The "Morality" of war... - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

Closed Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Senior Member rtsposer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    USA, MD
    Posts
    290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Reputation
    1 (x1)

    The "Morality" of war...

    I admit i am starting this thread because i didn't want to 'pollute' the other thread about war on iraq with side issues not pertinate to said threads title. That said, I'm intending this thread's purpose to discuss the morality of war in a more general carte-blanche venue.

    For the purposes of this thread lets deal with 'hypothetical' wars rather than actual ones, feel free to use previous (and current i suppose) wars as reference material but i'm hoping this thread won't delve to deeply into the morality of using Nukes on japan or of invading Iraq etc.

    Also, since pretty much everyone here is involved with 40k and table-top WAR games i figure that ought to be interesting because last time i checked their were no overtly peaceful armies in the 40k universe, so unless your a tyranid army (since i get the idea they conquest in order to propagate) i don't want to hear anything about how 'all war is bad' since you probably activly participate in mock battles all the time (that was a bit of a joke BTW ).


  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Senior Member rtsposer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    USA, MD
    Posts
    290
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Reputation
    1 (x1)

    Now to get the ball rolling...

    To me i tend to think of wars on three diffeent levels: Conventional, non-conventional/annihilation/conquest and non-conventional/political/religious.


    The first, conventional warfare is what you typically think of when dealing with war, like WWI, feudal era wars, etc. Also 'policing' actions where those recieveing defense are a majority requesting help. This first type of war seems most appropriate to me personally.


    Unconventional wars of conquest: Some examples are WWII from germany's perspective and the Cold war that never turned into WWIII. Germany was activly exterminating a minority and from what i gathered was basically bent on global domination, or at least the continent for starters. WWIII, the one that never happened so far, the 'end of the world' senario where the goal is to kill all of them before you get killed also falls into that category. I think these are particularly nasty becuase its almost like a battle of wills against individuals except that they employ massive armies to duke it out. I think we ALL would have been greatful if Stalin and hitler had decided to solve things with a good old fashion pistol duel, and killed each other in the process, I mean who HONESTLY was upset when the berlin wall fell or when the Nazi run concentration camps were liberated.

    Lastly is unconventional political war, or if i wanted to be blunt terror-type wars. These are a moral mine feild of sorts becuase they spawn from complex issues and give rise to fanatics that take things to far. This type of war is similar to a war of conquest mentioned above except that its not just the leaders of a nation that are out for blood, entire populations want, and are willing to take up arms without a political figurehead to rally behind. The worst part is that to a certain extent there is no good guy in this war, there is only the guy who is less bad.


    Edit:

    Actually to tie this back to 40k, i would classify Chaos armies as conquest oriented, Eldar i get the feeling falls into that middle ground of an unconventional political type war. To be totally honest I would see the imperium as a sort of enforced tyranny, even if the emporor had good intensions some might say he went too far. By that logic i would have sympathy for non-chaos imperial rebels who wanted independence and then the marines come in and crush the uprising rather unsympathetically. (just trying to keep things hypothetical thats all)

    Edit #2:

    Damn, I'm serving the Emporor's interests like a mindless pawn, its almost enough to make me go to chaos...

  4. #3
    Senior Member LRSeriesIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    UMCP, College Park, Maryland
    Age
    32
    Posts
    581
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Reputation
    24 (x2)

    There is actually something called Just War Theory. I don't remember all of the tenants (I'll have to look them up when I'm home some time), but the basic thing is that you don't wage war against anyone unless it is in defence of yourself, others, people, that kind of thing. Again, I don't remember it exactly.

    It was actually first developed I believe by the Romans when they converted to Christianity. The Romans were not the most peacable people and needed to wage war to keep their empire together and had to reconcile this need with their new somewhat more pacifistic religion. To resolve this problem they developed just war theory.
    "Don't Delay-The best is the enemy of the good. By this I mean that a good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week. War is a very simple thing, and the determining characteristics are self-confidence, speed, and audacity. None of these things can ever be perfect, but they can be good."
    -General George S. Patton, Jr.

  5. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Reputation
    1 (x1)

    what i hate about now days is that its either political or to do with religion, and also the media is constantly all over it and they should just shut up and let the people fight.
    fighting for politicians: who the hell wants to die for one of those old greedy bastards anyway?
    fighting for religion: basically your just trying to convince the guy next door your imaginary friend is better than his and he should follow yours other wise you'll put a bullet in his skull(reminds me of the imperium).
    what i think would be good is to have challenges between the two opposing leaders and maybe a bunch of selected fighters who fight in hand to hand instead of trying to hit each other 300 miles away with missiles. imagine it Blair and Saddam having a knife fight, i wonder who would win?

  6. #5
    Senior Member LRSeriesIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    UMCP, College Park, Maryland
    Age
    32
    Posts
    581
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Reputation
    24 (x2)

    imagine it Blair and Saddam having a knife fight, i wonder who would win?
    Blair. Saddam would be too busy either talking about how the imperial western dogs rigged the fight or how Iraqis invented the knife...

    In all seriousness though, usually only one side is motivated by such stupid reasons. They start the fight, and someone else has to fight beack or else tehy get their way (think Kosovo for a very clear cut example).
    "Don't Delay-The best is the enemy of the good. By this I mean that a good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week. War is a very simple thing, and the determining characteristics are self-confidence, speed, and audacity. None of these things can ever be perfect, but they can be good."
    -General George S. Patton, Jr.

Closed Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts