage as school teachers?

The other side of war is the destruction and debilitation of the oppositions ability to continue in the direction your side does not want it to go. War is designed to force an enemies country and leaders to change the direction of their policies to fit the policies of the aggressor.
The United States Invasion of Afghanistan was, when you get down to the heart of it, was the USA imposing its belief and policy structure on another sovereign nation. to do attain this change, the Military is required to destroy the physical ability for the opposition to carry on with its operations, hence factories, farms and other facilities must be destroyed.

War without killing and destruction is no longer war and no longer having war would be a wonderful thing.

[Alstar]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I don't really know, which is why I stated this thread as a question.

But perhaps prison camps. Possibly we could also cause the fighters to defect by - get this - being nice to them?

Hear me out

Offer a conscription soldier a nice job and a good life in your country. Will they want to go back ?

That's only in a certain sort of situation. Otherwise it would be prison camps until the war is over. Costly... but maybe you could find some way of them balancing out the cost...

I don't know. This is just a nebulous idea. I imagine that it would be mostly prohibitively expensive and ineffective. But who knows?

Honestly... just kill them. Anyone signing up for a role in warfare knows the risks and consequences. As far as I can see, it's perfectly OK for two warring sides to kill eachother until total decimation because they've all consented to kill and be killed. From a spiritual perspective, I see no flaw in that. No violation of free will whatsoever. The only problems arise when these people force war on people who did not consent to it, which is why war is currently such a terrible thing. World War 1 was relatively "OK" because the lives of people not directly involved in the war were not often put at risk, at least in this corner of the world.

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Personally, I'd rather take a 100% chance of being shot with a Taser than a 50% chance of being shot (in a vital area) with a gun.

There are some precautions against Taser abuse. In the state where my uncle's a cop, you have to be shot with a Taser before they let you work a job where you carry it (usually it's done in the before they finish hiring you)..

I'd rather be shot than have a torture device casually shot in my direction that leaves no lasting damage. If there's no visible sign of lasting damage, why would anyone even care about using tasers responsibly? Clearly there's a lot of people who don't care when or why they use tasers. Bullets carry consequences, tasers do not.

[Andrew Gubb]

No violation of free will whatsoever.

LOL.

I'm not sure what else I can say to that.

Spiritually, what is war spiritually? I don't know about the karma it brings but I do know the suffering it must bring to the soul.

No-one who is spiritual so carelessly talks about ending the life of another.

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Do you think it would be viable at any point to wage war using weapons designed to incapacitate an enemy rather than kill them?

If a country's defense was constructed with the mandate that enemy lives were to be considered as valuable as friendly lives, and that military objectives would be to neutralise a threat while causing the minimum damage to both sides, what would warfare look like?

Whatever it is, it won't be peaceful. Committing violence against someone, without killing them, is still not peaceful.

A country's defense that is constructed with the mandate to kill as many enemys as possible can result in a very peaceful country and with no one being killed. Think of Switzerland, a country heavily armed but hasn't being in a war for centuries.

I think that the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union had the capability to destroy each other resulted in, for the first time in history, an avoidance of full out war between two huge antagonist for 40 years.

If countries are full of non-lethal weapons, war may actually take place more often which results in more violence toward people. We see this with tasers. Now that cops can violently harm someone, without causing permanent physical injuries or death, they use this violent method much more often. So the result is that more people are violently accosted by cops than before this non-lethal method existed.

So, if you want a country to be peaceful, it starts with within. It doesn't start with the weapons used.

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

No-one who is spiritual so carelessly talks about ending the life of another.

Why not? We are re-incarnated, so if we die, we will simply go back to this wonderful spiritual place and then come back in a future time to try out a life again.

It's like when we ban people on this forum, it's not the end of their life. They move on to another forum, or they come back here later on, behave correctly, and become productive members of the forum (or don't and they get found again and banned).

[SnerpGoodWord]

Warfare is about effectiveness, not morals. Enlightened but dead is still dead. Any society that forgets that will eventually be replaced by one that remembered.

[Cado]

Alstar really wasn't talking about carelessly ending lives, he was just saying that anyone who steps on the battlefield knows what they're getting into and that they might die. That's completely valid; they can't really be protected from the consequences of their choice unless the other side is willing to tie an arm behind their back, and they can't do that because there's no reason for their opponents to do it. Being forced into it is a separate matter but you still can't deny that the soldiers are aware of what they're doing; it doesn't matter who gave the order, they're the ones thrusting spears, shooting arrows, or firing bullets into their foe. If someone put a gun in my hand and forced me to pull the trigger I'd still be the one that did it and I'd have to live with that.

Diplomacy is peaceful warfare. Beyond that all one can really hope to do is minimize casualties. I could see a few situations wherein warfare is mutually agreed upon and both sides hold to a strict code of honor, say when they realize a conflict is unavoidable or the warring serves a purpose in itself, but take away the risk of death and it's not war anymore.

[JSB]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Do you think it would be viable at any point to wage war using weapons designed to incapacitate an enemy rather than kill them?

If a country's defense was constructed with the mandate that enemy lives were to be considered as valuable as friendly lives, and that military objectives would be to neutralise a threat while causing the minimum damage to both sides, what would warfare look like?

Unfortunately, the highly evolved side would probably lose to their more aggressive, violent, and better-armed opponents, unless they had a huge advantage in technology or resources. (A modern army fighting against soldiers arms with spears wouldn't need to kill anyone because the opponent poses no real threat to them.)

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Do you think it would be viable at any point to wage war using weapons designed to incapacitate an enemy rather than kill them?

Honestly, no I do not think that is practical, nor possible with our current technology. If the enemy is willing to kill us, but we are unwilling to kill them, I don't see us winning that battle.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by Le Roi

Why not? We are re-incarnated, so if we die, we will simply go back to this wonderful spiritual place and then come back in a future time to try out a life again.

That's a nice theory, but in the real world the soul rebels against ending a life. Sure it's not the end of the world. But it is destroying something very important - not the soul, but the soul's physical existence here, its plans, its hopes and dreams, everything it has.

I mean come on. If you think killing is so OK why don't you go and kill a few people just for fun?

No, right? Cause your soul won't let you.

[Cado]

Not feeling a drive to do it doesn't mean there would be a hesitance to do it if circumstances called for it, and if there was hesitance it wouldn't necessarily be on the soul-level. While spiritual growth tends to spur compassion, it also increases wisdom and grants acceptance of the natural order, an order wherein some people live and die and sometimes you have to pull the trigger. That isn't to say someone spiritually advanced truly could kill for no reason without remorse, but it seems possible from a certain perspective.

[Andrew Gubb]

If the circumstances called for it then sure, they'd do it, and if they were psychologically prepared they'd do it without hesitation. But they'd never be indifferent to the act.

[elucidate]

I just can't really imagine thousands of soldiers all coming at each other with tasers, and zapping each other. That thought is quite amusing to me actually.

It's all good to talk about it from the safety of our homes. None of us know what it is like to volunteer, or be recruited, and placed in a hostile environment where people are coming at you with bullets. It's kill or be killed, and I can't see it will ever change. All that has really changed is the that the weapons have become more sophisticated.

Spiritual people just won't be signing up for the task, that's all.

War is about death. Obviously it would be better if everyone would learn to communicate in a way where they are all heard and their needs are met...but after watching "Buffalo Soldiers" the other week, I remember a line spoken by Jaoquin Phoneix's character. He said: "War is harsh, but peace...peace is boring"...and I've heard as much from people I know who are warlike and aggressive and violence is nothing for them. These people find peace to be a boring concept, as repulsive as that might be to most others.