Technological warfare might not be considered the fairest of them all, especially not in this era of warfare advances. Multiple technological advances have been made, and many of them have been made for the purpose of war. A very common technological advance in relation to war is guns, but there is no gun like the CIA’s (Central Intelligence Agency) 1970’s Heart Attack Gun. According to Kurt Nimmo of Info Wars, at the point when the heart assault firearm is shot at an individual, the fatal poison from the bullet rapidly enters the circulatory system causing a myocardial infarction. The toxic substance denatures rapidly, so a post-mortem is unable to determine the cause of the cardiac arrest. The dart from this complex CIA weapon can penetrate garments and leave only a small red spot on the skin, like that of a mosquito bite. The toxic dart disintegrates to its aggregate in the wake of entering the target. We all know what the purpose of a firearm is, even on the battlefield, but imagine being able to play war off of the battlefield and without arising suspicion. Imagine taking out your enemy without having to be held accountable for it. Well those are the implications of a gun with this much power. Now, moving forward to yet another military rate weapon advancement in technological warfare.
Shoshana Davis of CBS News introduces a new soldier, ATLAS, a robot which was created by Boston Dynamics for DARPA, or the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. This humanoid weighs
The short stories “The Machine that Won the War” by Isaac Asimov and “The Interlopers” by Saki are both fictional stories. “The Machine that Won the War” is set in the distant future where a war has just ended. “The Interlopers” is set in what is presumably a close to or present time. These two stories are not very similar in the respect of the style of the writers. The two short stories have plenty of contrasts, but not many resemblances.
Instinctivist theories on human aggressiveness often promote the notion that warfare is in the nature of humankind and therefore cannot be prevented. However Margaret Mead eloquently refuted this idea in her renowned essay Warfare: an Invention – Not a Biological Necessity. Mead states, “War is inevitable unless we change our social system and outlaw classes, the struggle for power, and possessions; and in the event of our success warfare would disappear, as a symptom vanishes when the disease is cured.” Through this statement Mead makes it clear that because aggression and subsequently warfare is a learned invention, it can be avoided. For the purposes of this essay, aggression will be defined as “a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism.” This essay will outline how and why aggression, and thus warfare, is not biological and is rather a behaviour that is learned as a reaction to social stimuli. Furthermore, it will be explained that violence is used by societies as a political weapon to achieve ostensible objectives.
Lastly, the notion to hurt one’s enemy peoples to force their government into a complete surrender and to minimize the general loss of one’s own troops is immoral. Naturally, the typical ethical standards of war would not justify any use of dehumanization in order for a nation to supersede the other. The Japanese became dehumanized in the minds of American combatants and civilians. The process enabled greater cultural and physical differences between white Americans and Japanese than between the former and their European foes. In Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (1977), he defines “ the use of force by one nation against another is always wrong unless the latter has already forfeited its basic rights.” Walzer is clearly stating that wars; especially nuclear wars are unjust if they strip away basic civilian rights. In other words, they are ponds in a game of political and nuclear warfare.
The late 19th and early 20th centuries were a time of immense change in Europe. Germany had recently unified, destabilizing the centuries-old balance of power. The second industrial revolution was in full swing, and Europeans thrilled to the latest inventions, from the skyscraper, the first airplanes, and, most ominously, to the machine guns of Maxim and Krupp. During this time, Europeans perceived sports in a number of ways. First of all, many saw sports as an arena to train their nations for war. Secondly, others saw sports as a unifying principle around which to build nationalism and ethnic identity. Finally, many simply saw sports simply as a healthy and productive activity.
When is it justifiable to engage in war? This question has plagued humanity for centuries and continues to do so. The theory of just war addresses three important questions when considering and dealing with war. These components are when is it justifiable to go to war, the right ways to conduct proceedings during war, and the justification of terminating war. The first part of the theory, originally written in Latin as jus ad bellum, is an important idea within Pope Urban II’s, “Speech at Clermont.” In the 11th century Pope Urban II gave this speech as a call for crusade with the hope of freeing Jerusalem from Muslim control. They eventually succeeded in this mission and took the city of Jerusalem. The “Speech at Clermont,” is now an important source for understanding the justifications of going to war within the medieval just war theory. Throughout the speech Pope Urban II justified the crusade by claiming it was the responsibility of the Christian people to regain the Holy Land, to protect their fellow Christians in the East, and their duty to stop the “disgraceful” and “demon worshipping” Muslim people.
One important theory within International Relations shows a moral aspect on how to conduct war. This theory is called Just War Theory. Just War Theory is a doctrine of military ethics from a philosophical and Catholic viewpoint. This theory consists of two parts: Jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and Jus in bello (right conduct within war).
There is something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II. It’s unimaginable that we would now use anything even remotely approaching the full measure of our military power (aside from the nuclear option) in the wars we fight. This seems only reasonable given the relative weakness of our Third World enemies in Vietnam and the Middle East. But the fact is that we were forced to take our soldiers out of Vietnam because we had lost, and today, despite our vast power, we are only slogging along in the Middle East against a hit-and-run organization that we seem unable to stop. Yet no one, including, very likely, the insurgents themselves, believes that America lacks the raw power to defeat this insurgency if it wants to. So clearly America has adopted and has an accurate sense of proportionality.
In all of Human history, only 8% of that time has been completely at peace. From 150 million to 1 billion people in total have been killed by war. That’s 150 million families at least who have had their loved ones ripped from their grasp. This is far too many. War is unnecessary and barbaric. In “just and unjust war” by Howard Zinn the complexities of whether or not a war can be called just or unjust are debated. Peace can be achieved. the three crucial steps toward making world peace are education, open communication, and human rights laws must be strictly enforced.
What is the Just War theory and how did it pertain to St. Augustine? According to Augustine there is no private right to kill. According to Paul Ramsey opposes in The Just War, Christian participation in warfare “was not actually an exception to the commandment, “you shall not murder” but instead an expression of the Christian understanding of moral and political responsibility. One can kill only under the authority of God. St. Augustine argued that Christian rulers had such an obligation to make peace for the protection of his subjects even if the only way to eliminate such a threat was through force of arms. St. Augustine believed that in wars there was a right intention.
During President Richard Nixon’s term, he advocated for “Vietnamization,” to remove American troops and allow South Vietnam a larger role in rising against the Communist North (“Overview of the Vietnam War”). Nixon’s method to stall the influx of North Vietnamese soldiers and supplies into South Vietnam by directing American troops to terminate Communist supply bases in Cambodia. This defied Cambodian neutrality and consequently provoked a national outcry.
Glory is a movie that reenacts the formation of the first Negro infantry, the 54th Massachusetts, during the Civil War. Led by Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, the volunteer Massachusetts infantry endured grueling training and strict discipline. Under his watchful eye, they slowly transformed from being wild and unruly to proud, courageous, and patriotic soldiers. Although the North believed in the abolition of slavery, many Northerners’ still thought the Negro to be inferior to the White race and did not believe they could fight as well. They were soon to be proven wrong.
The concept behind the “Just War” theory is something developed in a early time but it became more developed in the Middle Ages. The criteria for determining if a war is a “Just War” or not is based on the Just war theory is the effort to decide between a justified and unjustified uses of armed forces. I feel the Just war theory is the best way to determine it military involvement is need in in certain situations. I feel like the this versus from the word of God has to say about this subject in Psalms 28:4 is, “Give to them according to their work and according to the evil of their deeds; give to them according to the work of their hands; render them their due reward” (Psalms 28:4 ESV) The significance behind this versus say give to them what they deserve based on the actions. This relates to a just war because it shows that evil deeds have been done then it justified for there to be a “just war” based their actions of evil. I feel like a example of a “Just War” that the USA needs to become more involved in the helping defend Israel. The versus in Numbers 24:9 describes this very well on what the USA should be doing for the nation of Israel “He crouched; he lay down
There are no universal theories to explain the true nature and character of war, and any war theories are not a fact or absolute truth. All strategic principles are dynamic and contextual, so “every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” The battlefield environment of the 21st century will be the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, and nature of war will be completely different because of the Revolution in Military Affairs. Highly advance communication and information technologies, a dramatic increase in computing capabilities, developed of precision munitions, dominant air and space power ‘war could be waged by the projection of
The Just War Theory is a doctrine founded by Saint Augustine which has helped bring much discussion and debate to wars and the morality to fight in them. Wars and fights between people have gone on forever and are not perceived to stop anytime soon so it is important that some people thought about when and why they should ever fight. For many years Christians never part toke in this fighting due to teachings of the Bible and Jesus' teaching on 'turning the other cheek' and 'live by the sword, die by the sword'. Saint Augustine would be one of the first to talk about how a Christian could be a soldier and serve God at the same time. Through this thought we would receive the Just War Theory which gave a set of requirements for someone to partake
In the time period of last ten years, many changes have been observed in the nature of Warfare from being aggressive towards more argumentative. There are various views and debates among the nature and character of the wars and the debate continues to grow with time. The several reasons of changes can be attributed to the technological advances and other situational changes. This essay is going to shed light upon whether the nature and character of war has been changed in the course of recent years or it continues to be the same as it was years ago.