4 ms·
In a way, haven't we already done this? Our media and movies rarely depict death and grievous injury directly anymore. Everything is cut out so as to not upset
by hliyan 11y ago
In a way, haven't we already done this? Our media and movies rarely depict death and grievous injury directly anymore. Everything is cut out so as to not upset or offend viewers. For example: "The War Photo No One Would Publish" http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-war-photo-no-one-would-publish/375762/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the... , and recent movies such as the Avengers, where a massive attack on New York is depicted without showing a single on-screen civilian death.
War has become a thing that takes place far away from those who vote in favor of them. Soon, thanks to drone technology, it'll become a thing that takes place far away from those who wage it as well.
Perhaps, if both sides do it remotely, it will be a good thing. A lot of technological assets will be lost, but the victory criteria will be that, rather than loss of life.
- LesZedCB 11y agoThose photos from that article are truly powerful. It's a shame that media coverage of war isn't more like that. It is brutal and disgusting, and if you are going to support it, at least look it in the face. I'm not convinced that remote war will ever be a good thing, however. It is still fundamentally about controlling people and territory, and that comes as the cost of human lives, both civilian and enlisted.
- talmand 11y agoReminds me of reading a story about the first uncensored photographs of the aftermath of Civil War battles hitting the North. Often just a few days after the fighting. It removed some of the "charm" of war for the people who saw the results that they never really heard about.
- talmand 11y agoForget the Avengers, at least they made a point to attempt to contain the violence to a certain area. In Man of Steel, that epic fight would have killed upwards of ten thousand people, or more.