Militarisation

[CatherineM]

Yeah, and all that charred ash would make for great fertilizer.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1578016' date='Jun 20 2008, 08:46 PM']So you could care less about the deaths and only about the productivity of the land afterwords?

No offense, but that sounds pretty Marxist to me.[/quote]
Of course not, what I was pointing to was the fact that conventional weapons, as horrible and as immoral as the can be, (the fuel air bomb for example), are nowhere near as immoral as a nuke. A fuel air bomb can destroy, but not desolate, (for a prolonged period of time), whereas a nuke can destroy and desolate and be responsible for deaths and sufferings for years to come.

Btw, Marxism is pretty funny label to relate to me indirectly, considering i'm right winged by most people's standards XD

[Justin86]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1578049' date='Jun 21 2008, 11:05 AM']Of course not, what I was pointing to was the fact that conventional weapons, as horrible and as immoral as the can be, (the fuel air bomb for example), are nowhere near as immoral as a nuke. A fuel air bomb can destroy, but not desolate, (for a prolonged period of time), whereas a nuke can destroy and desolate and be responsible for deaths and sufferings for years to come.[/quote]
Again any bomb can be said to do that. Sometimes left over shrapnel inside the body can actually get infected years after the bomb. Death can result. Also, much research has been made into places like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl to suggest that the "long term affects of nuclear radiation" may actually be exaggerated. Consider Hiroshima is currently a main economic hub of Japan today. Mazda is even based out of there. Apparently it recovered quite well.

In my opinion if you want to argue that nuclear weapons are immoral under just war theory it's best to stick with that they were designed to destroy entire cities. Although if their fallout could be condensed to a much smaller radius, then they would lose their immorality of course.

[quote]Marxism is pretty funny label to relate to me indirectly, considering i'm right winged by most people's standards XD[/quote]
I know that, that's why I said "no offense" before I made my comment. I figured you didn't mean for it to sound like it did, but you made a post that sounded like you were valuing productivity over human life. You may not have meant it that way, but it did come off like that.

Edited June 21, 2008 by Justin86

[CatherineM]

Justin is right about shrapnel killing people years after. My great-great-grandfather died of his Civil War wounds three years after the war was over. Good thing he lasted as long as he did since my great-grandfather was born after the war.

[Justin86]

Just to bring new life to this topic.

[url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4187835.ece"]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle4187835.ece[/url]
<h1 class="heading">
</h1><h1 class="heading">Army 'vacuum' missile hits Taliban</h1> Michael Smith div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; } British forces in Afghanistan have used one of the world’s most deadly and controversial missiles to fight the Taliban.

Apache attack helicopters have fired the thermobaric weapons against fighters in buildings and caves, to create a pressure wave which smells of elderberries the air out of victims, shreds their internal organs and crushes their bodies.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted to the use of the weapons, condemned by human rights groups as “brutal”, on several occasions, including against a cave complex.

The use of the Hellfire AGM-114N weapons has been deemed so successful they will now be fired from RAF Reaper unmanned drones controlled by “pilots” at Creech air force base in Nevada, an MoD spokesman added.

Thermobaric weapons, or vacuum bombs, were first combat-tested by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s and their use by Russia against civilians in Chechnya in the 1990s was condemned worldwide.The secret decision to buy the Hellfire AGM-114N missiles was made earlier this year following problems attacking Taliban fortified positions.

British Apache pilots complained that standard Hellfire antitank missiles were going straight through buildings and out of the other side. Even when they did explode, there were limited casualties among the Taliban inside, particularly when a building contained a number of rooms.

American Apache pilots overcame the problem in Iraq with the thermobaric Hellfire.

The weapons are so controversial that MoD weapons and legal experts spent 18 months debating whether British troops could use them without breaking international law.

Eventually, they decided to get round the ethical problems by redefining the weapons.

“We no longer accept the term thermobaric [for the AGM-114N] as there is no internationally agreed definition,” said an MoD spokesman. “We call it an enhanced blast weapon.”

The redefinition has allowed British forces to use the weapons legally, but is undermined by the publicity of their manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, which markets them as thermobaric.

When the American military bought them in 2005, President George W Bush said: “There are going to be some awfully surprised terrorists when the thermobaric Hellfire comes knocking.”

Despite the Bush rhetoric, it is unlikely anyone targeted by the missile would know much about it. The laser-guided missile has a warhead packed with fluorinated aluminium powder surrounding a small charge.

When it hits the target, the charge disperses the aluminium powder throughout the target building. The cloud then ignites, causing a massive secondary blast that tears throughout any enclosed space.

The blast creates a vacuum which draws air and debris back in, creating pressure of up to 430lb per sq in. The more heavily the building is protected, the more concentrated the blast.

The cloud of burning aluminium powder means victims often die from asphyxiation before the pressure shreds their organs.

Jim Gribschaw, Lockheed Martin’s programme director for air-to-ground missiles systems, said the thermobaric Hellfire was “capable of reaching around corners to strike enemy forces hiding in cases, bunkers and hardened multi-room complexes.”

Human Rights Watch argues they are “particularly brutal” and that their blast “makes it virtually impossible for civilians to take shelter”.

Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: “It is staggering the MoD has added these weapons to Britain’s arsenal in cloak-and-dagger secrecy. Parliament has never assented to their use.”

He added: “Gordon Brown claimed the moral high ground when Britain supported a ban on cluster munitions but leaving a loophole for these weapons casts a different picture on the true position.”

The MoD said: “We are conscious of the controversial aspects [of this weapon] but it is being used sparingly and under strict circumstances where it is deemed appropriate by the commander on the ground.”

A spokesman added that it could “achieve objectives with the minimum coalition casualties and reduced collateral damage”.



















I can't see anything that would violate just war theory about thermobaric missiles, as long as they're not used in the vicinity of civilians, which in this case they weren't. However for the sake of argument, what if they were used against an enemy military installation that happened to be nearby an urban area? How much unintended civilian casualties, that we know are going to occur, are acceptable under just war theory? Does the theory demand civilians be given every means possible to take cover?

Edited June 25, 2008 by Justin86

[Galloglasses]

Thats not what got my attention first about these weapons.

What did get my attention first was the method of killing, would you count it as cruel? And don't give me the usual 'All weapons are cruel' schtick, I meant cruel even by war's standards. Like Flamethrower cruel.

[Justin86]

What was so wrong with flamethrowers? They did the job on Iwa Jima quite well.

When a country goes to war, it should go to win. Not at all cost mind you, but I hardly see anything wrong with developing the weapons that best suit the job.

[Galloglasses]

Asides from the fact that the enemy died a slow incredibly painful death? Oh not much was wrong with the flamethrower. A grenade does the same job with less pain and more chance of the person surviving to be captured.

With this weapon I meant cruel as in how it eviscerates the bodies. Literally tearing them to shreds from the insides. Hardly a nice way to die. And no, when a country goes to war, it is not to 'just win' their is the part where honour comes in. Otherwise if its just winning you will, more often then not, be willing to accept any number of collateral damage.

[johnnydigit]

forget the military, we need to build up the Church Militant. nukes? checkout my Rosary babee! my momma wears army boots. maybe if God led the world, we wouldn't need so much militarization..

souls > citizens.

semper fi = "always faithful" in Latin. WOOT!

[Galloglasses]

That was a lovely interjection XD

[Justin86]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1583645' date='Jun 26 2008, 09:35 PM']Asides from the fact that the enemy died a slow incredibly painful death? Oh not much was wrong with the flamethrower. A grenade does the same job with less pain and more chance of the person surviving to be captured.[/quote]
Grenades do not do the same job as flamethrowers. Flamethrowers are way better at taking out large groups of people quickly from far distances with about as much danger as any other gun. A grenade might kill 2 or 3 people--assuming you throw it in time in which you just kill yourslef and at the people beside you (yes, this happens more than you would think). Even if you do throw it in time the enemy probably will still have a couple seconds to take cover. Another problem we have encountered is that in Vietnam plenty of our gernade supply were nothing but duds. Comparing gernades to flamethrowers is like comparing ants to grasshopers.

[quote]With this weapon I meant cruel as in how it eviscerates the bodies. Literally tearing them to shreds from the insides. Hardly a nice way to die. And no, when a country goes to war, it is not to 'just win' their is the part where honour comes in. Otherwise if its just winning you will, more often then not, be willing to accept any number of collateral damage.[/quote]
Teraing apart someone's insides actualy sounds like a pretty quick way to die from my prespective. As for your spin on my quote, when I said that I clearly articulated that I was not meaning accepting any and all civilian cauaslities, rather devloping efficent weapons to kill one's enemies.

I don't remember reading anything in just war theory about "honor" so I'm confused as to why you're bringing it, with all of it's vaugeness, up.

[Justin86]

I would also like to add that dying from a grenade can be incredibly slow and painful. I can envision a few scenarios were being burned alive is probably quicker.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1584565' date='Jun 27 2008, 01:47 AM']Grenades do not do the same job as flamethrowers. Flamethrowers are way better at taking out large groups of people quickly from far distances with about as much danger as any other gun. A grenade might kill 2 or 3 people--assuming you throw it in time in which you just kill yourslef and at the people beside you (yes, this happens more than you would think). Even if you do throw it in time the enemy probably will still have a couple seconds to take cover. Another problem we have encountered is that in Vietnam plenty of our gernade supply were nothing but duds. Comparing gernades to flamethrowers is like comparing ants to grasshopers.
Teraing apart someone's insides actualy sounds like a pretty quick way to die from my prespective. As for your spin on my quote, when I said that I clearly articulated that I was not meaning accepting any and all civilian cauaslities, rather devloping efficent weapons to kill one's enemies.

I don't remember reading anything in just war theory about "honor" so I'm confused as to why you're bringing it, with all of it's vaugeness, up.[/quote]
Honor plays apart because Western Concepts of Honour are based upon the codes of Chivalry and the Just War theory, (do not harm the innocent), the, some people think, redundent never kill a woman. Don't shoot an unarmed enemy soldier. According to your line of thought an unarmed enemy still counts as a threat, (He in actuality does), and should be eliminated in order to win, yet honour demands you do not kill an unarmed enemy. You capture him. (Killing an unarmed enemy is today's equivilent of striking a man when hes down) And in this case, how is it honourable to eviscerate the bodies when, quite possibly loved ones of the enemy soldiers would want to give them a burial? (I do not mean war specific enemy)

[quote name='Justin86' post='1584567' date='Jun 27 2008, 01:54 AM']I would also like to add that dying from a grenade can be incredibly slow and painful. I can envision a few scenarios were being burned alive is probably quicker.[/quote]
Oh thats rich. The point of wounding the enemy with a grenade is either to hinder their retalliation while your troops take them out, or take them as POWs, or even to kill all of them in a room if it urban combat. In such situations, it is next to impossible to duck for cover unless you manage to pull a bed on top of you. Yes the wounded die slowly, [i]if they are left that way[/i], but the pain is NOTHING compared to being roasted alive, even for a few seconds. Test it out yourself, light a firecracker in the palm of your hand, hurts like hell. Set the other hand on fire, then compare which causes more suffering.

The flamethrower is a cruel weapon. It causes immense amounts of suffering for the target soldiers for the 10-30 seconds they have left of life, (give or take if they get the chance to jump into a large body of water), I'm not exactly sure when or why flamethroers were discontinued, but I'm greatful that the have been. War is horrible enough without being set ablaze.

Here's another stickler, gas weapons such as the ones used in WWI, thoughts?

[Justin86]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1584827' date='Jun 28 2008, 01:47 AM']Honor plays apart because Western Concepts of Honour are based upon the codes of Chivalry and the Just War theory, (do not harm the innocent), the, some people think, redundent never kill a woman. Don't shoot an unarmed enemy soldier. According to your line of thought an unarmed enemy still counts as a threat, (He in actuality does), and should be eliminated in order to win, yet honour demands you do not kill an unarmed enemy. You capture him. (Killing an unarmed enemy is today's equivilent of striking a man when hes down) And in this case, how is it honourable to eviscerate the bodies when, quite possibly loved ones of the enemy soldiers would want to give them a burial? (I do not mean war specific enemy)[/quote]

Unlike Europeans, we Americans often haven't had the luxury of fighting other Christian nations. You're militaries have little to no experience fighting the Japanese, Koreans, or Vietnamese. While this in no way justifies throwing just war theory out the window, it does mean that European ideas of honor, whether based or just war theory or not, aren't as popular in the US military, nor should they be. Shooting an unarmed solider isn't againist just war theory last time I checked so I have no problem with it. If our enemies aren't going to play nice why should we?

[quote]Oh thats rich. The point of wounding the enemy with a grenade is either to hinder their retalliation while your troops take them out, or take them as POWs, or even to kill all of them in a room if it urban combat. In such situations, it is next to impossible to duck for cover unless you manage to pull a bed on top of you. Yes the wounded die slowly, [i]if they are left that way[/i], but the pain is NOTHING compared to being roasted alive, even for a few seconds. Test it out yourself, light a firecracker in the palm of your hand, hurts like hell. Set the other hand on fire, then compare which causes more suffering.

The flamethrower is a cruel weapon. It causes immense amounts of suffering for the target soldiers for the 10-30 seconds they have left of life, (give or take if they get the chance to jump into a large body of water), I'm not exactly sure when or why flamethroers were discontinued, but I'm greatful that the have been. War is horrible enough without being set ablaze.[/quote]

I would rather deal with a few seconds of intense suffering then prolonged suffering for hours. You do know that third degree burns kill nerve endings pretty much right away, and you can't actually feel anything anyway, right?

[quote]Here's another stickler, gas weapons such as the ones used in WWI, thoughts?[/quote]
I don't see any practicular use of these in todays world when we have bombs like the ones mentioned in the article I posted. However, the US military is much more concerned about chemical weapons being used on our troops then anything else out there. I will say that.