If it is more ethical to bomb countries with indiscriminately killing bombs rather than kill individuals with an axe or a suicide belt, why aren't all countries allowed equal access to the more ethical [and less disciminating] bombs, flechettes, cluster bomblettes and nukes? Isn't it better that everyone has equal opportunity to fight "ethically"?
What???? ...LOL! SAM, take a moment and reword your post. As it is, it's like so much garbage, and it's left up to the respondents to decide what the fuck you're trying to ask! ....LOL! Baron Max
Precisely. which is why all this guff about "ethical warfare" is a pile of crud. If you want to kill someone badly enough, then do it. Don't make a half-assed effort and then look round to see who is going to applaud you for your ethical approach, tolerance and understanding afterward. If you do, these bloody wars are going to keep flaring up like bushfires every twenty years or so. Oh, wait. They already are.
SAM, once you get to the stage where bombs are involved you're generally considerably the beyond the point where people are putting a great deal of consideration into ethical issues. At that point you are a bit preoccupied with killing the enemy before the enemy kills you. Also, what the hell is a bomblette? An explosive is still an explosive, regardless of how much of it you have.
SAM, you are missing the point here. If it gets to the point where you are dropping bombs on people, then obviously someone made the decision that it was time to stop talking and start shooting, i.e., whoever was in charge decided that the ethical considerations had now been superseded by what they decided was more important. Also you never answered my question.
I'd rather use "money" bombs! Just load them up with millions of dollars and drop them on your "enemy" then see what happens. It would cost allot less to drop millions of these "weapons" rather than keep making ones that actually explode.
And what are the choices for those who do not have the bombs? http://www.vietnamgear.com/kit.aspx?kit=511
Their choices are death, or surrender. Seemes like an obvious question to me. You dont win a war fighting fair, real battles are won through strategies and tactics, the last clean war we had was WW1 in the trenches and that got dirty with the advent of chemical weaponry.
Just think a "normal " bomb that is used from a plane can cost upwards to 5 million dollars! Just drop that amount on an enemy instead of actually making a exploding weapon.
Nope. They use their imaginations and come up with a viable alternative. Like flying an airliner into an building their enemy regards as being significant.
So anyone who is invaded by someone and cannot fight back, they should...run away? Unfortunately He can't run away [no legs]. He has no bomb. What should he do?
Paraphasing Erasmus- In War, Truth is the first casualty What is good and evil is defined by power. True power comes from the barrel of a gun/willingness to sacrifice.