So many men romanticise war yet when faced with modern war many men seem to shrink away from it. They no longer thinks its as cool or paise the participants for being warlike and brave. Why?
So many men romanticise war yet when faced with modern war many men seem to shrink away from it.
Everybody likes a good war until they have to fight one.
interesting starting pics, agenda free
>i will immediately sign up if there is general mob
as opposed to what? hate this guys shitty takes and so funny how hes trying to act brave there. wonder how he got out of conscription in ru?? prob gazprom exec son or something twitter tough guy
Modern war is brutally impersonal and industrial. Gone are the days of men like Napoleon, whose loyal Guards would jump into the fire for. Nowadays you'll get your ass vaporized by a computer guided missile controlled by a guy 100 kilometers away. There are no more pitched battles, only massive and sluggish fronts in which nobody can quite tell what is going on from the ground level. There is no more room for champions and heroic warriors, they'd get shot by a sniper from kilometers away.
Napoleonic war wasn't any more fun or romantic. enjoy getting a musket ball to the gut and dying of a massive septic infection.
cope, nathan bedford forest (accidently) charged on horseback an enemy battlation alone, killed like 5 guys and picked up one of them and used him as shield as he ran back to his men
Napoleonic Wars were fun and romantic
Marbot would probably have survived a drone attack given how lucky he was.
Wrong you still had to meet your enemy on the battlefield within a few hundred metres 1/3 of all casualties were also the result of CQC so you still met your enemy face to face in glorious battle artillery was still very primitive with most of it being solid shot round balls or shrapnel shells there was no HE shells yet
Would there be any way to rectify this? i.e make industrialized war cool?
No. The early 20th century was basically the technological sweet spot that allowed warfare to have some human grit. Weapon developments during the Cold War killed the human edge of piloting a fighter plane with a Rolls Royce engine.
Germany made it cool but then they got sacked by the International Jude.
The fervor channeled into the war machine had a subtle beauty to it.
It was very Overman oriented.
Now its just gay with Americans tiptoeing to midnight and back.
>Would there be any way to rectify this? i.e make industrialized war cool?
Robot wars on Mars with the teams being built and sponsored by the US, Russia and China. No human casualties, but real stakes. You pay money to control a robot soldier in VR. Ultimate combination of sport, game, war, and geopolitics.
Winner takes all the resources.
You jest but in the Sci-fi novel Hyperion that's kind of what they do. It's called the New Bushido and it developed from the fact that destructive weapon tech got so egregiously out of hand that wars were not economically viable, as in the act of waging the war destroyed too many resources to make it worthwhile in almost any case.
So the answer is every major faction has a very small, very highly trained professional military and they field them in out of the way places to have pitched battles according to very strict rules of what weapons can be used and how big of forces can be used, kind of like a Wh40k game. The factions waging the battle put in writing what's on the line and what the winners will get and what the losers have to give up and then they have it out in the middle of nowhere.
You can see some butthole circumvent the rules and just nuke your base when you are waiting for him patiently in some desolate place.
Airforces, the knights of the sky.
This, but I'd go even further and say it applies to all warfare after gunpowder. Before that, survival in war and success of one's side was largely incumbent on the skills of the individual soldier coordinating with other soldiers. Your ability as a swordsman or archer was much more determinative of your survival and victory in battle than your ability as rifleman today. Today you can be a great rifleman and on your first mission be blown up by a landmine having never fired a shot. It's all chaos and accident. Of course there were all sorts of traps and stray arrows that could kill you back in the day but at least you knew when you were and weren't within range of the enemy. Now there's no telling when you're in danger.
Makes me think of how many nameless great warriors there have been over the centuries of warfare throughout human history.
Because all wars now are for israelites.
Modern warfare is garbage
Havent you seen all these webms of unaware soldiers killed by drones on /misc/?
What's the point of footsoldiers in modern war anyways?
occupation. you can't hold territory with drones.
But why not wait until the drones are shot down from the sky? Why do we still send trained men to certain death if it achieves nothing but demoralize their peers? If I were a commander I would use artillery exclusively, not even taking cities, just razing them and inching slowly, "taking ground" by seizing airports and mountains to move the artillery to
Cause manpower is cheap a drone or artillery piece isn’t I really don’t think you understand just how expendable a human is in war
Exterminating civilians with artillery and destroying foreign fighting power is still better than sending in your literal power base in to get shot
I really don’t think you understand how war works you almost always never have every asset available due to it being a wide front and artillery/men/planes are scattered disproportionately along it nothing ever goes according to plan there are always casualties and loss of equipment even before the arrival to the front and then your meant to create a plan to attack fortified positions with essentially nothing this was how a large part of the eastern front was fought especially in ww2 and it all essentially turned into ww1 styled trench fighting because neither side could push
Manpower of a soldier in highly developed countries is massive. An average American pays hundreds of thousands in excess taxes at the 20 year old, and losing that revenue should motivate governments to spend enough on supporting those soldiers.
U.S has spent around 410 million dollars per U.S death in War on Terror (14600ish deaths, 6 trillion dollars in direct cost). There is literally no sense in having a soldier die to a lack of artillery cover or poor logistics due to cost cutting.
deaths
more thank 100k vet suicides since the afghanistan war started
human lives are cheap compared to most modern ordinance and equipment, and you need boots on the ground to do street-level sweeps to find and control the local populace.
and there would be no point to war at all if just glassing cities was the only strategic goal. cities aren't taken just to boast that you control a dot on a map. infrastructure is needed to maintain supply lines and control vital resources. scorched earth tactics can be viable depending on the circumstances, but an invading army has literally nothing to gain if they just raze every single town they come across to the ground.
Getting ripped apart by an Artillery shell or killed by fat American using a drone via PS3 controls is not heroic or romantic.
Technology killed the heroism of war and turned it into a real life RTS for boomers.
boomers believe BOOTS ON THE GROUND matters
you cant hold territory with infantry either.
Modern warfare favors the attacker, so just let the enemy occupy and drone the sucker over and over.
meeting a man face to face is preferable to being killed by a machine.
being hunted by a ninja or a group of infiltrator troops puts a human element into things.
its unsettling to be killed by machines you cant even see, let alone match in strength or power.
nerds should be beaten to death for the crime of inventing technology.
gas is cheaper, drones are cheaper, and long range guns are also cheaper, If US or Russia built a series of trenches and just 'built forward' into Afghanistan or Ukraine just wiping everything in front of them, they could destroy their enemy on a budget cheaper than the insurgents resisting them.
I think Russia even used WWI guns in their most recent military endeavor and those big guns still do damage.
neither side did what was effective.
Neither side actually went for total war.
With nukes on the table everything has changed because now you can delete your enemy and it becomes about who can escalate closer to total war without actually doing it, and whoever does it first, will also be the last to do it.
If Nazi Germany had nukes, they could simply Nuke Russia, likewise if Russia had nukes, the reverse. If both had nukes, theyd wipe eachother and gas whats left, then roll in with whatever remained.
theyd "win" but it wouldnt exactly be a win.
modern warfare has to be about de-escalating while taking tiny victories.
>nerds should be beaten to death for the crime of inventing technology.
fr fr
We are perhaps a generation away from Western armies twchnologically being able to replace foot soldiers with drones and robots.
I'm so phootographybrained that I looked at the interesting diffusive effect of the red-brown on that tank, then the contrasting diagonals of the gun and the tank barrel, and then the vanishing point and the far distance.
To answer your question: Russia is in the right, but the war is mad ghey unless you're a Russian.
Westerners going there are foolish or ghoulish, or both.
And Slavic sovl means being extremely lethargic. There is some kind of extremely different feel between the mountain/woods Balkanish to West Ukraine Slavs and the Belarus/Russian Slavs.
I'm not expert, and I'm going to reply confidently: Infantry does things drones can't. e.g. It can go undetected more easily, can dig trenches, can maintain and construct defences and crossings etc. A human is more versatile than a drone. It can pick up a gun, then run, then hide, then fire a rocket, then operate a drone etc. Also if it was only drones, then presumably antidrone shit could just be used all the time (e.g. EMPish stuff idk). Or invasions could be conducted purely by tunnel or whatever thing drones can't fight well.
I was taken to believe that artillerying the enemy positions was the main tactic of Russia.
The West is morally in the wrong on this issue and presenting this as a moralless issue makes the West look even worse. SCD.
>Russia is in the right
Explain why
>The West is morally in the wrong
Explain why
I wrote a long post, but my Huawei phone crashed.
In essence:
Russia is absorbing Russian areas.
Why the West wrong:
Constant lying
Prolonging the conflict
Support for immoral Ukrainian acts
Deliberately making life worse for Western civilians
People can seethe and shit themselves about the above, but it is true.
You can't declare part of another country a "Russian area" and annex it lol. When Russia accepted Ukraine's entry into the United Nations, they foreswore any right to any Ukrainian territory.
You can try but enjoy dying.
OK, but the people there are Russian and want to be part of Russia. It's a basic democratic idea.
Just admit that you consider Russia a rival to the West or that you're a ghoul who simply wants any excuse to maim murder and perpetuate suffering.
>ut the people there are Russian and want to be part of Russia. It's a basic democratic idea.
No lol. Those areas voted for Zelensky in 2019 and Poroshenko in 2014. Your "referendums" were the most obviously fake shit since Hitler took the Sudetenland.
Fortunately, the people of Ukraine have enough weapons to resist, and soon it won't matter what areas of Ukraine Putin thinks he's entitled to.
Partly, yes. That's an incredibly cherry picked way of looking at the available maps. Since, like all pro-NATO posters, you have no interest in honesty I will end our discussion here.
I'm not Russian, as if that particularly matters.
You're trying to get hundreds of thousands of people murdered.
>Support for immoral Ukrainian acts
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/
... Which then caused a huge western backlash against Amnesty, which caused the head of AI's Ukrainian branch to resign. As an Australian, I want the frick out of the West. These animals aren't worth sharing a civilisation with.
No link me some
Got these off /k/ but oh well
worlds tiniest lamest bomb
>tfw American
Imagine being the one getting bombed lmfao
Those are Russians
No shit, I'm mocking them for thinking that they actually have a first world military and aren't glorified insurgents.
didnt your troony corps get smoked?
The king of Sparta once shouted “EGAD! This is the end of man’s valor!” when he saw a primitive crossbow
There’s nothing romantic about sprinting away from a swarm of RC planes launching missiles at you from 10000 meters in the sky
You said it. They like the idea of being a hero and getting laid because of it, but they don't want to risk the possibility of death that comes with it.
dont project
It's the endless cycle
>start a war
>war is miserable
>try to avoid war in the future
>bring on a period of peace
>get bored
>romanticize war
and it all starts again
It's all very tiresome
aesthetic is the most important thing
modern wars are ugly
modern uniforms, modern weapons, it's all ugly
if we were fighting in napoleonic prussian uniforms I'd be all for dying in iraq
not like I have anything to live for here
Because people going to war for "patriotic" purposes were always moronic suckers. People going to war for corporate interests or the expansionist ideals of their ruler is even more moronic. Giving your one life on this planet for those reasons was, is, and always will be utterly moronic. The "glory" of war was a façade used to dupe morons into risking their lives for their leader's power.
Imagine dying to make another man’s dreams come true
It’s about as gay as it gets without sex
War worshippers are just the product of primitive brain telling them that eliminate competence is good.
War is a horrible thing both modern and ancient war is digusting just read all the idiots itt saying "noooo modern warfare is soo impersonal le nerds ruined it 🙁 " yeah because be stabbed with a sword its all funny and games.
War is a necessary evil but say that is good and romantizate it is the most moronic and absurd thing in the world
War to defend your home, your friends, and your family? Unfathomably based and your moral obligation. War to go out and die for a businessman or a politician in the middle-east? The most shabbos of golems.
Modern war is terrifying beyond belief because you can be unpredictably vaporized by someone you can't see for reasons you don't understand without them even being aware of it. Skill, and experience mean frick all if guided munition is fired at your position. There's nothing romantic about it.
>They no longer thinks its as cool or praise the participants for being warlike and brave. Why?
It's due to the fact that these people think of Call of Duty or medieval times when the subject of war comes up- it's not like you can face your enemy and slay him. In medieval times, it was at least somewhat more fair with swords and shields and you actually had to face the person you were killing. Nowadays, a motherfricker can plug your ass from the maximum of a mile and call it a day, really, or use the aforementioned drones itt or whatever else comes to mind.
>romanticise
>yet when faced
so it is idealized vs real
why do people dream about idealized things and avoid real?
Men romanticised war when the lack of technology make it a physical contest. Theres nothing worthwhile about getting obliterated by a drone or landmine, or shot by some goblinoid squatting in a foxhole or building.
true, i played squad and it changed my view on modern war.
-hard to identify enemies
-hard to differentiate friend from foe
-nothing happens most of the time
-if action happens, you get shot down very quickly, since you are "soft target".
- inside of vehicles you cant see shit, view of surroundings very limited, claustrophobic feeling of being trapped in a steel container, ...
3/10 cant recommend. Modern war/weapons are too far ranging, too deadly, too fast,.. for human senses. Its a place only machines should fight.
squad?
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/12504074/#12506947
>Thing is, people in the past were both primal and dumb which made things like being a conquistador or crusader or mercenary or whatever seem cool and not moronic, at least at first.
>Now we're more aware of what war is shorn of popular delusions (largely thanks to Crimea and World War I), of how power actually works, etc. so doing the same kind of shit now mostly just feels pleb and stupid. You can sake this is cope and we're weaklings and cowards and maybe (in fact, likely) it is true, but that's the reason.
>Go back far enough, and war was something that even many high-status people had experience with up close (as late as the early 19th century Napoleon's brother in law Charles Leclerc gave his life for the French assault on Saint-Domingue now Haiti, and Louis Napoleon died IN BATTLE fighting the Zulus in 1879). This gave fighting and war (even at a much more pleb-tier and low-status level) something of prestige.
>But when you're in a world where anyone and everyone who's anyone keeps their own squishy flesh and brittle bones as far away from the battlefield as possible, actually fighting a war doesn't seem high-status since it won't get you (much) money, status, or pussy. It's something you associate with (no offense) black Africans, Ukrainians, Chechens, nonspecific Central Asians, people hacking each other up in the jungles of Indochina or whatever.
>This may be both vanity and cowardice, now that I think about it. But yeah, whatever the reason, the public consciousness around warfare has changed totally, and the romance is essentially dead.
>What I think is an interesting topic that leads on from this: what was the last truly romanticized conflict in/by the West?
keep in mind that a lot of historical accounts of wars are written by upper class people who might have a motive for waxing poetic about a war they were (likely an officer in). There's no reason to believe war was considered more glorious back then. In many respects it's still a miserable, terrifying affair. If combat wasn't terrifying, there would be fewer routs and more fighting to the last man. Other anons have correctly said that the impersonal and unseen killers in modern warfare can cause more buildup of anxiety in anticipation of death, but also consider that with modern telecommunication, everyone and their grandma can see the effects of war, the lonely corpses littering the ground. It's easier to make war out to be some grand adventure that turns boys into men if your only knowledge comes from veterans. Just imagine your some soldier or warrior, the air is filled with the clattering of metal and screaming as you try to kill your enemy before he jams a spearhead through your throat, or you're about to be on the business end of a bone-crushing cavalry charge, stomped into the mud by a 1200 pound horse. plenty of war was terrifying. If you read de bello gallico, Caesar recounts a time where he had to quell fear in his legion because the romans heard the germans were frick-off huge brutes. Also, we do still romanticize war in a way, at least in american via our media
infantry and tanks are obsolete
War has been a meme since accurate long range artillery. There's no honor in getting *ACK*'d by an artillery shell from 10 km away, let alone by an unmanned drone or satellite.
War movies are good for getting new recruits, not for entertaining veterans.
Wtf model of AK is that? Its in 7.62x39 but it has a triangle side folder stock. He also seems to have added a gas tube pic rail.
Serious question IQfy as my forte is not modern combat. Would things like spider holes and digging into an area be effective against a standing army with drones, artillery and shit?
I honestly don't get it. Obviously the training with an butthole sergeant sucks, but once you're over it you get to sit behind the lines and rocket enemy positions. I understand that nobody wants to be on the side getting shelled, but for some reason people srink from the shelling position too.
War is based but I don't like to see whites fighting whites. Non-whites have plenty of land, resources and women to be taken.