Why the best tracks at war movies are anti-war?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Pekka
The problem with them are that most of the times they are used in a wrong way. Enemy doesn't even think of removing them, ever.

Well, that's kind of the point of mines. That someone wouldn't think to remove it before he steps on it and gets blown into two.


Nothing freaks me out more then the sort of person who treats wars like a game. And not just because I'm against the idea of war in general. They're the sort of people responsible for thigns like WW1 - pointless wars, where people are slaughtered by the billions just so the generals can have a good show. The sort of person who gets his men to wear red-coats and line up to face the enemy, or walk across a field to the enemy trench.

[Pekka]

Oh yes, this makes me a general who wastes human lives, right?

No, that is not the point of mines. The point of mines it to set them up with control (it's nice to know where you set them, so you don't step into them, right?), TO YOUR OWN LANDS. Not including claymores and things like that, but landmines. You put them to YOUR own lands, so the enemy will slow down stepping to them.

Now, when the war is over, or you don't need the mines in certain location, then you remove them yourself, so that you don't step into them by accident, or when the war is over, your own civilians won't get blown away by them. THat is the correct use of a landmine. It is highly controlled and it is used to DEFEND yourself against invaders. If invader steps into the mine, well should I feel bad about it? Maybe I'd feel a bit bad, but I think it was necessary. If enemies generals are so fool to waste their troops unnecessary, then are you the bad guy defending your own country in your own lands? If you didn't do that, they'd prolly come and kill you, and your friends too.

It is unethical to go to someone elses lands, dump landmines and leave without removing them, or giving the correct information about their locations.

[Az]

sure WW1 was pointless and evil, but I don't think that generals treated it like a show.

[Pekka]

If you really think, that landmines are really supposed to be used to kill civilians and then left uncontrolled to areas you can't even remember, so we can have a tragedy lasting 50 years and maiming few generations, then you are horribly mistaken. Just like rifles weren't designed to shoot exclusively kids in the back. You must know the difference. It is sad, that these weapons get used in the wrong way, to create misery to civilians and so forth, but that's not the fault of the weapon, but the side doing that. YOu do it on purpose, you don't accidentally just dump them and forget about them. IF you do, then you are a criminal.

[Pekka]

Azazel, absolutely, but that is the fault of the generals and other people creating the situations. Weapons should be used for self defense and there's nothing wrong with defendign yourself. THere's a whole bunch of wrong to go kill other people that are not a threat to you and have done nothing to you.

And in able to defend yourself, you need powerful weapons. And we, Finland, need landmines. It's a big cornerstone of our defense. We do it, we know how to do it effectively and we have done it in the history. But I guess we are senseless butchers and maimers?

I'M TALKING ABOUT SELF DEFENSE!

Is it wrong to study the ancient art of karate? i mean, it teaches you to kick people in the face! Is it the fault of karate, or the dude who created it? I don't think so.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Pekka
Oh yes, this makes me a general who wastes human lives, right?

No, that is not the point of mines. The point of mines it to set them up with control (it's nice to know where you set them, so you don't step into them, right?), TO YOUR OWN LANDS. Not including claymores and things like that, but landmines. You put them to YOUR own lands, so the enemy will slow down stepping to them.

Now, when the war is over, or you don't need the mines in certain location, then you remove them yourself, so that you don't step into them by accident, or when the war is over, your own civilians won't get blown away by them. THat is the correct use of a landmine. It is highly controlled and it is used to DEFEND yourself against invaders. If invader steps into the mine, well should I feel bad about it? Maybe I'd feel a bit bad, but I think it was necessary. If enemies generals are so fool to waste their troops unnecessary, then are you the bad guy defending your own country in your own lands? If you didn't do that, they'd prolly come and kill you, and your friends too.

It is unethical to go to someone elses lands, dump landmines and leave without removing them, or giving the correct information about their locations.

See? This is what I'm talking about. Just like the 18th century general would talk about the rules of war and being a gentleman (or whatever the hell) when explaining why all the soldiers are wearing red coats and are standing shoulder to shoulder in a line, infront of the enemy.

You are designing weapons, the mine for example, and saying "I know I put them there to kill you - but plese, remove them when the war is over. I'd rather not have my child step on it and die." what you are doing, is throwing down a slew of mines that will never be removed, outside of when someone steps on them. You've ackowledged that this is how it works, but delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

You make these weapons saying "it will be used like this... doing that would just be wrong" When you know it will be use like 'that'.

[Pekka]

Even more so, because todays world is what it is, you need to have firepower and army. Then you can be nice to other people and wish for peace. YOu know the saying 'if you wish for peace, you better prepare for war'?

People take you seriously when you can defend yourself, and maybe they don't attack so fast. You don't have to attack other people, because you are a man of peace. You just make sure other people won't do that so easy either. And as of now, we can't do that without landmines. It's a fact. We are trying to change it in the future though.

And as for firepower, YES I do like powerful stuff. I watch Extreme Engineering, BIG STUFF, Big Structures, Junkyard Wars etc from Discovery Channel. Powerful things interests me. I do not drool and salivate when I see dead people, or I do not wish for unnecessary wars, like many of them really are, pointless.

And even more, I have never started a war, I have never killed anyone, I have never helped anyone to be killed, I have never been in a war, I do know few people who have been though, I do not wish to help anyone to kill people. But I like self defense. Happy?

[Pekka]

Oswerld, No no and no, I just have to disagree with you there. We have used tons and tons of landmines, but collected them back. Why would you leave landmines to your own lands, where your kids would step on them? You put them so the invader will step to them. I don't make nuclear weapons and point them at my own house, now do I?

As I said, they are used correctly when you are placing them to your own lands, so YOU have to pick them up.
If you put them on someone elses lands, then you are not so effective picking them up. That's why you use it as a defensive weapon. What is so hard to understand?
I would never put hundreds of mines to my own backyard, and them leave them there so my kids can step on them. It is meant for enemy, and it can be controlled and used in effective way. You have to pick them up YOURSELF, because it is your lands.

Is it designers faults, that they are used in rotten ways? It is the fault of the users. Or else we should destroy all weapons. Well that sounds good to me actually, but it won't ever happen. You need the guns to defend yourself and your country. So you need to design them too. If someone else uses them in bad ways, it doesnt' mean you should throw away your own guns and stop designing.

[General Ludd]

There is no such thing as a defensive or offensive weapon. Only weapons. You have said yourself that mines (and any weapon) can be used offesnively, but you decide to pretend that is not the case when making your designs - that they would never be 'misused', because that would just be wrong.

The inventor of the gatling gun thought, when he was designing it, that it would make wars so horrific that they would end swiftly. It did make wars a heck of alot more horrific... but that's about it.

[Pekka]

And I do realize, that my earlier posts were a bit provocative, sorry. I sometimes tell serious stuff too lightly. Then again, I think there should be not a single thing that one couldn't joke about. Call me crazy.

Obviously you are getting me wrong. I don't consider war as a game. Or if it's a game, then it's the worst game there is. But I do believe in defending so hard, that I am willing to risk my life and everything I have and ever will have to defend the borders, and I wouldn't go sad doing it. I might come back sad, or in a box, but I'd be honoured to do it. And I don't believe in taking someones lands and killing whole bunch of people jsut because you get more power. I only believe in defending yourself and your friends, pure and simple. Do you see something wrong in it?

[Pekka]

Osweld, sure. Every weapon can be used to attack or defend. But if you're defending your own ones, then it's not about staying in the trenches and firing the attacking enemy. You have to attack too, and even more so if it's going good, you're the only one attacking. Attacking the attacker to defend yourself.

Ok, let's pretend everyone is evil and son of satan. Someone attacks you, what do you do? Reason with them? What if it's not possible, and they will take you down by force. What then? There is nto going to be a devine intervene.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Pekka
Osweld, sure. Every weapon can be used to attack or defend. But if you're defending your own ones, then it's not about staying in the trenches and firing the attacking enemy. You have to attack too, and even more so if it's going good, you're the only one attacking. Attacking the attacker to defend yourself.

Ok, let's pretend everyone is evil and son of satan. Someone attacks you, what do you do? Reason with them? What if it's not possible, and they will take you down by force. What then? There is nto going to be a devine intervene.

I am not talking about the ethics of fighting a war here, I am talking about the ethics of designing weapons.


As to your question, if everyone was evil and a son of satan, that would include the subject of the hypothetical, so he'd probably go down biting and clawing.

If you are asking what I would do if someone attacked me, well, that's a very broad and circumstational question, and I couldn't really say what I'd do. But I can tell you one of the things I wouldn't do: hide explosives all over my house.

[Pekka]

Well I wouldn't do that either. Hide explosives to my house. Instead, I'd hide them outside, where I know they will come and blow them away. Well, only if they are enemies and it is war.

I think it is relevant, to compare war and designers and the whole scenario, as the designers make sure you have the weapons you need. Without designers you don't have them, but enemy sure does.

The problems you are talking about mostly concenrs thrid world countries like in Africa, where they have bush wars etc and maiming lots of people. But their motives are different and they are not professionals as we are used in western countries. It is sad, and it is bad what is happening there. But even that shouldn't mean I should personally drop my weapons. You need the designers, and because you need them, I don't understand how they are evil? And if so, then they are necessary evil and thus only semi-evil .

[Pekka]

Look, it's almost like fat people accusing mcdonalds, because they're tasty food made them fat.

[General Ludd]

You don't need weapon designers. We do a fine job of killing eachother with sticks and stones. Guns, bombs, and everything else, just makes it all that much more horrible and destructive.