High Tech vs. Low tech - Page 19

WNxKenwayy · 07-06-2007, 06:18 AM

Low tech doesn't beat high tech.

Low tech with the will to use it in any way to kill as many people as possible beats high tech used very sparingly and only as a last resort.

High tech means the US can beat in any or combination of army's. It also means we are expected to do so with no collateral damage, no friendly KIA, and minimal damage to the enemy.

Biggaayal · 07-06-2007, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lampshade111

How is his quote sad? He is right in saying that it often does come down to political will. How far are you willing to go to win? Are you wage a war like the Russians are in Chechnya for example?

Well it is said because he is proposing genocide. Mass killings of civilians that have nothing to do with it. What h proposes would not only be a warcrime, it also goes against any moral values but the most extreme. It isn't a tad better then Islam extremists that want to kill all infidels.

It is very sad that someone can propose this sort of thing in any forum and not be called on it. Other then that I do appreciate ironcomatose as a BF2 player.

~~ArmedDrunk&Angry~~ · 07-06-2007, 02:26 PM

Rebellions and uprisings have been suppressed in many different ways, not all of them successful.
I thought he was looking at it in an objective way and suggesting that brutal repression would win.
I think it would not.
What is a war crime ?
To some extent all war is a crime but if killing 20 people today can save 2 million people later then which is the bigger crime, killing the 20 or allowing the 2 mil to die through inaction.

I know that there is not as clear an equation in the current conflict but the formula still applies.
That is one of the reasons that war is so horrible because sometimes people are ordered to die to save others .

View Poll Results: Do you think high tech has the advantage in present days warfare?
Yes	63	65.63%
No	18	18.75%
Not sure	15	15.63%
Voters: 96. You may not vote on this poll

07-06-2007, 06:18 AM	#181
WNxKenwayy Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 987	Low tech doesn't beat high tech. Low tech with the will to use it in any way to kill as many people as possible beats high tech used very sparingly and only as a last resort. High tech means the US can beat in any or combination of army's. It also means we are expected to do so with no collateral damage, no friendly KIA, and minimal damage to the enemy.
WNxKenwayy Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 987

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-06-2007, 02:26 PM	#183
~~ArmedDrunk&Angry~~ Banned Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Long Island Posts: 6,971	Rebellions and uprisings have been suppressed in many different ways, not all of them successful. I thought he was looking at it in an objective way and suggesting that brutal repression would win. I think it would not. What is a war crime ? To some extent all war is a crime but if killing 20 people today can save 2 million people later then which is the bigger crime, killing the 20 or allowing the 2 mil to die through inaction. I know that there is not as clear an equation in the current conflict but the formula still applies. That is one of the reasons that war is so horrible because sometimes people are ordered to die to save others .

Sponsored Links