3 ms·

> The US has had plenty of moral lapses in its military adventures, but one suspects that the powers of the past 500 years would have been far more willing to o

> The US has had plenty of moral lapses in its military adventures, but one suspects that the powers of the past 500 years would have been far more willing to obliterate entire nations without concern for civilians. Simply not true. There was a reason why european wars were fought in the fields and not in cities/population centers in the past. Also, past powers tended to conquer nations/cities in order to subjugate the population for exploitation. After all, humans were valuable resources back then. It is very rare that a military/government/nation would simply choose to exterminate the inhabitants of a continent ( 100 or so native nations that were wiped out ) or set entire cities full of civilians ablaze ( dresden, tokyo ) and nuke two civilian cities ( hiroshima, nagasaki ). Pretty much the US and our side kick britain are the only ones to be guilty of the first two. We are still the only ones guilty of the 3rd. But precedents being set, your assertion is likely to be truer in the future. I suspect that in the next 500 years, powers would be more willing to obliterate entire nations without concern for civilians, especially if technology and automation make humans a less valuable commodity.

CalRobert 7y ago
I appreciate your comment (and didn't downvote you). What I wrote does not enjoy the benefit of citations, which I don't have handy. My point wasn't that these things don't happen, just that we maybe, just _maybe_ have slightly more compunction about killing tens of millions of people at the push of a button (which we can now do) than someone from 1665 would. Would Oliver Cromwell have just nuked Ireland? I imagine his hand would have been stayed only by the thought of all the ruined grazing land. But, of course, I could be wrong. I don't think humans are inherently better now than 500 years ago. And the 20th century has a grab bag of atrocities to choose from.
- elfexec 7y ago
  > What I wrote does not enjoy the benefit of citations, which I don't have handy. It's something that's uncitable so I don't think anyone holds that against you. It's really a discussion on human nature. I can't cite anything to defend my position either. > Would Oliver Cromwell have just nuked Ireland? Though he was a religious zealot who did bad things in ireland, I doubt he'd nuke the entire irish peoples - certainly not the protestants. Also, technically, ireland was part of his domain/kingdom back then. Cromwell would probably have nuked the kings and leaders, but not the people. Just like jefferson davis would have nuked lincoln and the union leaders, but not the american/northern people. > But, of course, I could be wrong. I don't think humans are inherently better now than 500 years ago. I agree, but I think societal norms and beliefs guide how we behave and think - not just in civilian life but in military and political life. I think human beings are just as evil and selfish as in the 1800s, but most of us wouldn't support racial slavery. I don't think we are innately better than we were 150 years ago as human beings. Deep down we are the same, but the societal mores has changed. Particularly the scientific white supremacy which allowed for total genocide ( men, women and children ) in much of the 19th and 20th centuries. I don't think cromwell would have seen a school with 1000 kindegarten irish kids and nuked it. But the US and Britain certainly would have if it were 1000 native kids and nazi germany would nuked 1000 jewish kids. I suspect in the future, once a real war begins, nobody will think twice about civilian casualties as the precedent has been set and the stakes would be so high. Most importantly, nobody responsible for nuking hiroshima or nagasaki was prosecuted. Nobody responsible for dresden or tokyo was prosecuted. The lesson is that no matter what, you have to be on the winning side. But only time will tell.
pintxo 7y ago
You may also add Germany to the first two ...

CalRobert 7y ago

I appreciate your comment (and didn't downvote you). What I wrote does not enjoy the benefit of citations, which I don't have handy. My point wasn't that these things don't happen, just that we maybe, just _maybe_ have slightly more compunction about killing tens of millions of people at the push of a button (which we can now do) than someone from 1665 would. Would Oliver Cromwell have just nuked Ireland? I imagine his hand would have been stayed only by the thought of all the ruined grazing land. But, of course, I could be wrong. I don't think humans are inherently better now than 500 years ago. And the 20th century has a grab bag of atrocities to choose from.

elfexec 7y ago
> What I wrote does not enjoy the benefit of citations, which I don't have handy. It's something that's uncitable so I don't think anyone holds that against you. It's really a discussion on human nature. I can't cite anything to defend my position either. > Would Oliver Cromwell have just nuked Ireland? Though he was a religious zealot who did bad things in ireland, I doubt he'd nuke the entire irish peoples - certainly not the protestants. Also, technically, ireland was part of his domain/kingdom back then. Cromwell would probably have nuked the kings and leaders, but not the people. Just like jefferson davis would have nuked lincoln and the union leaders, but not the american/northern people. > But, of course, I could be wrong. I don't think humans are inherently better now than 500 years ago. I agree, but I think societal norms and beliefs guide how we behave and think - not just in civilian life but in military and political life. I think human beings are just as evil and selfish as in the 1800s, but most of us wouldn't support racial slavery. I don't think we are innately better than we were 150 years ago as human beings. Deep down we are the same, but the societal mores has changed. Particularly the scientific white supremacy which allowed for total genocide ( men, women and children ) in much of the 19th and 20th centuries. I don't think cromwell would have seen a school with 1000 kindegarten irish kids and nuked it. But the US and Britain certainly would have if it were 1000 native kids and nazi germany would nuked 1000 jewish kids. I suspect in the future, once a real war begins, nobody will think twice about civilian casualties as the precedent has been set and the stakes would be so high. Most importantly, nobody responsible for nuking hiroshima or nagasaki was prosecuted. Nobody responsible for dresden or tokyo was prosecuted. The lesson is that no matter what, you have to be on the winning side. But only time will tell.

pintxo 7y ago

You may also add Germany to the first two ...