Military Aggression during Conflict

[Syph]

There has always been a line between wanton-aggression and military force. There are a few issues I would like to bring up about the use of armed forces in the 21st century. More than ever are soldiers exposed to the personalities of their enemies. This has plagued retired snipers during their sleep.

Should soldiers be desensitised during battle for their own safety?

Should defeating the enemy in a certain country be a higher priority then getting aid to locals and rehabilitating them under a new government?

This has happened in Iraq where America has gone from being liberator to oppressor after the true intentions of the war became clearer i.e. privatisation of Iraqi oil and constant harassment by US soldiers to defend against insurgents.

Should wars be fought using UAVs and fire and forget weapons that are automated and guarantee casualties.

Should this ever be incorporated in personal arms that fire miniature guided missiles/darts?

Should the laws of war be updated to take this into account?

Your views on these points?

[Midas]

I'm not ignoring this one Syphro, but I haven't got time now to give it due consideration until the weekend...

[Tantal]

Should soldiers be desensitised during battle for their own safety?

Yes. Actually it's not 'during battle', but before battle that they become desensitized. During the American Civil War, rifles were recovered that had been loaded multiple times, yet never fired. The soldier, usually a conscript, would simulate the firing of the weapon because he couldn't bring himself to kill another man. Killing another human being is a difficult thing to do for someone who isn't a sociopath, so normal people have to be TRAINED to do it. Even in police work I've had this training. You don't consider the target as a human, but just try to determine whether or not they're a threat. If they're not a threat, move on. If they are a threat, there's a procedure for neutralising that threat. It's a process to be undertaken without emotion of any kind.

Should defeating the enemy in a certain country be a higher priority then getting aid to locals and rehabilitating them under a new government?

You can't do the second until you've completed the first.

This has happened in Iraq where America has gone from being liberator to oppressor after the true intentions of the war became clearer i.e. privatisation of Iraqi oil and constant harassment by US soldiers to defend against insurgents.

We were initially treated as liberators, then the foreign insurgents started flooding in and had to be dealt with. These foreign insurgents have killed far more innocent Iraqi civilians than U.S. soldiers.

Should wars be fought using UAVs and fire and forget weapons that are automated and guarantee casualties.

When fighting wars, the concept of 'fairness' should go out the window. You fight to win. If you can destroy an enemy tank with a GPS or laser guided bomb without exposing your own personnel to danger, you do it.

Should this ever be incorporated in personal arms that fire miniature guided missiles/darts?

If it makes the enemy dead and keeps your own personnel alive, then YES.

[Scooby]

Should soldiers be desensitised, no way, they need to be trained and where necessary treated for the mental after effects, war is the last resort of human kind and breaks human taboo's such as killing other humans, to be desensitised would be to dehumanise in my book, and would make such actions easier for our politicos to contemplate.

The need to defeat the enemy is often a pre requisite to the re establishment of civillian rule and reconstruction.

The use of the likes of UAV's and smart technologies can never be solely relied on the are only as accurate as the intelligence used to target them and this has frequently proved faulty, as for smart technology at infantry level i think this will come and at close range it can only help to avoid civillain casualties, i cant remember which military man said it but there really is no good alternative to boots on the ground.

The rules of war are a joke, firstly only certain nations do actually abide by them, take the UK we are currently investigating several claims of our troops going beyond their remit, now are we just limiting the latitude we give our men, after all it is war, or do we take the moral highground, when our opponents behead civilians, and conduct suicide bombings. Then look at the US to avoid claims that their troops are out of control they employ "civilian contractors" a much used euphemism for mercenaries, in many places mercenaries have their place as hired soldiers but the likes of Blackwater are little more than hired guns, with no command structure just a mission statement. The Geneva convention was a fine and laudable attempt, but it was ignored even in WW2 by the Japanese who refused to sign up. We need to establish not just rules of war but sanctions for those that break them, the conflict rules of the last century are no longer effective, given that the nature of war has shifted.

[Syph]

Even in police work I've had this training. You don't consider the target as a human, but just try to determine whether or not they're a threat. If they're not a threat, move on. If they are a threat, there's a procedure for neutralising that threat. It's a process to be undertaken without emotion of any kind.

What do you/did you do for a living? Your are a gun-loving southerner who distrusts the police, yet you have done police work. I am slightly confused, hence the above question.

The use of the likes of UAV's and smart technologies can never be solely relied on the are only as accurate as the intelligence used to target them and this has frequently proved faulty...

Really, a U2 spy plane and UAVs can read a newspaper from 72,000 ft. Pretty useful intelligence gatherer if you ask me.

The rules of war are a joke, firstly only certain nations do actually abide by them, take the UK we are currently investigating several claims of our troops going beyond their remit, now are we just limiting the latitude we give our men, after all it is war, or do we take the moral highground, when our opponents behead civilians, and conduct suicide bombings.

"limiting the latitude" without the laws of war and the resulting tribunals, the rape of the losing countrie's women was perfectly acceptable. It was in fact a spoil of war. Look at Bosnia, many thousands of women were raped in the war there.

If we don't set a standard then the western countries will look down on us.

[Scooby]

Syphro, if you check back the use of electronic only intel and UAV attack aircraft has resulted in more than a few civvy deaths in Afghanstan and Pakistan,

I understand your point on the rules of war and i'm all for rules of conduct but ther needs to be a better system, i'm not for latitude but they have to be workable and enforceable, both the Germans and the Russians both committed mass rape during WW2 the German army wasn't really prosecuted after the war and the Russians got of scot free. We need to revisit the geneva convention, and it needs teeth now, enforceable teeth, beefing up the Hague courts would be a start.

[Tantal]

What do you/did you do for a living? Your are a gun-loving southerner who distrusts the police, yet you have done police work. I am slightly confused, hence the above question.

I am a policeman. It's not that I don't trust the police, it's that I don't trust government in general, particularly at the federal level. I consider myself a necessary evil for the maintenance of order. I'd love for there to be no crime so that I could find employment elsewhere, but there will always be people that simply don't play well with others. NOW we're .

[DC]

Should soldiers be desensitised during battle for their own safety?

Yes, they need to kill to do their job, desensitising makes it easier for them to do that, and in my opinion, it's safer for them if they're not freaking out while under fire.

Should defeating the enemy in a certain country be a higher priority then getting aid to locals and rehabilitating them under a new government?

I agree with Tantal here, you gotta defeat the enemy to rehabilitate the local populace.

This has happened in Iraq where America has gone from being liberator to oppressor after the true intentions of the war became clearer i.e. privatisation of Iraqi oil and constant harassment by US soldiers to defend against insurgents.

IMO, the aftermath of the Iraq War was handled badly from the top, furthermore, the reason that troops were first treated as liberators was because they were essentially liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam, the moment he was overthrown, the troops became occupiers.

Should wars be fought using UAVs and fire and forget weapons that are automated and guarantee casualties.

Difficult wording, but what I gather is you're asking if RC weapons should be used in favor of Automated ones. I would agree with that, I think the ultimate end is 'soldiers' being mostly replaced by 'gamers', the troops on the ground being replaced by RC robots, controlled from a bunker far away, each controlled by an individual person.

Should this ever be incorporated in personal arms that fire miniature guided missiles/darts?

My problem with this is that we might end up with soldiers blowing up houses that they suspect are full of terrorists, when in reality it's one enemy and three children. The 'good' thing about current machine guns and rifles is that they have relatively small splash damage, minimising collateral damage.

Should the laws of war be updated to take this into account?

In light of technical advances I suppose so, however, IMO, the ROWs have to updated to deal with terrorists, and to realise that the line between enemy and civilian is now more hazy than ever.