Is it ethically wrong to be very knowledgeable about things such as warfare?

>assumes everyone cares about morality
I'm speaking about that will never be involved in war tactics of any kind, why would it be good to pursue knowledge that boils down to how effective you can kill people

people*

>he thinks the rules of nature are beholden to his own moral code

I mean what

so you have a chance of not getting killed?

...

War without tactics is brutal as fuck, more strategy and tactics leads to swifter fights, decisive victories and overall fewer casualties. How prisoners of war and the enemy in general is treated outside of battles has arguably more potential for barbaric practices.

What the fuck. Slap yourself. You're a fucking man aren't you. Fighting is in your blood.

This. I'll say it over and over again. Guy's like Al-Qaeda and ISIS are not soldiers or warriors. They're civilians playing war. When you dehumanize your enemy and rely on adrenaline(Which anyone will tell you is a bad idea in a battle) you're gonna get jacked up. That's why Arab armies have consistently been trashed by western powers in the last 2 centuries.

Western armies also dehumanize the enemy.

>That's why Arab armies have consistently been trashed by western powers in the last 2 centuries.

Don't post if you haven't got a clue. GTFO to with your shitty low IQ

meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

>That's right goy! Fight my wars! How else will you earn respect as a man, and get a wife?

>Typical excuses
>"WE DON'T MAKE WORSE SOLDIERS!"
Did I trigger you? get fucked.

They've done it. They don't do it. It's frowned upon. I think most armies in the modern day don't do it, other than jihadi's

If it is, then I'm fucked because I doubt I can forget everything about it.

spooks

...

>Very knowledgable
>About war.

Shut up. What's the use of firepower in modern conflicts and when was Biddles MS invented?

IIRC, not to the extent ISIS does.

Ever since at least the Romans we've known the simple truth of "He who wishes for peace must prepare for war". I wouldn't just say that it's ethical for anyone who considers himself a statesman to be knowledgeable about warfare but I'd go even further: it'd be UNethical for a leader of men NOT to have any knowledge of warfare.

I strongly believe in the Platonic ideal of leadership: a good leader of men is like a sheep to the sheep, but he is also like a wolf to the wolves.

War is sometimes necessary for the good.

Only if you don't use your knowledge with bad intentions.

> It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.

Based Sun Tzu

When you study your meme books that tell you nappy was very efficient at setting up supply lines, and marching formations from the 1800s what good or bad can it do you.

The most you get out of warfare tactics is fighting with people on the internet or playing tabletop battles.

Even if you have the most brilliant military strategies known to man without an army you're a fly. So how do ethics even come into play, when you ask such a stupid question it's obvious you won't even be in a place to do anything with said knowledge.

'If you know your enemy and you know yourself, you will not fear the result of a hundred battles.' Sunzi said that and he knows a little bit more about warfare than all you suckers. War has already been lifted up to a fucking art form.

Knowledge about warfare, tactics and weapons is important. If this knowledge is lost, the respecte nation will be annihilated. To secure peace and a humane society, we must be the best at the most inhumane and barbaric practice of all: killing, as efficient as possible. This includes knowing as much as possible about past conflicts and the weapons and tactics that have been used and are used today.

Holding onto that knowledge is vital for the survivial of a state and its people, therefore is to be considered ethical. If you know war, you can secure peace.

Because being good at war makes war less devastating