Human style

[thardey]

I think there is truth in the notion that it is psychologically easier to kill from a greater distance. But I think in terms of quantity of killing, with the exception of nuclear weapons, more has been done at close range. While probably exaggerated, accounts of Alexander's battles number tens of thousands killed in a single day. Take a two masses of people, arm them with sharp pointy things, give them a shield and a chest plate, smash them together and see how many of them die.

It's possible that in Napoleon's time the close-ranked soldiers tended to die more under artillery, and tactics have changed to spread soldiers out and make each artillery hit less effective. So tactics weigh into it quite a lot.

I don't remember where I read it, but I know that Napoleon had a devil of a time keeping his artillery shooting at the enemy infantry, where it did the most damage. The gunners had a tendency to aim at the other artillery, which resulted in a lot of wasted ammo and time.

I still think the bayonet charge that was used until very recently (even if it did outlive it's usefulness), held on for such a long time because it is part of our instinct -- a modified spear attack. If we're talking about "Human style" fighting, as compared to "tiger-style" or "praying mantis", then long-range warfare (i.e. beyond eyesight) is too far removed from the situation to really engage the "human style" of fighting.

I don't know . . . does pushing a button from a thousand miles away still give you that adrenalin dump that actually seeing the person you are considering killing gives? Are you still engaged at that point?

 

[Shotochem]

I think there is truth in the notion that it is psychologically easier to kill from a greater distance. But I think in terms of quantity of killing, with the exception of nuclear weapons, more has been done at close range. While probably exaggerated, accounts of Alexander's battles number tens of thousands killed in a single day. Take a two masses of people, arm them with sharp pointy things, give them a shield and a chest plate, smash them together and see how many of them die.

It's possible that in Napoleon's time the close-ranked soldiers tended to die more under artillery, and tactics have changed to spread soldiers out and make each artillery hit less effective. So tactics weigh into it quite a lot.

War and killing in todays age has become more sanitized and impersonal due to technology. Not to say that our brothers and sisters in Iraq and Afghanistan are having an easy time of it. It is quite the opposite.

IMO, war is quite a bit more distasteful and harder to stomach for todays humans than merely pulling a trigger or pushing a button.

Maybe I'm less of a man than some, but I don't know if I would be able to do it. I am grateful to those out there serving to protect us and the heavy price they pay and the burden they carry.

The holiday season is upon us and we should all pause and think of our soldiers and their families as we obliviously sit by the fire in comfort and joy. Without them this would not be possible.

-Marc-