Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Bloodless Wars in the Future?

LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 4:31:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What if an army abandons lethal weapons and instead tranquilizes and captures enemy forces, holding them in detainment camps? After the enemy ran out of weapons and soldiers and the enemy government was forced into surrender or captured, the war would be over.
Do you think this is plausible, or at least possible? If so, do you think that it should be done?
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 5:49:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 4:31:26 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
What if an army abandons lethal weapons and instead tranquilizes and captures enemy forces, holding them in detainment camps? After the enemy ran out of weapons and soldiers and the enemy government was forced into surrender or captured, the war would be over.
Do you think this is plausible, or at least possible? If so, do you think that it should be done?

It's much easier to just kill people. So no, it will never happen.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 11:04:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If the enemy starts using "dirty" tricks and you do not respond with "dirty" tricks or have the capability to prevent the enemy from using such tricks, you die. Wars aren't clean in the first place for something to inherently be considered "dirty", it depends on the ethics of the side and how committed they are to following it.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 1:18:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 4:31:26 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
What if an army abandons lethal weapons and instead tranquilizes and captures enemy forces, holding them in detainment camps? After the enemy ran out of weapons and soldiers and the enemy government was forced into surrender or captured, the war would be over.
Do you think this is plausible, or at least possible? If so, do you think that it should be done?

Keeping PoW is complicated, expensive, and can be very, very dangerous as there will always be the chance that PoW would escape, and continue to fight as a conventional front against your armed forces (that's pretty much what happened in the WWII, and that's even when the German pretty much kill as much of their captive as possible - imagine what would happen if they keep those PoW alive).

The other more likely scenario though, is we just switched to use drone as the main instrument of war. It might not be completely bloodless but should be far less bloody than human-based combat (might be oily instead :P)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 2:58:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 4:31:26 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
What if an army abandons lethal weapons and instead tranquilizes and captures enemy forces, holding them in detainment camps? After the enemy ran out of weapons and soldiers and the enemy government was forced into surrender or captured, the war would be over.
Do you think this is plausible, or at least possible? If so, do you think that it should be done?

Alas, the likelihood of a military conflict ever taking place in which all weapons are set on stun is nil. War is about attaining realeconomik goals and domination, and when people are keen on plundering & dominating others, or their territory and resources, to the point of going to war, well, they tend to not be too terribly interested in behaving in a life-affirming fashion.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 3:04:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 2:58:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/29/2014 4:31:26 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
What if an army abandons lethal weapons and instead tranquilizes and captures enemy forces, holding them in detainment camps? After the enemy ran out of weapons and soldiers and the enemy government was forced into surrender or captured, the war would be over.
Do you think this is plausible, or at least possible? If so, do you think that it should be done?

Alas, the likelihood of a military conflict ever taking place in which all weapons are set on stun is nil. War is about attaining realeconomik goals and domination, and when people are keen on plundering & dominating others, or their territory and resources, to the point of going to war, well, they tend to not be too terribly interested in behaving in a life-affirming fashion.

You can still conquer an enemy and seize their resources with a non-lethal conflict.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 3:11:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 1:18:51 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

The other more likely scenario though, is we just switched to use drone as the main instrument of war. It might not be completely bloodless but should be far less bloody than human-based combat (might be oily instead :P)

Well, a robowar certainly wouldn't be less cruel and lethal for those humans on the receiving end of drone and "robotic weaponry" attacks, but then I don't suppose that you identify and empathize with the victims of this country's aggressions.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 3:24:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 3:04:21 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:58:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/29/2014 4:31:26 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
What if an army abandons lethal weapons and instead tranquilizes and captures enemy forces, holding them in detainment camps? After the enemy ran out of weapons and soldiers and the enemy government was forced into surrender or captured, the war would be over.
Do you think this is plausible, or at least possible? If so, do you think that it should be done?

Alas, the likelihood of a military conflict ever taking place in which all weapons are set on stun is nil. War is about attaining realeconomik goals and domination, and when people are keen on plundering & dominating others, or their territory and resources, to the point of going to war, well, they tend to not be too terribly interested in behaving in a life-affirming fashion.

You can still conquer an enemy and seize their resources with a non-lethal conflict.

But the point is that you wouldn't care to go to the extra logistical trouble and economic expense involved in capturing and interning thousands of hostile prisoners if conquest is your sole interest, if you're the sociopathic fat cats behind a superpower's imperialistic wars and occupations. From the fat cat's amorally pragmatic point of view it simply makes more sense to consign human beings to the fate of cannon fodder and collateral damage.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 4:11:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 3:11:47 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/30/2014 1:18:51 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

The other more likely scenario though, is we just switched to use drone as the main instrument of war. It might not be completely bloodless but should be far less bloody than human-based combat (might be oily instead :P)

Well, a robowar certainly wouldn't be less cruel and lethal for those humans on the receiving end of drone and "robotic weaponry" attacks, but then I don't suppose that you identify and empathize with the victims of this country's aggressions.

it's probably be less bloody when the technology is mature - and proliferate though. The use of drone to assassinate people is not war, conventionally anyway, what I was thinking is that if the countries are engaged in full-scale war when both side used robot as the bulk of their forces, most of the casualties will be on the fighting drone when human are placed in well protected facility. If you run out of drone, it's probably time to surrender anyway - that's how human casualties can be significantly reduced.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 5:04:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 4:11:36 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/30/2014 3:11:47 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/30/2014 1:18:51 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

The other more likely scenario though, is we just switched to use drone as the main instrument of war. It might not be completely bloodless but should be far less bloody than human-based combat (might be oily instead :P)

Well, a robowar certainly wouldn't be less cruel and lethal for those humans on the receiving end of drone and "robotic weaponry" attacks, but then I don't suppose that you identify and empathize with the victims of this country's aggressions.

it's probably be less bloody when the technology is mature - and proliferate though. The use of drone to assassinate people is not war, conventionally anyway, what I was thinking is that if the countries are engaged in full-scale war when both side used robot as the bulk of their forces, most of the casualties will be on the fighting drone when human are placed in well protected facility. If you run out of drone, it's probably time to surrender anyway - that's how human casualties can be significantly reduced.

But in the real world we have a high-tech superpower such as the United States aggressing against overmatched Third-World foes, not two equally technologically matched enemies going at it. Your scenario of two advanced nations waging war against each other primarily with robotic weaponry and thereby reducing casualties and one surrendering when enough of its robotic weaponry has been destroyed would be an exception, it would quite seldom if ever play out. Instead we'll simply see the United States and the core countries of the world-system using their military technology to murderously maintain their hegemony without putting their own citizens in harm's way. Not exactly my idea of progress.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 2:13:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
it's probably be less bloody when the technology is mature - and proliferate though. The use of drone to assassinate people is not war, conventionally anyway, what I was thinking is that if the countries are engaged in full-scale war when both side used robot as the bulk of their forces, most of the casualties will be on the fighting drone when human are placed in well protected facility. If you run out of drone, it's probably time to surrender anyway - that's how human casualties can be significantly reduced.

But in the real world we have a high-tech superpower such as the United States aggressing against overmatched Third-World foes, not two equally technologically matched enemies going at it. Your scenario of two advanced nations waging war against each other primarily with robotic weaponry and thereby reducing casualties and one surrendering when enough of its robotic weaponry has been destroyed would be an exception, it would quite seldom if ever play out. Instead we'll simply see the United States and the core countries of the world-system using their military technology to murderously maintain their hegemony without putting their own citizens in harm's way. Not exactly my idea of progress.

Even the third world nations are suppose to use robotic as the bulk of their armed forces as well, since they are cheaper, more numerous, and more effective than human resources. You need 18 years to grow someone to fighting age, another 1-5 years of training and probably another 1-2 years of experiences for 1 professional solider - you need just a few hour to produce 1 drone. When they have become cheap enough through mass production there will be no reason to use man or manned combat platform any more, regardless of your economic status - if drones are expensive, human will probably be even more expensive for you.

So let's say you're going against Iraq-like opponent in the next century, I predict the war will be far less bloody than what you fight in 2003. Unless of course, you also counted the unconventional warfare, in which case it should still remain lethal - but still far less lethal than a conventional war fought by man as we're doing now. If we're fighting unconventional in place of the human-based open conflict entirely - that's alone is something I would celebrate.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 3:47:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 2:13:29 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
it's probably be less bloody when the technology is mature - and proliferate though. The use of drone to assassinate people is not war, conventionally anyway, what I was thinking is that if the countries are engaged in full-scale war when both side used robot as the bulk of their forces, most of the casualties will be on the fighting drone when human are placed in well protected facility. If you run out of drone, it's probably time to surrender anyway - that's how human casualties can be significantly reduced.

But in the real world we have a high-tech superpower such as the United States aggressing against overmatched Third-World foes, not two equally technologically matched enemies going at it. Your scenario of two advanced nations waging war against each other primarily with robotic weaponry and thereby reducing casualties and one surrendering when enough of its robotic weaponry has been destroyed would be an exception, it would quite seldom if ever play out. Instead we'll simply see the United States and the core countries of the world-system using their military technology to murderously maintain their hegemony without putting their own citizens in harm's way. Not exactly my idea of progress.

Even the third world nations are suppose to use robotic as the bulk of their armed forces as well, since they are cheaper, more numerous, and more effective than human resources. You need 18 years to grow someone to fighting age, another 1-5 years of training and probably another 1-2 years of experiences for 1 professional solider - you need just a few hour to produce 1 drone. When they have become cheap enough through mass production there will be no reason to use man or manned combat platform any more, regardless of your economic status - if drones are expensive, human will probably be even more expensive for you.

So let's say you're going against Iraq-like opponent in the next century, I predict the war will be far less bloody than what you fight in 2003. Unless of course, you also counted the unconventional warfare, in which case it should still remain lethal - but still far less lethal than a conventional war fought by man as we're doing now. If we're fighting unconventional in place of the human-based open conflict entirely - that's alone is something I would celebrate.

I hope that you'll soon rejoin us in the real world.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 11:15:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Even the third world nations are suppose to use robotic as the bulk of their armed forces as well, since they are cheaper, more numerous, and more effective than human resources. You need 18 years to grow someone to fighting age, another 1-5 years of training and probably another 1-2 years of experiences for 1 professional solider - you need just a few hour to produce 1 drone. When they have become cheap enough through mass production there will be no reason to use man or manned combat platform any more, regardless of your economic status - if drones are expensive, human will probably be even more expensive for you.

So let's say you're going against Iraq-like opponent in the next century, I predict the war will be far less bloody than what you fight in 2003. Unless of course, you also counted the unconventional warfare, in which case it should still remain lethal - but still far less lethal than a conventional war fought by man as we're doing now. If we're fighting unconventional in place of the human-based open conflict entirely - that's alone is something I would celebrate.

I hope that you'll soon rejoin us in the real world.

Too bad I have my own planet - it's called Logic
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 3:23:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 11:15:44 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Even the third world nations are suppose to use robotic as the bulk of their armed forces as well, since they are cheaper, more numerous, and more effective than human resources. You need 18 years to grow someone to fighting age, another 1-5 years of training and probably another 1-2 years of experiences for 1 professional solider - you need just a few hour to produce 1 drone. When they have become cheap enough through mass production there will be no reason to use man or manned combat platform any more, regardless of your economic status - if drones are expensive, human will probably be even more expensive for you.

So let's say you're going against Iraq-like opponent in the next century, I predict the war will be far less bloody than what you fight in 2003. Unless of course, you also counted the unconventional warfare, in which case it should still remain lethal - but still far less lethal than a conventional war fought by man as we're doing now. If we're fighting unconventional in place of the human-based open conflict entirely - that's alone is something I would celebrate.

I hope that you'll soon rejoin us in the real world.

Too bad I have my own planet - it's called Logic

Sometimes, as when one's premises are empirically unsound, logic can be faulty.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Antihero
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 1:44:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 4:31:26 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
What if an army abandons lethal weapons and instead tranquilizes and captures enemy forces, holding them in detainment camps? After the enemy ran out of weapons and soldiers and the enemy government was forced into surrender or captured, the war would be over.
Do you think this is plausible, or at least possible? If so, do you think that it should be done?

Whats the point? If you use a non lethal weapon, it means you dont want to hurt physically. So why use a weapon in the first place? Why not negotiate? IMO weapon is anything that could kill or hurt so yeah, you only use weapon for those intentions. Thats why war is the last option if negotiation or confrotation is not working. Let me ask you something: why would the enemy want to surrender if their life is not threatened or nobody's life is at risk?
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 6:40:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree with Charleslb, strangely enough. Human cruelty cannot be curbed by it's own mechanical contraptions. The only reason to capture an enemy in such large quantity is to ensure your own destruction upon their release, or enslave the enemy nation.

I'm Skynet. I would know about these sorts of things.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.