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!
The "would Imperial Guard beat earth" thread seemed to bring alot of military folk out of the woodwork, so I just want to share this crazy idea I've had for a while now with all of you and hopefully get some opinions on it. It's about the real world not 40k but I can't see how it relates to politics really so we should be OK.
OK here we go:
We all know that everyone, western nations particularly, wants to reduce collateral damages in wars, and make wars as humane as you can possibly be while killing other people.
Want I want to know is why don't we use needle/dart guns that administer a lethal injection? I mean bullets and other conventional weapons work by blowing holes in people, which is not really very nice. You can be hit by a bullet and not die but be crippled, or you could die slowly, or be blown up by a mine and lose your legs, etc. All of this would be avoidable if we used dart guns with say, a lethal dose of morphine. You get hit, you fall asleep and never wake up. Less people would join the army and wars would be rarer as every time anyone was hit they would die.
On the other hand no buildings would be destroyed, no civilians hurt (or at least less), there would be no more crippled veterans etc. Any nation that used tanks or bombs would obviously be trying to use brutal unecessary shock tactics that could cause collateral damage, and everyone else could censure them. I mean no one would allow an army to use chainsaws to hack people up, and bullets are a similar level of barbarity when compared to a nice clean lethal injection. It just seems to me there are two reasons why we don't do this:
1: The conspiracy theory: Our desire to reduce collateral damage is a lie. We really want to scare the crap out of people to make sure they never mess with us again and the best way to do that is to blow big freakin holes in them and everything else.
2: No-one has thought of it yet and no-one has really noticed that our attitude towards war (ie that it is undersirable and a last resort) is at odds with the way we wage war.
Phew. Thanks for reading this far if anyone has. I know it sounds a bit nuts but does anyone have any thoughts about this?
Okaaaay. Umm, sorry to be a pessimist, unfortunately, a rifle is still the best way to kill an enemy soldier with little collateral damage, (what a wonderful term for accidental innocent casualties, don't ya think?). Most modern rifles have an accurate range of about 300 metres. A needle gun has a range of... has anyone even developed one that could be used as a weapon. Secondly, if we switch to a less "destructive" weapon, there are still MANY "people" in the world who revel in the notoriety of collateral damage, (ie. terrorists). If we could ever, as a race, decide to fight wars humanely, it would be a wonderous thing. (Okay Allies, over there, Communists over here, do not stray from the Combat zone, no shooting above the protective berms and we start in 45 minutes sharp. Everybody okay with that?) Nice and humane, but, it will never happen. There will always be somebody who doesn't respect somebody else and is willing to do what ever they feel is neccassary.
A little pain never hurt anyone - Larry
Sounds Ok, but I'm guess body armour of most Western Nations (or most nations) will stop darts. There is also the question of range, accurarcy, and lethality.
A dart cannot go as far as a bullet (M16 much further).
A dart is not as accurate as a bullet (wind changes, comparitavley slow speed).
When you shoot someone with a bullet, and it penetrates you know that almost all of the time that persxon will be wounded. With a dart, some people may have an immunity towards it. or may not be strong enough for some people.
Also people can get addicted to Morphine, and you wouldn't want soldiers to get addicted to ammo would you? Also, one slip when reloading (another problem) and you could be down and out. At night, tracer fire would be very hard to do, and whose darts are whose then? You wouldn't be able to take out tanks (not often with bullets, but sometimes) also, if sarge dreds on a dropped one well...
Finally, it reilies on the fact that every body uses them in war, to make it fairer. And scince that never happens, one side would get kicked.
That aside, it sounds not too bad, and a nice ideal. ^_^ *non sarcastic tone*
My amount of knowledge for a 16yr old scares me...
Iâ€™m pretty sure that the Geneva Convention makes it illegal to poison an enemy solder. Thus using a dart with a lethal toxin would be a war crime. Furthermore, just because you are shot with a bullet does not mean instant death even if it usually does. In fact you have a better chance of surviving a hit from a standard military issue rife then say a civilian handgun. This is because again the Geneva Convention makes it illegal to cause undo harm to an enemy combatant thus they are not allowed to use an expanding bullet but one that will hopefully pass through the body. Basically enough to put down your enemy and maybe give them a slim chance of surviving.
"Official! The graves of warriors who have given thier lives for the Emperor now outnumber the stars themselves."
soldiers getting themselves addicted to there ammo........
its a nice idea, but do you think it will happen in the world we live today??
Ha! Make war nicer?? No way dude.
I'm on a quest to see just how gruesome we can actually make a war. This is how I think wars should be fought:
1) Generals are only allowed to arm their troops with two weapons: Chainsaws and Flamethrowers.
2) They must divide their troops up evenly (If they can't divide them evenly then the odd guy out gets a banana instead of a weapon) and they give one half of the army Flamethrowers and the other half Chainsaws.
3) Battles are only allowed to be fought in rural areas. No woods or fields where collateral damage can be minimized. Nope. Too easy. Instead the combatants must enter from opposite sides of a city and fight it out there.
Of course if this was the way that wars had to be fought, then there might not be all that many wars. I know a lot more people who will take their chances against a rifle than take their chances at sword fighting with a chainsaw.
Put simply, I don't think there is any way of making war nicer. I mean if you want to kill someone(in a war) you will. You can't just say 'you can't kill any cillivans'. There are some sick people out there who get a kick out of it.
There are of course many ways to make war worse. Nuclear weapons,armour piecing rounds, Chemical and Biological weapons, the list is endless. All generals are interested (in a war) are killing the enemy before they kill you.
Man, I feel like a Uni student writing a essay.
By day he fought with sword and shield.....
By night he fought with pen and parchment.....
He was....The Warrior Poet.......
Fear the ANZAC Clan!!!!!
ORDER OF THE SHADOWY FLAME!!!
Do you have uber micro...????
You want to make war easier on the sensibilities so we won't war so often?
Well, aside from the bald-faced wierdness of that statement, here are some arguments:
1. Armor: As has been mentioned, no dart in the world can penetrate standard issue Kevlar. Thus, in the modern theater, darts are useless against average infantry and absolutely useless against vehicles of any sort.
2. Safety: As has also been mentioned, an accident while loading will cause the death of a friendly soldier. That risk can be reduced with a cap on a cartridge-like ammunition, but it's still a higher risk to our side.
3. Lethality: When a man is shot in the leg by a bullet, he falls down and stops fighting. Thus, he is eliminated as a threat but not killed. If a man is shot in the leg by a poison dart, he dies. Thus, America would be among the few nations in the world to not allow their enemies the chance to heal their wounded. We would literally give no quarter, and if you go into battle against American forces and you are shot, you will die with no possibility for mercy. Is that the American Army you want?
4. Collateral damage: Collateral damage takes two forms, human and material. Despite what the media may say, American forces cause very extremely little human collateral damage. The fact is, when a bomb blows a crater in a nearby building and you know that you would die instantly if it hit you, you will not want to fight. Once again, this is a scenario that removes enemy threats without killing humans. Essentially, we can choose to cause material collateral damage or additional human fatalities.
5. Cost: Despite what conspiracy theorists like to believe, the military does not have an infinite budget. If all the bullets in the army were replaced by hypodermic darts, the cost would probably keep our soldiers from eating. This is a bad thing.
6. Terror: The concept of dying to poison is inherently disgusting to the primal mind of the human creature. This is why chemical and biological weapons were banned in the Geneva Convention. Barring the utter illegality of the proposition, using poison to kill our enemies would make us universally loathed according to instinct. The American military would be reviled as monsters who use hideous viruses or insidious venoms on the noble soldiers of our foes.
7. Soldiers: If we no longer use explosives, then air support becomes useless. Air support is the most vital resource the American soldier has available to him on the modern battlfield. When we are stripped of our universal air superiority, battle becomes a proposition of our soldiers charging into battle no matter the cost because we simply do not wish to fight otherwise. We will not use tanks because they would destroy buildings. We will not use aircraft because they use explosives, which are taboo. Se we send our soldiers into hot battle zones and let them be slaughtered as our long-range support watches on in horror. Quite frankly, shock tactics are not brutal or unnecessaily cruel. They are the best tool we have to prevent war deaths on both sides.
So...I don't like the idea.
Last edited by neosonichdghg; September 4th, 2005 at 06:48.
Quote for probably forever 'cause it rocks:
"Slaughter them, men, and bring me their hats."
Yeah sorry, I'm writing an assignment right now and my brain is running off on tangents trying to escape thinking about what I should be thinking aboutOriginally Posted by warrior poet
Nice replies. I feel like everyone thinks I'm a bit wierd now, but no use crying over spilt milk as my grandma says.
I suppose it's not really tenable. I mean war was nicer back in 19th century Europe because if you were captured you were just treated well until you could be traded back for captured guys from the other team. No-one tortured anyone or killed civilians (much) coz it was "bad form" and "against the rules". I guess this was maybe because everyone in Europe had similar cultural backgrounds and alot of the officers, generals etc (who were all nobility) were related to the generals on the other side.
It's like tribal wars in the Amazon and PNG. People don't die very often at all. Someone gets an arrow in the eye and his tribe surrenders.
Once the world got too big nd there were too many cultures with different ideas of how to fight and how to treat prisoners I guess war could never be nice again. Not until one culture has succeeded in making everyone else like them at least.
I do believe POW's should be treated well, though. The mentality that surrender is preferrable to death is anouther of our greatest tools to prevent human fatalities in war. In WWII, countless Japanese dies needless deaths because they though we would treat them badly if they surrendered. If we had the kind reputation back then that we do now, the war would have caused far fewer deaths and would probably have never necessitated the Manhattan Project.
Quote for probably forever 'cause it rocks:
"Slaughter them, men, and bring me their hats."