ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, October 19, 2019

Science fiction ethics

I'm trying to think of a less useful, more intrinsically irrelevant concept than utilizing science fiction as a lens with which to consider the ethics of war....
Generally, three families of theories about the ethics of war have some credibility or prestige within modern liberal democracies. We can question whether the third is technically an ethical theory, but it plays the same role, and I think it does contain at least a residual ethical element:

  • Pacifist theories, which, with limited exceptions and variations, rule out acts of violence.
  • Just war theories.
  • International relations realist (or simply "realist") theories of war. These are basically theories of enlightened self-interest.

Before going further, it’s important to note that there are other approaches that now lack credibility among thoughtful people in liberal democracies. These approaches emphasize such things as empire, personal and national glory, spreading religion or ideology, the idea of war as a kind of adventure or grand game, or as character building, and so on. A whole range of such approaches were once popular, but are now commonly viewed with disdain.

Historically, that is a recent development. These approaches to war lost credibility as a result of the horror of trench warfare in World War I, the immense destructiveness of the atomic bombs used in World War II, and the hydrogen bombs developed soon after, and doubtless other historical developments. But at least until World War I, these older ideas had great currency.

Prior to that time, few narratives of future wars included warnings against the horrors of war as such, or against the horrors of a future form of war. Where they expressed warnings, as they often did, it was usually against geopolitical and military vulnerability, as with “The Battle of Dorking”, a novella by G.T. Chesney (1871), and, in the Australian context, The Yellow Wave by Kenneth Mackay (1895). The great exception here is The War in the Air by H.G. Wells (1908), which I’ll return to in more detail.
The article is not entirely uninteresting for anyone who is interested in military history or strategy. But the idea that science fiction offers anything - anything at all - to say on the subject is objectively risible. And this intrinsic irrelevance is underlined by the way that the opinions of "thoughtful people in liberal democracies" are meaningful, let alone definitive.

Labels: ,

63 Comments:

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer October 19, 2019 11:43 AM  

opinions of "thoughtful people in liberal democracies"

= people who are like me

Blogger Maorio October 19, 2019 11:54 AM  

I just finished B. V. Larsons "undying mercenaries" series. with that book in mind, the article made me chuckle quite a bit.

"A whole range of such approaches were once popular, but are now commonly viewed with disdain."
I find them of interest still, as most stories have to have an interesting character to develop and follow

Blogger RobertDWood October 19, 2019 11:59 AM  

There is certainly one profound science fiction insight:

There will be war.

Blogger Ferdinand October 19, 2019 12:28 PM  

Ideologues pushing for systems of eternal peace almost always cause giant, viciously fought wars.

Blogger Ray - SoCal October 19, 2019 12:31 PM  

From reading this, I wonder if the linked author read the series “there will be war”

Blogger Pseudotsuga October 19, 2019 12:32 PM  

Orson Scott Card, author of Ender's Game (and noted frontrunner on certain SJW doctrinal points) was uninvited to this little shindig?

Blogger Barbarossa October 19, 2019 12:33 PM  

To paraphrase Trotsky...you may not be interested in approaches to war that have lost credibility with thoughtful people in liberal democracies, but those approaches to war certainly have not lost interest in you.

As one of my professors at the war college told me, you can pretty much start and end all analyses of war with Thucydides' big three: Fear, honor, interest.

Blogger Weak October 19, 2019 1:02 PM  

I admire the author's confidence to plow ahead with this article despite knowing nothing about the subject. This is fake it till you make it turned up to 11.

Blogger dienw October 19, 2019 1:06 PM  

I love the term ethics. Modern, irreligious man has used it so often that he thinks it means moral; it doesn't; ethics derive the motivating spirit of a community, organization, nation, and empire; even a global government; let's include even race. The Australian aborigine's ethical war is not the same as that of the Arabian Moslem's; now, who is to say which is ethically superior; that issue is determined by knowledge of the objective moral universe, not ethics.

Liberal democracy's ethics of war have to weigh the ethics of its enemy.

Blogger Rick October 19, 2019 1:18 PM  

Yes, backwards.
When Hemingway wrote about war, the war was as background, circumstances, or catalyst — for what it did to this person or that person. He thought war was the best subject because it was “life sped up.” He drew the characters from real life, not the other way around.

Blogger Joe Smith October 19, 2019 1:43 PM  

It's worthwhile, when approaching a new subject, preliminarily assuming the exact opposite of what "thoughtful people in liberal democracies" believe about almost anything is true.

Blogger Doktor Jeep October 19, 2019 2:01 PM  

I have pondered often of Tolkien and his concept of "machine" in war. His stories had war machines but he implied more than just devices afoot. More like mentality.
Considering how most of his childhood friends died in WWI and he was in the first war to see use of these machine guns, people who would use them, and then ultimately the tanks, lends insight to his meaning.
I wonder if the concept of "war machine" that embodies also propaganda and industry came about because of Tolkien.

Blogger Johnny October 19, 2019 2:10 PM  

I am in the enlightened self-interest camp and that is not going to change.

Like it or not, fiction has long been a way to reach out to people who are never going to read the more heavy duty stuff. Science fiction, just a subset of fiction generally.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 19, 2019 2:17 PM  

"lack credibility among thoughtful people in liberal democracies."

"Lack orthodoxy with slavish puppets in antithiestic oligarchies."

There we go.

Blogger Rakshasa October 19, 2019 2:21 PM  

If Sunlight Tzundere published her theories as a they applied to a post-singularity world would they not still be pertinent?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 19, 2019 2:24 PM  

"as a they applied to a post-singularity world would they not still be pertinent?"

Are you joking or do you just not know what your words mean, and that they are oxymoronic?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 19, 2019 2:25 PM  

The whole point of the concept of singularity is that no predictions whatsoever can be made of what lies on the other side.

Blogger Nate73 October 19, 2019 2:27 PM  

I've been reading John Julius Norwich's "The Other Conquest", about the Norman takeover of southern Italy and Sicily. One striking thing that comes up repeatedly is how the Normans simply outmatched everyone in strength, discipline, and courage. Whether it was the Battle of Civitate or siege of Greek Bari or the numerous battles in Sicily against literal hordes of muslims... they often won *severely* outnumbered, outgunned, out everything.

It's hard to look at a meat grinder like WWI and not see modern war as frankly dysgenic. It's a miracle smart capable people like Tolkien survived while many did not, because at least in medieval warfare the stronger side often won. Now it's almost like a bunch of people randomly get killed with machine guns and bombs irrespective of their individual ability or courage, and the result is a brain drain on the country.


==============================
Dextera Domini fecit virtutem. Dextera Domini exaltavit me. (The right hand of God gave me courage. The right hand of God raised me up) – The inscription on Roger's shield following his victory at Cerami (Quoted from The Normans in Sicily by John Julius Norwich)

Blogger maniacprovost October 19, 2019 2:27 PM  

ethics. Modern, irreligious man has used it so often that he thinks it means moral; it doesn't; ethics derive the motivating spirit of a community, organization, nation, and empire

But but you can't get is from ought so all ethics are illegitimate.

Checkmate, enlightenment.

Blogger Jim October 19, 2019 2:32 PM  

All I know is American war ethics were better when we would celebrate murdering our enemies on Christmas while they slept.

Blogger WillBound October 19, 2019 2:33 PM  

"The Battle of Dorking"? Well, I live quite near Dorking, which is on the North Downs and therefore a natural place to stop an enemy invasion coming from the South Coast. Partly as a result of the fears raised by the book's publication, a fort and quite a few bunkers were built in the 1880s on the Downs. These fortifications can still be seen. though by that time I think we were more afraid of a French invasion than a German one.

Blogger Rakshasa October 19, 2019 2:35 PM  

From the point of view of ST the non-anime character we live a couple of singularities beyond them.

Still I might just be making oxycontinental points, you decide.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 19, 2019 2:46 PM  

So you don't know what your words mean.

Yet you still speak.

Blogger dienw October 19, 2019 3:04 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:The whole point of the concept of singularity is that no predictions whatsoever can be made of what lies on the other side.

Thank you for that insight. That illuminates why the elites and their mouthpieces talk so much about the singularity despite it always being coupled with human-androids and android-humans.

Blogger Doktor Jeep October 19, 2019 3:11 PM  

Yes modern war is dysgenic. It's also something else: a result of Democracy.
If a nation votes for warmongers or conquistadors then it's fully justified to carpet bomb or nuke cities full of voters.
Drafting every young man and sending them into a meat grinder is also a product of this total war.
Look at how flipped everything is. Used to be that kingdoms fought and for most of the time left non combatants alone. Sure there was crop burning and rape and those things were frowned on and remarkable. The chivalric code was created to keep warriors from going total Genghis. Total destruction and megadeath were not objectives.
Note also that such wars were "brother wars" on the continent of white and Western Civilization. But when dealing now with actual subhumans in shitholes we have to wear kid gloves and have rules of engagement...then let them come flocking into the west.
All planned, all controlled.
Were it all goes I do not know.

Blogger OldFan October 19, 2019 3:11 PM  

Note that the author has identified the current view of war as:
a) A recent development
b) A western phenomenon
c) A reaction to specific historical events.
I think that it is very possible that other views of warfare may be held by civilizations currently on this planet and they will come as a stunning surprise to any who see their ideals as Holy Writ.

SF has done this well, if you have read S.M. Stirling's DRAKA series and several newly-minted versions of the old BOLO series. They all concern enemies with similar technologies but radically different philosophies and have rather bad outcomes.

Consider this: the last 4 major wars we engaged in were largely against enemies who mirrored many of our ideals (not the Japanese, however). But what will happen when we face someone who does not - and has comparable resources.

Blogger Marlon McAvoy October 19, 2019 3:17 PM  

Larry Niven's the man for this job. Kzinti AND Puppeteers, two great takes on alien ethics. For one, cowardice is morality. For the other...“Louis Wu, I found your challenge verbose. In challenging a kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap.“

Blogger God Emperor Memes October 19, 2019 3:19 PM  

During WWII, the best, bravest, most loyal of young Maori men went to fight for King and Country. They would have been the hereditary future leaders of their people; what was left behind were the low caste Maoris - trouble makers and manipulators.

Blogger Adlow October 19, 2019 3:25 PM  

The ethics of war are relevant to science fiction precisely because they are effectively part of strategy, especially grand strategy. To the examples he gave you could add:
-Napoleon vs. 18th-century armies
-Russian vs. American counterinsurgency
-Muslims during the early conquests vs. after they were established
-The Mongols vs. just about anyone else

Dune is arguably more about competing ethics than it is about competing strategies.

It doesn't tell you what's right to do in war, but ethics and morality aren't exactly the same thing.

Blogger bierhausser October 19, 2019 3:31 PM  

Has the Just War Theory, Doctrine, and Tradition become Obsolete?
By
James E. Sullivan
10/1/2019
The Just War Theory, Doctrine, and Tradition has evolved around the world for centuries. The classic Just War Theory has its origins in Christian theology. Saint Augustine (354-430) is usually identified as the first individual to offer a description of how wars are allowed to be fought as a moral means to amend wrongdoing by another state. Saint Thomas Aquinas revised Augustine’s version, creating three criteria for a just war to occur: The war needed to be waged by a legitimate authority, have a just cause and have the right intentions. The moral justifications for a war to exist are expressed as Jus Ad Bellum. The moral justifications of war are expressed as Jus In Bello. The after effects of the war are termed Jus Post Bellum. Just War Theory, Doctrine, and Tradition has become obsolete and needs a radical re-examination of its dictates to conform to 21st Century forms of warfare that are currently taking place around the world.
During St. Augustine’s times and beyond all of these codes were followed. In the 21st Century, Just War Theory has become obsolete with the use of Drone warfare, targeted assassinations, and counter-insurgency wars by non-state actors as well as using children as soldiers and female suicide bombers. Even beyond the use of Atomic Bombs on civilians as happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and chemical warfare on civilians have made any aspects of Just War Theory obsolete. I will argue that the Just War Theory needs to be either amended to address these new additions to these new and dangerously evolving threats, both technical and philosophically. I call for a re-examination of the ethical, legal and moral status that the Just War Theory, Doctrine, and Tradition was formulated upon at the time when St. Augustine wrote it in his lifetime. Or consider the Just War Theory, Doctrine and Tradition, obsolete.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 19, 2019 3:34 PM  

"That illuminates why the elites and their mouthpieces talk so much about the singularity despite it always being coupled with human-androids and android-humans."

Anything past a hypothetical technological singularity is pure fantasy with sci-fi trappings.

An atheist's assumed path to paradise.

Blogger lions paw October 19, 2019 3:35 PM  

"Ethics of War"

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their ________ ?

Blogger Brett baker October 19, 2019 3:45 PM  

Semi-exclusive economic zone?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 19, 2019 3:48 PM  

The humandroid thing is about eliminating human imperfection. This is just a different perspective of creating their own gods, so it's an idolatry thing too. Either they realize evolution isn't working, or think that it's too slow for their tastes (they'll be dead), so they place their hope in technology they don't understand.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 19, 2019 3:53 PM  

"All planned, all controlled.
Were it all goes I do not know."


Satan wants to kill, steal from, and destroy us.

(((They))) just want to steal, but being divorced from God doesn't mean they are free, it means they serve a different master. The wishes of their master will be done through them, whether or not they know them.

Blogger Johnny October 19, 2019 3:57 PM  

If being some one way would always produce good outcomes, we would all be that way. The problem with being totally ruthless, with having no moral restraints (something that is sometimes promoted here), is that it invites the warriors turning on each other. That is why having a moral compass is so important. If it is adhered to, at least to an extent, it reduces the tendency the warriors have on turning on each other.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 19, 2019 4:02 PM  

"In the 21st Century, Just War Theory has become obsolete with the use of Drone warfare, targeted assassinations, and counter-insurgency wars by non-state actors as well as using children as soldiers and female suicide bombers."

Something isn't obsolete just because people don't use it. It's obsolete when it's pointless. That's like saying the rifle is obsolete just because most people don't go hunting or snipe enemies.


Just war theory isn't obsolete. The writer is either an idiot or a malicious liar. Since he knows the basic concepts of the theory, and his statement consists mostly of re-stating "Just War Theory is obsolete" over and over again with a complete lack of either pertinent evidence or logic, it's safe to assume the latter.

Blogger bodenlose Schweinerei October 19, 2019 4:09 PM  

thoughtful people in liberal democracies

AKA worthless debating society faggots who hand over their lunch money to anyone who looks at them too long. Why don't y'all just put on skirts and swish around for us?

His "speech" is, to the shock of no one, virtually content-free and makes not a single point of any consequence, good or bad.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 19, 2019 4:10 PM  

"If being some one way would always produce good outcomes, we would all be that way."

People aren't perfect/aren't rational actors/lack self-control. So, obviously untrue.

"The problem with being totally ruthless, with having no moral restraints (something that is sometimes promoted here)"

That's a straight lie.

"That is why having a moral compass is so important."

No, and we're not talking about having a moral compass anyway. The topic is about fake moral compasses, and how incredibly plastic some of them are in every sense.

Blogger Cataline Sergius October 19, 2019 4:11 PM  

I'm trying to think of a less useful, more intrinsically irrelevant concept than utilizing science fiction as a lens with which to consider the ethics of war.

I'm not sure war has ethics so much as it has fashions.

Seventy years ago deliberately targeting civilian populations was quite ethical.

It was also effective.

In 1941 Japan had the most warlike culture on Earth. Three years and ten months later they discovered they were total pacifists.

Blogger Toris October 19, 2019 4:23 PM  

War bad, peace good. I don't understand the concern over our builders of perpetual peace. It's simply an abundance of love for the peasantry driving them on. They love and idolise the peasantry so much they even pretend to be of the peasantry. Perhaps self-made types like former ambassador Cynthia Schneider at Peace Research Endowment (along with other self-made, scrambling for a nickel go-getters like Abigail Disney). Pure merit. Dad might've been a trustee of Carnegie Endowment for Peace, etc., but she still managed to make it all on her own. Mum marrying Nick Doman? Coincidence. Actually Nick Doman had lots of wonderful ideas about World Peace himself way back in 1942. I can't understand why they aren't widely known:

"Control of Force, Key to World Order.

… Theoretically it is desirable that a popular majority of the human race should agree on fundamentals of the new world order, but we should have to wait until doomsday for that desideratum. Coercion has always been an element of social control and there is no reason to think it will disappear after this war.

...At its outset at least, world control, like nation-State control, does not require convinced approval of the majority of the people, but it must have control of the machinery of force.

… Highly industrialised regions, the populations of which are out of sympathy with the new system, must be watched with care. Consideration may even be given to removing of industry to locations held to be more conducive to a peace enforced by the supernational authority. It is not inconceivable that the Nazi technique of enforced migration may be employed to stabilise world order and to enhance security."

Blogger tublecane October 19, 2019 4:32 PM  

Strange are the mental contortions involved in pretending the Imperial Gentleman Adventurer mindset is somehow less ethical than the Modern Liberal New World Order or whatever you call it-type. Even if you hold the former more responsible than the latter for WWI, want *definitely* got more horrible under liberal control in the 20th century. No bout a doubt it.

Those Future War books from before the Great War--which allegedly changed everyone's mind about the horrors of war but actually didn't (it didn't even
Deter a second world war from happening shortly thereafter)--could just as easily be interpreted as naive saber-rattling preparedness screeds. I enjoy them, because it's fun to see what frightened great-great-grandpa. Not quite so far-fetched as what frightened environmentalists in the 70s, though.

Blogger Hammerli 280 October 19, 2019 4:39 PM  

Vox, I think I'm going to have to disagree. Unless I'm mistaken in my reading.

SF is a vehicle for communication. It's a McGuffin, a way to put the characters into a situation. And sometimes, a way to ask questions or make a point. So it can be used to make points about war ethics...as well as a lot of other things.

I'll agree that SF does not have anything to say, of itself, about ANYTHING. It's a vehicle, nothing more.

Blogger joke10 October 19, 2019 5:00 PM  

To leap platonism in a single bound

Blogger Cataline Sergius October 19, 2019 6:00 PM  

Prior to that time, few narratives of future wars included warnings against the horrors of war as such, or against the horrors of a future form of war. Where they expressed warnings, as they often did, it was usually against geopolitical and military vulnerability, as with “The Battle of Dorking”, a novella by G.T. Chesney

Chesney doesn't get the credit he deserves for having inspired one of the most famous tropes in Science Fiction.

The Battle of Dorking started off a cycle of invasion stories. They were quite the thing for a while although most are about as well read today as the Battle Dorking itself (Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,329,088 Paid in Kindle Store). However there was one Dorking ripoff that has stood the test of time.

War of the Worlds by H. G. Wells.

Wells really didn’t come up with anything too original here. He stole like an artist. He took the Invasion trope and slapped it together with rabid public interest in Lowell’s Martian Canals and created a new genre.

Honestly, the man gets more credit than he deserves. Wells for his part always stated, the he wasn’t a science fiction writer, he was a Socialist. The man wasn't lying...at least about that.

Blogger map October 19, 2019 6:26 PM  

OT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8TPPloYf0Q

This is interesting. Matt Gaetz uses the phrase "invade the world, invite the world" in a Lou Dobbs interview. It starts at 4:12

Blogger Alexander Sam October 19, 2019 6:49 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Blogger wreckage October 19, 2019 6:59 PM  

The average thinking democratic whatever is avidly in favour of imperial war for ideological advancement.

Blogger Doktor Jeep October 19, 2019 7:23 PM  

Respect for the hairless apes was earned.

Blogger lions paw October 19, 2019 8:41 PM  

Faith
Family
Community ??

PredictIt has impeachment at 74% albeit conviction at 20% (assuming the Senate isn't bought). No matter as it will be grist for the propaganda mill to get the juices flowing. Agent provocateurs stand ready.

Good men will attempt to defend against evil ... protect the innocent and continue to create what is worthy. The master puppeteers will however work hard to make them have to chose their prescribed sides to the madness. The 'sides' will splinter off into a variety of agendas and allegiences as is typical in the foggy mess of war.

God help us.

Blogger urthshu October 19, 2019 10:11 PM  

Look at how flipped everything is. Used to be that kingdoms fought and for most of the time left non combatants alone. Sure there was crop burning and rape and those things were frowned on and remarkable.

+++++

I don't think that is correct. More of a modern conceit than anything else. It's always been recognized the civilian population is a war resource to be conquered alongside the defeat of the army. It's why medieval cities were built atop steep hills and with walls after all. There was a brief period during the Napoleonic and Victorian eras where the military technology and political ethos among specifically Western enemies permitted a gentleman's agreement to spare population, but that was the rarity.

Blogger Ken Prescott October 19, 2019 10:12 PM  

Less interesting than studying ethics of war (there really aren't any) is studying the various ethea of war.

A good non-fiction work is Michael Vlahos' Blue Sword, looking at the Naval War College and the development of the Navy's war plans in the Pacific.

Science fiction is probably the only way to seriously examine an ethos of war these days, and even then you're going to catch all manner of stupidity from the SJWs.

Blogger NewTunesForOldLogos October 19, 2019 10:21 PM  

Evolution goes dysgenic when the state stops death from separating the wheat from the chaff.

Blogger NewTunesForOldLogos October 19, 2019 10:24 PM  

Makes you wonder what kind of people view “world order” as the highest moral good.

Blogger tublecane October 20, 2019 12:25 AM  

@51- Saying the fact that cities were built to be defended implies it was open season on civilians is a bit like saying thievery must be a normal thing in our society because people have home security systems. Surely it happens, but outside of certain neighborhoods it's something out of the ordinary.

If you want rules-based, gentlemanly war, I'd go to the 18th-century. The Napoleonic era, post-French Revolution, was well into the age of fiery ideological warfare. The U.S. Civil War, which took place during the Victorian era, in many ways prefigured WWI and was ghastly.

Of course, pre-modern warfare wasn't pretty, and I'm sure they killed regular folk in the interest of terror or just to kill them. But they had a better sense of the separation between warrior and civilian, I believe. They would allow besieged citydwellers to lay down their arms and have safe passage away from danger. Nowadays we bomb the heck out of broad swathes of country without regard for the intentions of the people within. Except insofar as they're expected to run away or overthrow their governments, I guess.

What's special about the modern era of war is pretending a whole country is like a citadel, and that everyone within is fair game. Furthermore, that indiscriminate violence is not used merely tactically, as part of a siege or capture, but rather is "strategic," in our euphemistic terminology. "Strategic bombing" is indiscrimination limited only by how much and what kind of terror the attacker can expect to squeeze out of it.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine October 20, 2019 5:10 AM  

"Evolution goes dysgenic when the state stops death from separating the wheat from the chaff."

It's dysgenic anyway, but allowing everything to live and reproduce regardless of defect or sin accelerates it drastically.

"Makes you wonder what kind of people view “world order” as the highest moral good."

The type who have urges that can only be satiated via exercising control over all of mankind.

Blogger The Last Roman October 20, 2019 6:09 AM  

I don't like sci-fi books that preach pacifism, or push alternative economic systems. They're boring. The Stailnless Steel Rat Gets Drafted, comes to mind.

Blogger McChuck October 20, 2019 6:39 AM  

@55 tublecane - That's not how ancient war worked at all.

Besieged cities had more people driven into them, to consume the stores of food more quickly. Starvation and disease were major tactics in siege warfare. And when the city was finally taken, all the men were killed, and all the women raped and enslaved.

The point of warfare was conquest. You take their land and their women. You don't allow the defeated men to live, except for a few slaves, normally as eunuchs.

Warfare of relatively recent times used terror as a normal tactic. Villages and crops were burned to show that the local rulers had no power, and to force them to come out of their strongholds and do something about it. Burned villages and crops = mass starvation, disease, and death.

Blogger urthshu October 20, 2019 8:29 AM  

Tublecane you are in fact utterly wrong. You're clearly literate, so if you'll refuse the mute testament of architecture then take in the direct, brutal, and historic meaning of words such as pillage, rapine, conquest, laying waste. These are only the English language terms for something so commonly done we have no need to resort to dictionaries, and that we know were meant in the plural, to civilian bodies.
There is a difference now only in that we can, at the touch of a button, engage in the same destruction a bronze or iron age army would do over the course of months in person.
Typically I don't respond to argument over the internet. It's useless, no one changes their minds and the argument is often over topics neither party has an interest in. I'll just say that if it matters to you then read more.

Blogger xevious2030 October 20, 2019 8:51 AM  

There is nothing ethical to the three families, they’re BS. The historical approaches the article dismisses are the approaches undertaken. The approaches undertaken are obscured by the lie presented to the mass of people, by way of the three families. Nothing of history ended, humans did not stop being humans, it isn’t year zero. It’s simply the upside down being presented as the right side up, to a manipulated people temporarily hijacked by parasites.

Blogger tublecane October 20, 2019 9:01 PM  

@58- We were comparing medieval and modern war, I thought. Not ancient. But it's course ancient war had examples where you didn't kill or enslave everyone you conquered on a whim.

Blogger tublecane October 20, 2019 9:03 PM  

@59- Why are you talking about the Bronze and Iron ages! The post to which I responded clearly referred to Medieval cities.

Blogger Scott October 23, 2019 7:39 PM  

The writer of that article must be unaware of Starship Troopers, because it violates his narrative.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts