Page 1 of 1
Has Collateral Damage Gone Up Since the 18th Century?

Posted:
Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:18 pm
by unriggable
Has collateral damage gone up since the American Revolution? Some things to consider:
-We now have nuclear weapons and bombs. On the other hand:
-We now have GPS guided missiles.
What do you think?

Posted:
Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:30 pm
by Colaalone

Posted:
Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:33 pm
by hecter
Colaalone, how would you like to join, or become an ally of Spamalot? You could be known as "The Picture Spammer" or something cooler. Whaddya think?

Posted:
Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:51 pm
by Anarchist
yeah its gone way up!
instead of shooting once and reloading, or fighting a war with your sword.
Now we simply bomb a city into oblivion, then wonder why its not a paradise afterwards
Re: Has Collateral Damage Gone Up Since the 18th Century?

Posted:
Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:05 am
by Jenos Ridan
unriggable wrote:Has collateral damage gone up since the American Revolution? Some things to consider:
-We now have nuclear weapons and bombs. On the other hand:
-We now have GPS guided missiles.
What do you think?
The potential, yes. The case-by-case incidents, no.
Higher potential due not only to nukes, but also fighting in urban areas. In the 18th century, armies tended not to fight house to house. It was generally not to their advantage. Also, an artillery barrage tends to hit a wide area and go though other buildings on it's way in. That is changing now with cool stuff like Land Warrior, the NLOS Cannon w/Excalibur shells and Guided MRLS.

Posted:
Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:07 am
by Jenos Ridan
Anarchist wrote:yeah its gone way up!
instead of shooting once and reloading, or fighting a war with your sword.
Now we simply bomb a city into oblivion, then wonder why its not a paradise afterwards
So, if I gave you the choose between a katana and a M-60 GPMG, you'd take the.....?

Posted:
Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:11 am
by Anarchist
in this day and age?
A F2000,
he was asking about collateral damage, not whats most efficient at killing lots of ppl.
A katana is less likely to hit a bystander

Posted:
Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:32 am
by Anarchy Ninja
not to mention wars in the past were more largely concered with 'honour' and the such.
and out of katana and m60 id take the katana

Posted:
Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:37 am
by Anarchist
Honor is something we no longer have, Its sad.
even something as sacred as killing(if life is sacred so is death)
has been degraded to point click kill. With a blade one had to use your force, not that of a machine.
my heart says the sword, though katana would be my second to last choice in style. (Chuttuval)
however today, men have no honor. A Knight would fall in a blaze of bullets, atleast you would have your honor.


Posted:
Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:41 am
by Anarchy Ninja
and required more skill, although proficiency in firearms is required to be succesful today i think a lot more skill was needed in a duel with swords

Posted:
Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:45 am
by Anarchist
alot more sweat and most likely blood too

Posted:
Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:49 am
by unriggable
I meant damage outside the actual target. Collateral damage.

Posted:
Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:04 am
by Guiscard
Its gone up a hell of a lot, we just haven't had a war on the same scale as WWII to test it out.
What about cluster bombs, land mines, missiles hitting the wrong buildings... or our own troops... We've got much more destructive weaponry and we haven't mastered firing it in the right place yet...

Posted:
Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:07 am
by fluffybunnykins
There's no such thing as a battlefield anymore. I'm sure there would have been all sorts of shenanigans 'off the field' (sabotage, espionage, assasination, incitement, insurrection, etc.) in 1066 or whenever but it's all a lot more directed & focussed than 'drop a bomb on it'. However 'smart' a bomb might get, it still goes bang. OK, so it can hit a garage door from 200 miles away... is it only going to damage that one door?
Even if there are purportedly good reasons for bombing another nation (like dislodging a dictator/unstable regime, or whatever) it's still just bullying: "My bomb's bigger/smarter/faster/goes further than you bomb. Nah-nah de-nah-nah"

Posted:
Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:40 am
by MeDeFe
The numbers are steadily on the rise, once dead, always dead. They won't get smaller.

Posted:
Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:39 pm
by Jenos Ridan
Anarchy Ninja wrote:not to mention wars in the past were more largely concered with 'honour' and the such.
and out of katana and m60 id take the katana
And I gun you down, using the superior weapon. Since you were too occupied with having "honor" and a cool weapon, I choosed utility and won.

Posted:
Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:43 pm
by Jenos Ridan
Anarchist wrote:in this day and age?
A F2000,
he was asking about collateral damage, not whats most efficient at killing lots of ppl.
A katana is less likely to hit a bystander
Last I checked, they didn't have the Geneva Conventions in the 1700's. That, and given the missions most armies are sent on these days, nukes will never be deployed. Barring WWIII, of cource

.

Posted:
Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:20 am
by Anarchy Ninja
Jenos Ridan wrote:And I gun you down, using the superior weapon. Since you were too occupied with having "honor" and a cool weapon, I choosed utility and won.
As far as im concered the M60 is not superior, its horribly inacurate and im a ninja

besides do you expect i would face a gun in like a long hallway or something? That would just be stupid.

Posted:
Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:21 am
by Anarchist
Nothing like sneaking up on them in the dark and putting a knife in their spinal cord