Ethics Of Sanitizing Warfare

[Delta4Embassy]

An oft cited episode of Star Trek (original) involved Capt. Kirk intervening in a centuries long war between two planets. They'd been fighting for so long that their technology improved to the point the war was now virtual taking place within computers but with real 'computed' casualties and people on both sides reporting obediantly to disintegration booths if their number came up as it were. Other than that both planets prospered and their cities grew and the rulers probably didn't loose many of their own whereas the lower-classes would often be the casualties. So they had no real reason to achieve peace and end the war. When the Enterprise came up as a casualty of course Kirk intervenes, sabotages both planets' computers which disrupted the status quo and now both sides resumed building real bombs for real war. Faced witht his horrible outcome they both settled their differences and achieved peace.

Modern warfare seems to follow this pattern. We can launch cruise missiles from far out at sea never having to see the blown up buildings or bloody fragments of human beings in the rubble, or drop bombs from planes overhead. Consequently, we do this rather a lot. Suddenly though we're faced with enemies putting videos on youtube of them decapitating a person here and there and we freak out. We've been blowing human beings to bits for decades and no one's batted an eye. We've growns o accustomed to continued warfare it's become normal and acceptable. Now though we're seeing the results much more clearly and graphicly like never before.

Have we over-sanitized reality that we tolerate things we shouldn't tolerate? Live news has a several second delay to prevent accidental airing of death, violence, profanity, and nudity. Consequently we're very insulated from the reality of the world we meddle in. When finally confronted by this reality we seem to take great exception to it. Shouldn't we have been onjecting to such things all along? Is keeping it out of sight, out of mind more harmful than showing it?

If we showed the brutal horror of war on tv news and in newspapers would we tolerate it as much as we do?

 

[gipper]

War is perpetual to human existence, as long as we allow a small elite to lead society.

The horrors of war are well known, yet it continues unabated. Pictures and video of the consequences of war, will not stop it.

 

[mudwhistle]

An oft cited episode of Star Trek (original) involved Capt. Kirk intervening in a centuries long war between two planets. They'd been fighting for so long that their technology improved to the point the war was now virtual taking place within computers but with real 'computed' casualties and people on both sides reporting obediantly to disintegration booths if their number came up as it were. Other than that both planets prospered and their cities grew and the rulers probably didn't loose many of their own whereas the lower-classes would often be the casualties. So they had no real reason to achieve peace and end the war. When the Enterprise came up as a casualty of course Kirk intervenes, sabotages both planets' computers which disrupted the status quo and now both sides resumed building real bombs for real war. Faced witht his horrible outcome they both settled their differences and achieved peace.

Modern warfare seems to follow this pattern. We can launch cruise missiles from far out at sea never having to see the blown up buildings or bloody fragments of human beings in the rubble, or drop bombs from planes overhead. Consequently, we do this rather a lot. Suddenly though we're faced with enemies putting videos on youtube of them decapitating a person here and there and we freak out. We've been blowing human beings to bits for decades and no one's batted an eye. We've growns o accustomed to continued warfare it's become normal and acceptable. Now though we're seeing the results much more clearly and graphicly like never before.

Have we over-sanitized reality that we tolerate things we shouldn't tolerate? Live news has a several second delay to prevent accidental airing of death, violence, profanity, and nudity. Consequently we're very insulated from the reality of the world we meddle in. When finally confronted by this reality we seem to take great exception to it. Shouldn't we have been onjecting to such things all along? Is keeping it out of sight, out of mind more harmful than showing it?

If we showed the brutal horror of war on tv news and in newspapers would we tolerate it as much as we do?

It's gone beyond that. They have weapons that destroy electronics but not the people who operate them.

War needs to be horrific, so that we won't be so prone to wage war.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Ethics Of Sanitizing Warfare

Live news has a several second delay to prevent accidental airing of death, violence, profanity, and nudity.

historically, Warfare sanitizes Ethics - the same as political extremism ... In God We Trust.

.

 

[williepete]

Sanitized or not...

“Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

 

[HenryBHough]

The premise of sanitized war first appeared in serialized version in "Colliers Magazine" in 1956 under the title "The Lomokome Papers".

The Lomokome Papers by Herman Wouk

It later appeared as the paperback linked above.

Others have noted the similarity between Wouk's story and a Star Trek episode:

Star Trek A Taste of Armageddon 1967 Reviews Ratings - IMDb

I enjoyed the original when it appeared in Collier's but re-reading from the paperback, the structure of the writing seemed almost archaic. How our American English has changed in less than 60 years!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

War is perpetual to human existence, as long as we allow a small elite to lead society.

The horrors of war are well known, yet it continues unabated. Pictures and video of the consequences of war, will not stop it.

Pictures and video of Vietnam caused enough of a ruckus protests brought that to a close.

We don't see real effects on war on tv anymore. The multi-second delays prevent it. Nor do we see coffins coming off planes of slain soldiers any more. Maybe if we did we'd object more than we do.

 

[NLT]

An oft cited episode of Star Trek (original) involved Capt. Kirk intervening in a centuries long war between two planets. They'd been fighting for so long that their technology improved to the point the war was now virtual taking place within computers but with real 'computed' casualties and people on both sides reporting obediantly to disintegration booths if their number came up as it were. Other than that both planets prospered and their cities grew and the rulers probably didn't loose many of their own whereas the lower-classes would often be the casualties. So they had no real reason to achieve peace and end the war. When the Enterprise came up as a casualty of course Kirk intervenes, sabotages both planets' computers which disrupted the status quo and now both sides resumed building real bombs for real war. Faced witht his horrible outcome they both settled their differences and achieved peace.

Modern warfare seems to follow this pattern. We can launch cruise missiles from far out at sea never having to see the blown up buildings or bloody fragments of human beings in the rubble, or drop bombs from planes overhead. Consequently, we do this rather a lot. Suddenly though we're faced with enemies putting videos on youtube of them decapitating a person here and there and we freak out. We've been blowing human beings to bits for decades and no one's batted an eye. We've growns o accustomed to continued warfare it's become normal and acceptable. Now though we're seeing the results much more clearly and graphicly like never before.

Have we over-sanitized reality that we tolerate things we shouldn't tolerate? Live news has a several second delay to prevent accidental airing of death, violence, profanity, and nudity. Consequently we're very insulated from the reality of the world we meddle in. When finally confronted by this reality we seem to take great exception to it. Shouldn't we have been onjecting to such things all along? Is keeping it out of sight, out of mind more harmful than showing it?

If we showed the brutal horror of war on tv news and in newspapers would we tolerate it as much as we do?[/QUOTE]

Yes and it would be used as a recruiting tool. Read Starship Troopers

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Bigger concern is is war and violence intrinsic to human nature or an anomoly? Note how when we study history we study the history of the wars. Never the periods of peace in-between (stolen from the desk of the writer of Babylon 5.)

Bonobo chimpanzees and their relatives across a local regional river are the same species, but different cultures separated by the river. Bonobos never wage battles against other bonobos and are thought to be the most sexual spcies after only humans. Whereas the others do fight and don't exhibit the same level of sexuality.

Can how sexual a culture is be linked to how violent or peaceful they are? We think so. And animal studies have demonstrated that when test animals' pleasure centers are stimulated they'll break from an aggressive or violent outburst.

Some evidence too Christian societies are also much more violent than non-Christian ones:

"Within Judeo-Christian thought the purpose of human life was to save the soul, and the body was seen as an impediment to achieving this objective. Consequently, the body must be punished and deprived. In St. Paul's words: "Put to death the base pursuits of the body—for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live" (Romans 8:13). St. Paul clearly advocated somatosensory pleasure deprivation and enhancement of painful somatosensory stimulation as essential prerequisites for saving the soul.

It is evident that the Judeo-Christian concept of body pleasure is quite the opposite of that outlined by Aristotle, particularly, the relief of body pain and discomfort through somatosensory pleasure. This denial of somatosensory pleasure in Pauline Christian doctrine has led to alternative forms of 'relief' through such painful stimulations as hair-shirts, self-scourgings, self-mutilations, physical violence against others, and in the non-sensory pleasures of drugs."
Article Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence

 

[Rikurzhen]

The American viewpoint of using war as a means of entertainment is possible only because the consequences of destruction are far removed from America.

At some point in the future those consequences will once again come to America. The events of 9/11 brought home the horror of war and people saw that destruction isn't entertainment. The grief of those who lost loved ones in 9/11 was laid bare for us all to see and we could really relate because these were our people, not foreigners half-way across the globe.

We continue the insanity of importing Muslims while we continually fight Muslims overseas. As some point drone warfare and domestically constructed, in a garage, cruise missiles are going to come to America. Some Muslim-American is going to launch a number of cruise missiles 10 miles out from a target and will breach security defending the target and then war will be fought on the homefront.

When you have the enemy within, then you have no safe territory.