Why is Western Civilization generally anti-war now since World War 2...

what about being burned alive by greek fire?

Because with guns there's no human connection. Most of the time in war you will be fighting in distance, usually in a trench or advantageous high ground. There's no close contact, only on rare occasion. There's no true development of altruism. Most people will feel that they are fighting to kill themselves or fighting without a cause.

as if that was a common thing ever

Isn't Napalm banned now?

not in all cases

No one ever really liked war. War is liked only by those who profit from it and from edgy bystanders who never experienced it.

Fuck off with your bait

Vets are usually very proud of having served, I don't know what you are on about.

being proud of having served and liking war are two different things

>warmongering, irrationality and collectivist slavery are foundations and values of Western civilization
Glad we share the same thoughts.

Obviously opinions vary from country to country and person to person, but here for example we got absolutely recked in our last conflict and the general opinion is still "let's try again", even by a lot of vets who blame it on the command.

People are generally disinclined to experience the short and long-term miseries and privations associated with war. They are fine with a relatively short conflicts with goals that they readily agree with.

You can still get trampled, impaled, and tortured to death in the modern age, along with all the wondrous implements we have presently conceived.

Modern war lasts longer, and is more lethal. You can die from anything at anytime, praying in your foxhole that you somehow live.

Medieval war was terrifying, but not on the level that it is today. Today you are always shitting your pants, there is a threat of taking fire any moment. A battle happens every six months or so in the medieval/ancient era, it happens daily in a conflict like WW2 or Vietnam.

Back then when you fought for your country you were actually awarded with something and gained some more territory for you and your people to live.

What reason is there for me to fight for my country now? Only the state gets to enjoy any of the benefits even if we win.

Let me guess... Germany.

Either that or some other tribalistic shithole

Point being that even people who have been knee deep in the death don't necessarily hate it, and it isn't always outsiders who glorify it.

Nope. There is nothing stopping NATO countries from using Nape, flamethrowers, or Willie Pete, there just hasn't been much need for it in the last
40 years because technology has advanced so far. Which is easier, sending a platoon with a flamethrower in to dig out an enemy, or dropping a bunker buster from 30,000 feet?

Armies are very conscious of human costs in modern warfare, especially after Vietnam. Nobody wants to be the next Westmoreland and have their name associated with thousands of black bags being loaded onto choppers.
I liked war. It's awful, dirty, fucked up and terrifying, but the world made sense to me. Do your job and be better than the enemy, and you'll fucking kill him. Fuck up and die. There was a perverse sense of peace that I felt being in conflict. I also liked the rush of a fight. Never experience that ever again, and I'm glad for it, but I miss it.
>inb4 muh nostalgia
I felt this way a week after I came home from my first deployment, it's not rose tinted glasses.
There's a school of thought that believes it's easier to kill when your life is in immidieatly identifiable danger, i.e. someone trying to bury an axe in your skull. Shooting someone 300 meters away that's shooting back in your general direction is thought to make people question what they're doing more often. I only have experience with the latter, and it never felt like a great mystery to me, but just some food for thought.

>Shooting someone 300 meters away that's shooting back in your general direction is thought to make people question what they're doing more often. I only have experience with the latter, and it never felt like a great mystery to me

If you served in the US army (or any modern army really I'd assume) you've been partially conditioned to not feel the immediate kick-back from killing from afar.

back in the day no one could really report shit effectively so people would end up believing some bullshit that someone spouted. now you try to have a nice quiet war and everyone's filming it with their phones.

probably it was either printing press or radio that would have killed it but further advancements have made sure of the job.

Basic Training. Before BT, maybe one in twenty soldiers would shoot with intent to kill. BT pushed that up to one in two, IIRC.

So perhaps before BT, people were less likely to get PTSD, since they were less likely to do something that would traumatize them without immediately realizing it.

You are fooling yourself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts

Yes. We don't often have literal hills of bodies or rivers of blood or ravening pests in the midst of modern combat. That was NORMAL up to Franco-Prussian War.

And we'll never know the figures for 'friendly stabbing' incidents.

Because of the invention of the nuclear bomb.

War used to be a pretty insignificant thing where a few thousand people would die and maybe your town would have a different flag flying over the mayor's office. Now, there's a decent risk of the apocalypse any time major powers clash.

It's actually quite disturbing to think about IMO. And one of the reasons war is not so romanticized anymore, we live in a highly industrialized society and there is no escaping that feeling that everything and everyone are just cogs in a machine. The fact that modern governments that operate like soulless machines treat their soldiers in that exact same manner definitely doesn't help at all, or it does, depending on what your view is.

Not really, nuclear deterrent is a theory that has mostly worked due to literal memetics, but people are paranoid about it regardless. Either way, I think any deterrent nuclear weapons create will be null if we ever get off the planet.
I think that if conflict hasn't naturally made a comeback by then, it will definitely come back after we have multiple planets to spare.

Burger please, you sitting at base playing CoD and occasionaly flying over desert with drone isn't "war"

I'm talking about systematic glorifying of war, not the couple of shitheads that still sort of get away with starting them.

Because Anegrica wants a weak, dependant Europe to keep their hegemony and place as "the face of the West".

Nuclear weapons.

Doomsday Clock.

>It's actually quite disturbing to think about IMO. And one of the reasons war is not so romanticized anymore, we live in a highly industrialized society and there is no escaping that feeling that everything and everyone are just cogs in a machine. The fact that modern governments that operate like soulless machines treat their soldiers in that exact same manner definitely doesn't help at all, or it does, depending on what your view is.

It gets worse when I think about it for even one second more.

Because that's how WAR SHOULD BE. We need a better way to help those injured.

If your goal is just to win I guess yeah, it's what's more rational, but there's no rational behind having any sort of humanity in any way, so I've never liked to defend that idea.

Oh I know, it just never kept me up at night. I shot a guy through the cheek at like 10 feet once and my immediate reaction was
>Damn, smoked that motherfucker
He broke cover and didn't know I was off to his side, scared the shit out of me because I didn't know he had moved that close. Perhaps that's a good example of the "immediate danger" I was talking about.

Another thing about shooting at someone at a distance is that you're not the only one shooting at them, so it's hard to tell who killed who unless they're obviously torn up from a .50 or something. I imagine it's fairly easy to brush it off, if killing bothers you, as not having been the one that actually killed the enemy.

Out of 2 deployments and a LOT of firefights, I can only claim to have killed 3 people. Is it a higher number than that? Probably, but I can't say for sure.
[citation needed]

That sounds like Marshall's psuedo science research (or more contemporary Grossman's "On Killing," which used Marshall's research as it's main source) which has been debunked thoroughly. In my experience it's something like 99% of modern combat arms aim to kill when shooting. In 2 years of fighting I only saw one guy bitch up in a firefight, and that's a harsh term seeing as how he got his face creased a few minutes before losing his shit. That's purely anecdotal though.

A*erican are among the most brainwashed people on Earth, like g*rmans in WW2. So of course they feel proud

Oh I know, it just never kept me up at night. I shot a guy through the cheek at like 10 feet once and my immediate reaction was
>Damn, smoked that motherfucker

I'm not a psychologist or anything, but idk, maybe the conscious knowledge that the other guy is trying to kill you was enough. Perphaps nowadays we're more naturalized to the idea of guns or something.

>Another thing about shooting at someone at a distance is that you're not the only one shooting at them, so it's hard to tell who killed who

That's partially what the research the other user was talking about suggest. Do remember the original study is from the volley fire era, where people were packed closely together, and aiming was in fact a lot harder, and also from a time where a lot of soldiers were conscripts, not professionals.

It was Diablo II set up on LAN shitlord, don't assume my vidya preferences. We were fucking cracked out on that shit hardcore. Second deployment was a lot of Dawn of War I&II and Mountain Blade (original)

We had a drone on the 2nd deployment, it fucking sucked and the operator bitched about it constantly. We were doing a lot of foot patrols and he had to carry that mother fucker in a pack in addition to the rest of his shit. It wasn't very good for distance either.
>A*erican are among the most brainwashed people on Earth, like g*rmans in WW2. So of course they feel proud
Read his post again, $20 says he's a Bong.

I don't disagree with you though, the military is basically a cult.

Yeah, that's Marshall's study, and it's highly contentious. He had the right ideas, as does Grossman, but the way the research was done is sketchy at best. I wouldn't use it as a source for an argument or discussion.

Grossman is way up his own ass too, which annoys and grinds. He's one of those officers who thinks he's a warrior-scholar, despite never having served in a conflict.

Mediterranean countries and their spawn are a lot more nationalistic and a lot more willing to be belligerent irresponsibly.

>got his face creased
What did he mean by this?

Well yeah but no one goes into war with that mentality. It's way more terrifying to fight with guns than with melee weapons because at least with melee weapons you generally know when someone is going to kill you and when someone isn't. If you're an ancient soldier and you can't see or hear an enemy, you have a high chance of being safe, and you can relax. A modern soldier can be killed at any time without even knowing that an enemy is nearby. You are tense literally 100% of the time. That has to be extremely taxing.

>Either way, I think any deterrent nuclear weapons create will be null if we ever get off the planet.
We wont ever get off the planet if we dont manage to eliminate war. You can't have war in space

You know arrows existed

Explain yourself.

There is no way do defend yourself in space.
For two ships to meet in the orbit, they must be at the same place, in same time with same speed and direction. If you wanna destroy that ship, you only need something to be there at the same place and time, and the difference in speed will do the destroying.
There isn't really any initiative to set up incredibly expensive space infrastructure when it could be destroyed by an enemy power anytime.

Bongs are brainwashed too but the difference is that they don't count as people.

>There is no way do defend yourself in space. For two ships to meet in the orbit, they must be at the same place, in same time with same speed and direction.

Assuming war does go on in orbit, it'd probably be more akin to modern naval or air warfare, AKA "there's a bright dot on the horizon and OH GOD I'M DEAD"
But I would think that initially you'd just have ground-based warfare, and maybe a couple of missiles flying around. When major powers engage, there tends to be either certain courtesy rules, or just things that neither side wants to do.

You don't destroy a railway in WW1, for example, you take it for yourself, otherwise you are fucked, and that's even with a state of total war where everything goes and all rules of engagement were thrown out the window.

>There isn't really any initiative to set up incredibly expensive space infrastructure when it could be destroyed by an enemy power anytime.

But that's really the same as always. Besides, you don't need to go to war to do that, a single madman with a bomb can cause serious damage to a space structure, if we never start building stuff because we're afraid of that, then we're never getting out full stop.

You obviously don't know how they worked in combat.
We will find a way, rest assured. Man consistently perseveres to find new and exciting ways to kill on another, no matter the battle space.
Bongs are some of the fiercest and professional soldiers I've ever had the pleasure of working with. They're efficient, have superb bants, and will literally jump off a roof to stab you in the face because you made them mad.

Australians and Norwegians are fucking savages, but they fight like rabid bears. Germans are some of the politest soldiers on the planet, but they're cautious to the point of annoyance.

The advent of the atomic bomb, and how cruel we can truly be, changed our perspective of ourselves. We didn't realize how truly evil we could be to each other, but the depths of humanity got exposed during WWII and it is a psychological point of no return for our American ideals of "liberty, freedom, democracy, etc". We betrayed all of those in the span of a few years, and some of us even sympathized with genocide for a time. We scared ourselves.

Lets imagine we are mining heilum3 from moon and bringing it back to earth.
In case of a war, it would be much easier for a war party to destroy enemies helium3 transporter(right place right time) than to take it (right place, right time, speed and direction). So even if you manage to take the transporter, nothing prevents your enemy from simply destroying it

>Besides, you don't need to go to war to do that, a single madman with a bomb can cause serious damage to a space structure
Exactly, so not only do you need to prevent all wars, you need to prevent terrorism aswell. That's why I believe real space expansion is only possible once we have a one world government

>They're efficient, have superb bants, and will literally jump off a roof to stab you in the face because you made them mad.
Literally uncivilized savages

Ancient war and modern war is apples and motorbikes.

>tribalistic shithole

aka Earth

An easy solution for your example is, for example, have the transport go on an erratic unpredictable course, and land somewhere in the ocean, if that's really necessary.
But outer space fighting and interplanetary shipping of material implies that we're quite advanced in space exploration already. Early on we'd not have the capacity for neither, every outpost would probably be very independent and likely be kept out of the conflicts, kind of like the African colonies in both WWs, or even America very early on.

And if we do assume that we're very advanced in space exploration, then chances are we've already developed countermeasures and tactics to deal with space warfare, you can shoot down a missile coming towards you for the same reason a transport is easy to intercept in space, it's gotta follow a very specific path in order to reach it's target, and things like laser are only really effective from up close, which requires you to get close.

Warfare of any kind in space is hard, very hard, we'd need very brilliant military leaders in order to lead it effectively, if at all, chances are fighting between celestial bodies will remain scarce, aside from maybe shipping lane attacks, but defending is always easier than attacking, even in this context.

I do believe a one world government run by the lizard people would speed matters along, primary to avoid things like who gets to built their structures around the equator of the planet or something, but I don't think it's a pre-requisit.

>erratic unpredictable course
>In space
Top jej

Because war is hardcore

>An easy solution for your example is, for example, have the transport go on an erratic unpredictable course, and land somewhere in the ocean, if that's really necessary.
I doub this would work, since
a) there is no way to hide in space, your ship will always empit heat
b) a cargo ship will be by necessity less maneuverable than a rocket designed to destroy cargo ships

>every outpost would probably be very independent and likely be kept out of the conflicts, kind of like the African colonies in both WWs
Those colonies were still used to ship resources to the old world. Without resources, the only incentive to build a colony is to do science

Other than cargo ships, you have satellites, of course, which provide intelligence and communication to the enemy. If a real war broke out between USA and China + Russia right now, I think the first thing that would happen is each side destroying the satellites of the enemy.

I meant one that wasn't following a literally mathematically perfect route that anyone could calculate, not zipping around.

>Without resources, the only incentive to build a colony is to do science

Exactly the reason nobody is really rushing to built them, it is an extremely long time invesment, and a very risky one, the only true incentive is humanitarian really.

> If a real war broke out between USA and China + Russia right now, I think the first thing that would happen is each side destroying the satellites of the enemy.

True, and they're easy to destroy, relatively speaking, and yet there they are. Wars between major powers are definitely not going to back to just being done every other week like it was during the time of empires, even if you don't have the fear of nukes anymore, just due to how expensive they are. But I do thing they could become somewhat plausible from time to time, unlike now where it seems everyone is in a permanent lock-down, just fighting proxy wars.

Thanks, good audiobook to listen to while I play Age of Empires 2.

No you don't. You need to intercept them of course but you can do it while being in a different orbit and/or going in a different direction. Time window when you can shoot at them will be short, but same is true for them.
Furthermore, a lot depends on the space body where the combat happens, because of different gravity and other things.
>it can be destroyed
Everything can be destroyed. Doesn't mean it will be destroyed.
Space warfare is quite possible and we have good ideas on how it will look like (using contemporary or near future technology).

Also, there's shitload of ways to defend yourself in space. Manouvering to avoid combat, armoring your ships, missile defenses, and so on.

Green revolution was more important than nuclear weapons in reducing the number and deadliness of military conflicts. Most wars were waged in order to acquire new territories, but green revolution made territorial expansion practically meaningless. Globalization also played a substantial role.

Territory wasn't important for the UK who controlled like 40% of the world in the mid XX century, it's the resources in said territory countries want. The only difference between now and then is that now you don't put a British guy to govern over your territories in Irak, you put an Iraki guy that rules for you.

War... war never changes

Its full of white people, white people are pussies.

War was previously never able to outright destroy us

>You can't have war in space
Sure you can. You can use space rail guns to hurl rocks at each other with enough force to destroy continents.

>Most wars were waged in order to acquire new territories, but green revolution made territorial expansion practically meaningless.

What about right of conquest?

Yeah, it does. Frequently and dramatically.

That isn't what the lines means. It's saying that we still fight wars for the same reasons even if we dress it up differently.

The fact that war has become so destructive is the whole reason we're having this North Korea discussion today. If this was 100 years ago, we would just send in an army and topple them, we would've done it decades ago. But now even a shitty rogue state is capable of threatening its neighbors.

Because war is dumb and senseless. We know better now.

Of course it does, but the men who fight it are still the same.

You know how in WWII airmen would write smart ass sayings on bombs? Things like
>Happy Easter Adolf!
Or more recently
>Hijack this Fags!

Well, here's a picture of a sling bullet found in Greece dated to the Classical period. It has an inscription on it that roughly translates to
>Take that!

This is a perfect example of what we're discussing. War changes, drastically. But from sling bullets, to 500lbs air dropped bombs, to 2000lbs laser guided JDAMs, soldiers still want to talk a little shit right up to the end. War changes, sure, but men don't.

The media blows issues such as NK way overboard, if the US or NATO wanted to, they could just go there and bumfuck NK into oblivion, the actual issue is China standing behind them.

Only in countries that signed the Geneva conventions (not Russia or USA)

Deterrent will only get worse once we leave the planet. If have the ability to launch a significant amount of mass into deep space, you have the ability to rkkv a planet with near impunity. Space warfare will likely boil down massive stand offs and localized conflicts.

Nah, the actual issue that NK could flatten one of the biggest nodes of global economy within half an hour of US getting there.

>US goes war mode
>China/Russia responds to US aggression
>EU responds to Russia aggression
>India responds to China aggression
>Pakistan responds to India aggression
>Afghan/Iran/Iraq/Saudi/etc responds to aggression
>Israel responds to arab aggression
>Egypt/Turkey responds to Israel aggression
>Balkans responds to Turkey aggression
One minor agitation lights up the entire world into a ball of fire in under 1 hour, the whole civilization is destroy.

Because while those weapons can do awful things to a person, we are psychologically equipped to handle them. There's a clear cause and effect that we can comprehend
>That guy swung a mace
>Now that other guys head is fucked up

Easy.

In contrast, modern warfare is on a scale that we can't process. Intellectually we understand it, but the animal side of our brain freaks the fuck out at the thought of lethal threats that it can't see the immediate cause of. There's a reason PTSD was initially called shell shock; we aren't able to rationalize an environment where out of nowhere the world might explode and there's shit all you can do to stop it

>Yes. We don't often have literal hills of bodies or rivers of blood or ravening pests in the midst of modern combat.
Game of thrones should not be used as source material.

Western civilization stopped existing after WW1, it died. Imagine digging up a corpse of some lady and pretending she's still alive, pretending she's still moving, pretending the smell of rot is the same beautiful fragrance the woman had when she was still alive. That's the current state of western civilization. Then when someone points out the fact it's dead and rotten you will go full retard and act like being dead and rotten is something inherent to western civilization and we should cherish the rot.

European civilization stopped existing after WW1
Western civilization stopped existing after Hiroshima and Nagasaki

anyways, your analogy user...man
>although we dress her with new colorful clothes every day she still rots

mind explaining, or is just /pol/ gibberish?

Despite the memes, war is not profitable, often even if you win.

user's analogy is peculiar but rather interesting.
i saw this term in a book once, that the Great War was the "Suicide of Europe"
>you can't recover from your suicide

WW1 was an extremely traumatic event for Europe which ended 2000+ years of established tradition. For comparison America wasn't hurt that hard by WW1 so Americans are still generally pro-war. Likewise, the Spanish Flu hitting America is why Americans are so paranoid about hygiene, medicine, healthcare and sex.

The issue is more that if we do something, they'll destroy Seoul before we stop them.

Because anybody can be a soldier and kill with efficiency nowadays. Back then being a soldier was tough and took a lot of training and mastery of their weapons and were expensive to maintain. But now any peasant farmer can easily learn to use a machine gun and mow down hundreds.

Look at the Boston War or even more relevant, the Satsuma Rebellion, an army made of pretty much peasents defeated a bunch of Samurais who trained for much of their life in the art of war.

we got too good at it

Because most wars are fought for nigger tier reasons and wars started to affect everyone.

How pleb can you get user?

I wont judge you for being a felon

My only felony is being too cool.

That too has changed.