I think it is odd that we have a concept of ethics associated with weapons. Isn't the intent to kill and/or destroy? How can that be ethical? And yet we put restrictions on things like nerve gas. What makes bullets more ethical than nerve gas? Especially considering the rate at which we can fire those bullets.
I must confess that despite my confusion on this matter I do exhibit the behavior as well. For instance, I don't like guns or explosives. I think they make killing too easy. But I do like swords (and other medieval weaponry) because they're cool. When it comes to the basic act of killing it's all basically the same. So why is there a difference? I think I romanticize the concept of swords because I associate them with honorable combat (dueling). But the intent of a sword (or any weapon) isn't honorable.
I always wondered that as well. If I was king of the world, all wars or battles (If I couldn't get rid of them) would be fought with only swords/other hand-to-hand weapons.
I always wondered that as well. If I was king of the world, all wars or battles (If I couldn't get rid of them) would be fought with only swords/other hand-to-hand weapons.
Killing should be a difficult act, one that is done in close combat so you (if only very briefly) have full knowledge of who you're killing. It disturbs me that we have the ability to kill a person from so far away. I mean... you can target a blip on a computer screen, push a button, and somebody you've never actually seen is now dead.
I guess I just feel that a certain level of remorse should come with the act of killing. And the further away you are from your target the less remorse you feel. Or so I assume. I've never actually killed anyone. Maybe I am wrong in this assumption.
You're right, there is absolutely no honor in weapons these days. The idea of two men (or women, I suppose) fighting ONE ON ONE in a challenge of true skill and dedication is a really interesting concept. Sure it all boils down to the same thing, death. I agree about the romanticizing of the swords.
I think it's because those weapons are too uncontrollably effective.
Nuclear weapons and chemical weapons like Novochik Agents tend to have long-term, lingering effects. They can poison a landscape for years, if not generations and render it immediately unusable by man.
So as such, we place restrictions on them and try to ensure no new ones are made, or no new powers rise to use them. They're just too wild, and too strong.
With a gun, you're still maybe killing one person, or injuring them. With a nuke, you're killing everything, handing out future death sentences to more people, and then making the ground there a little less-likely to be settled again for many years.
Same with Novochik Agents, although those come with the added bonus of being nearly undetectable.
In the end though, all weapons should be done away with. But this is an unreasonable expectations as when Sally wants Bobby's burger she'll be compelled to kill him. So she'll use a rock. Then Bobby's friend will use a sword. In response Sally will use a gun. Then we're back to where we started on the basis of keeping Sally and her friends in check through quality and strength of arms.
EDIT - there's also little to no way a civilian, soldier, or government can defend themselves against nukes and Novochik either. No amount of easily avaible armor (like Kevlar) will shield you from the event happening on or immediately after a nuke is dropped, or a canister of Novochick rips open.
In comparison, you gotta see who you're targeting to really get a reliable kill with a gun. And even then the armor would need to be less than the situation demands in order to get the kill.
You're right, there is absolutely no honor in weapons these days. The idea of two men (or women, I suppose) fighting ONE ON ONE in a challenge of true skill and dedication is a really interesting concept. Sure it all boils down to the same thing, death.
Sort of off topic but that's part of the reason why I'm an MMA fan. It is a brutal sport that some people believe is unethical. But death is not the intent and the fighters are both well aware of the risks. I see it as honorable combat and enjoy watching it.
The ease of guns is why they should be used in defense and the pursuit of justice.
Dueling is something completely different than war. As Sun Tzu says, "War is a matter of life or death", meaning war should only be used when absoultely necessesary (e.g. In defense of the pursuit of justice).
Swords, melee combat, etc., has no place in the serious conflict. Though I would love to able to fence.
The ease of guns is why they should be used in defense and the pursuit of justice.
Dueling is something completely different than war. As Sun Tzu says, "War is a matter of life or death", meaning war should only be used when absoultely necessesary (e.g. In defense of the pursuit of justice).
Swords, melee combat, etc., has no place in the serious conflict. Though I would love to able to fence.
If I may add too: Sun Tzu stresses psychological warfare. The intent of the general would be to have a victory with no fatalities, or a great victory with little (or no) fatalities.
Chinese Warfare is more of a mind-game than Western military philosophy. Although death is a given, Sun Tzu I imagine kind of likes to see that lessened.
EDIT - actually double checking that I'm not finding anything. I think I need to go back to the report I read warning about Chinese psychological deployment.
EDIT EDIT - Found it:
"According to Wu and Zhang, those early
psychological experiences culminated in
Sun Tzu’s Art of War, which describes the
main objective of war as defeating the
enemy without having to fight; the main
essence of war as attacking the enemy’s
strategy; the main principle of war as contending for control of hearts, minds and
morale; and the main idea of war as focusing on the enemy commander’s decisionmaking skills and personal traits. Ancient
Chinese psychological-operations doctrine
also focused on attacking the enemy’s
strategy and diplomacy, on conducting
demonstrations and seeking dominance, on
ignoring luck and dispelling doubt; and on
making threats and adhering to the Tao,
the philosophy and system of religion
based on the teachings of Lao-tzu during
the sixth century BC"
"Each of the Chinese articles on psychological operations define the concepts of
psychological warfare or psychological
operations in a different way. Wu Juncang
and Zhang Qiancheng (who do not teach at
the Shijiazhuang Academy) define a psychological operation as the use of various
measures to influence a combat opponent’s
ideology, attitude, will or actions. The objective of a psychological operation is to win
without fighting or to win a big victory
with only a little fighting"
The ethical usage of weapons comes not from the act of killing a target, this has never been what makes it ethical or not, nor has the efficiency or detachment from the target. The single and only thing that makes it ethical or not is the collateral damage. It's like nuking Europe while Hitler was there. Yeah, you got your man... but you also killed an innocent nation in the cross fire. Not ethical... As a rule, the core goal of any ethical fight or war is to put an end to them while doing as little harm as possible.
To this end, I find it obscene that I've actually heard people suggest we just nuke places where we think terrorists hide. They just don't understand the concept that the majority of the population of such places aren't extremists like that. It's like the terrorists are hiding behind their own people and using them like meat shields. It's... not very honorable... And neither are their tactics. They don't care at all about the collateral damage, they target places based on sheer density of population with the intent to kill randomly chosen people who happen to be there. Thus we see the big difference in ethical and non-ethical weapons, and war. We care, they don't.
Indeed, I forget the exact quote but he also says somewhere that it is better to win without fighting, and to do so is a superior victory.
OT: The chemical and nuclear weapons are banned because they can be a far more painful, uncontrollable and longer-lasting weapon, compared to guns which kill relatively painlessly and in comparatively small quantities per use.
The ethics come from avoiding collateral damage and uneccessary cruelty. For instance, a well placed bullet will kill a lot faster, and a lot less painfully than a gas attack. Plus, as stated earlier, unless the person is firing madly into a crowd, bullets tend to have a lot less unintended damage. Gas doesn't.
I must confess that despite my confusion on this matter I do exhibit the behavior as well. For instance, I don't like guns or explosives. I think they make killing too easy. But I do like swords (and other medieval weaponry) because they're cool. When it comes to the basic act of killing it's all basically the same. So why is there a difference? I think I romanticize the concept of swords because I associate them with honorable combat (dueling). But the intent of a sword (or any weapon) isn't honorable.
Thoughts?
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SteevyT/saved/21PI
Katana vs Watermelon = Sheer straight cut, if your the one slicing it. You feel like a boss.
[simg]http://i54.tinypic.com/4zzw1z.png[/simg]
Killing should be a difficult act, one that is done in close combat so you (if only very briefly) have full knowledge of who you're killing. It disturbs me that we have the ability to kill a person from so far away. I mean... you can target a blip on a computer screen, push a button, and somebody you've never actually seen is now dead.
I guess I just feel that a certain level of remorse should come with the act of killing. And the further away you are from your target the less remorse you feel. Or so I assume. I've never actually killed anyone. Maybe I am wrong in this assumption.
Fair enough
Nuclear weapons and chemical weapons like Novochik Agents tend to have long-term, lingering effects. They can poison a landscape for years, if not generations and render it immediately unusable by man.
So as such, we place restrictions on them and try to ensure no new ones are made, or no new powers rise to use them. They're just too wild, and too strong.
With a gun, you're still maybe killing one person, or injuring them. With a nuke, you're killing everything, handing out future death sentences to more people, and then making the ground there a little less-likely to be settled again for many years.
Same with Novochik Agents, although those come with the added bonus of being nearly undetectable.
In the end though, all weapons should be done away with. But this is an unreasonable expectations as when Sally wants Bobby's burger she'll be compelled to kill him. So she'll use a rock. Then Bobby's friend will use a sword. In response Sally will use a gun. Then we're back to where we started on the basis of keeping Sally and her friends in check through quality and strength of arms.
EDIT - there's also little to no way a civilian, soldier, or government can defend themselves against nukes and Novochik either. No amount of easily avaible armor (like Kevlar) will shield you from the event happening on or immediately after a nuke is dropped, or a canister of Novochick rips open.
In comparison, you gotta see who you're targeting to really get a reliable kill with a gun. And even then the armor would need to be less than the situation demands in order to get the kill.
My DeviantArt, so sexy
Sort of off topic but that's part of the reason why I'm an MMA fan. It is a brutal sport that some people believe is unethical. But death is not the intent and the fighters are both well aware of the risks. I see it as honorable combat and enjoy watching it.
Dueling is something completely different than war. As Sun Tzu says, "War is a matter of life or death", meaning war should only be used when absoultely necessesary (e.g. In defense of the pursuit of justice).
Swords, melee combat, etc., has no place in the serious conflict. Though I would love to able to fence.
If I may add too: Sun Tzu stresses psychological warfare. The intent of the general would be to have a victory with no fatalities, or a great victory with little (or no) fatalities.
Chinese Warfare is more of a mind-game than Western military philosophy. Although death is a given, Sun Tzu I imagine kind of likes to see that lessened.
EDIT - actually double checking that I'm not finding anything. I think I need to go back to the report I read warning about Chinese psychological deployment.
EDIT EDIT - Found it:
"According to Wu and Zhang, those early
psychological experiences culminated in
Sun Tzu’s Art of War, which describes the
main objective of war as defeating the
enemy without having to fight; the main
essence of war as attacking the enemy’s
strategy; the main principle of war as contending for control of hearts, minds and
morale; and the main idea of war as focusing on the enemy commander’s decisionmaking skills and personal traits. Ancient
Chinese psychological-operations doctrine
also focused on attacking the enemy’s
strategy and diplomacy, on conducting
demonstrations and seeking dominance, on
ignoring luck and dispelling doubt; and on
making threats and adhering to the Tao,
the philosophy and system of religion
based on the teachings of Lao-tzu during
the sixth century BC"
"Each of the Chinese articles on psychological operations define the concepts of
psychological warfare or psychological
operations in a different way. Wu Juncang
and Zhang Qiancheng (who do not teach at
the Shijiazhuang Academy) define a psychological operation as the use of various
measures to influence a combat opponent’s
ideology, attitude, will or actions. The objective of a psychological operation is to win
without fighting or to win a big victory
with only a little fighting"
http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/resources/china/chinesepsyop.pdf
My DeviantArt, so sexy
To this end, I find it obscene that I've actually heard people suggest we just nuke places where we think terrorists hide. They just don't understand the concept that the majority of the population of such places aren't extremists like that. It's like the terrorists are hiding behind their own people and using them like meat shields. It's... not very honorable... And neither are their tactics. They don't care at all about the collateral damage, they target places based on sheer density of population with the intent to kill randomly chosen people who happen to be there. Thus we see the big difference in ethical and non-ethical weapons, and war. We care, they don't.
Guns = There's an especially hot place in hell for that.
Guns = depends
i.e:
Being able to weaponize the ability to **** with people's minds = win.
My DeviantArt, so sexy
OT: The chemical and nuclear weapons are banned because they can be a far more painful, uncontrollable and longer-lasting weapon, compared to guns which kill relatively painlessly and in comparatively small quantities per use.