ichadwick Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 It's a bit ironic isn't it, arguing whether an action in war is ethical? War in itself isn't ethical. It's merely the extension of diplomacy by other, bloodier means (apologies to Bismark). And it's even harder to wonder about ethics when you're talking about the two most horrific dictatorships, the two nations responsible for the most heinous murders and genocides in history. Is it worse to send simulated SS men to their death or NKVD security forces? But this isn't war. It's a game. Nothing in a game is unethical because those little animated pixels don't have morals or conscience and their lives are even less interesting than a lawyer's. Except of course my favourite Sgt. Rossovsky... but that's another thread... All that matters is the flag. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianc Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 scottdt, I don't know if your halftrack's death ride is unethical, but your sig definitely is. Take the shears to it m'lad and save us a few hours and terabytes... ianc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notalex Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Minor correction needed, it was the Torpedo Bomber crews who suffered the grevious losses at Midway. Though I am not diminishing the bravery of the Dive Bomber Pilots either. Torpedo 3 (USS Yorktown) 9 out of 13 shotdown Torpedo 6 (USS Enterprise) 10 out of 14 shotdown Torpedo 8 (USS Hornet) 15 out of 15 shotdown (one survivor out of 30 men Ens. George Gay) I defer to your greater knowledge, suh! I'm not a naval grog, so my recollection of Midway is largely confined to the (1965?) movie with Henry Fonda, Glenn Ford, et. al. But wasn't the initial attack on the Jap(anese) carriers a more-or-less opportunistic thing when the Navy fighters caught them out in the open with their CAP flights still warming up on the flight deck? I thought that it was the dive-bombers who got the first shot in by crashing through the wall of flak, and the torpedo-bombers came along a bit later to drive it home. But I could be wrong. DoH! Maybe I should do some research or something before I run my mouth. There's this thing called the Internet...maybe it would have one or two websites devoted to the subject? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Just to clear up Midway. It was the Torpedo planes with some fighters that found the Japanese first. Their attack achieved no hits but it distracted the Japanese AAA and, more importantly, brought their fighter cover down to the deck. When the dive bombers appeared the sky was cleared of Zeros and the decks of the Japanese carriers were full of bombers and torpedo planes preparing to attack the just spotted American fleet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alsatian Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by Navare: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by notalex: Minor correction needed, it was the Torpedo Bomber crews who suffered the grevious losses at Midway. Though I am not diminishing the bravery of the Dive Bomber Pilots either. Torpedo 3 (USS Yorktown) 9 out of 13 shotdown Torpedo 6 (USS Enterprise) 10 out of 14 shotdown Torpedo 8 (USS Hornet) 15 out of 15 shotdown (one survivor out of 30 men Ens. George Gay)</font>But at least Torpedo 8 made good copy on the homefront. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company (Boston: 1943) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notalex Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Just to clear up Midway. It was the Torpedo planes with some fighters that found the Japanese first. Their attack achieved no hits but it distracted the Japanese AAA and, more importantly, brought their fighter cover down to the deck. When the dive bombers appeared the sky was cleared of Zeros and the decks of the Japanese carriers were full of bombers and torpedo planes preparing to attack the just spotted American fleet. Now I am thoroughly humiliated. I will report for duty in the PENG thread, SUH! BTW: Happy Birthday! [ January 12, 2003, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: notalex ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noba Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by notalex: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Just to clear up Midway. It was the Torpedo planes with some fighters that found the Japanese first. Their attack achieved no hits but it distracted the Japanese AAA and, more importantly, brought their fighter cover down to the deck. When the dive bombers appeared the sky was cleared of Zeros and the decks of the Japanese carriers were full of bombers and torpedo planes preparing to attack the just spotted American fleet. Now I am thoroughly humiliated. I will report for duty in the PENG thread, SUH! BTW: Happy Birthday!</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenm Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 A much better US historical analogy to the "divine halftrack" technique is Picket's Charge at Gettysburg. While this involves many more men than a typical CMBB scenario, the firepower is somewhat similar. Think how history might have been different if Lee's failed Pickett's Charge had been sucessful. The US's greatest general, RE Lee, often used "divine halftrack" techniques to win tactical victories. He learned the technique from ancient generals. Recent horrible uses of the technique have occured in Africa. They have pioneered the suicidal youthful "divine halftrack", primarily using the 10 to 13 year old warior. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 It's a bit ironic isn't it, arguing whether an action in war is ethical? War in itself isn't ethical. It's merely the extension of diplomacy by other, bloodier means (apologies to Bismark).What are you apologising to Bismark for? It was Clausewitz who said that Actually what he realy said was: "War is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other means." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alsatian Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 We don't have to turn this into a thread on the "Just War Theory," do we? No, of course not. Google it works just as easy. My "Ethics in Warfare" professor would argue that there indeed are ethics in warfare; from the strategic decision by diplomats of when to go to war, down to tactical ethics of sacraficing one squad (certain death) to achieve a company's objective. Great class, and it counted towards my theology requirement too. [ January 12, 2003, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Alsatian ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottDT Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 Just some thoughts: One, I would have to disagree---I think war can be quite ethical. I consider WWII to be an ethical war, at least for the US & Britain, as we entered it not for territorial gain but to oppose evil nations bent on world conquest. This idea that all war is unethical I find to be a legacy of the "Hell no, we won't go" Vietnam-era peacenik mentality. :mad: Two, some of you suggested that I shouldn't lose sleep over this issue---I assure you I haven't. But that is an interesting thought: has wargaming reached the level of realism where our units cease to be pixels and start to become something more? Certainly, the great graphical realism of CM is moving us in that direction. If one could add a greater RPG element to CM, I could easily envision such an over-connection to "our commands." Something to think about. Finally, for all of you who are overly concerned about the amount of time people are wasting reading long sigs, I have shortened mine. Loses some of the punch, but it still works. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notalex Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Two, some of you suggested that I shouldn't lose sleep over this issue---I assure you I haven't. But that is an interesting thought: has wargaming reached the level of realism where our units cease to be pixels and start to become something more? Certainly, the great graphical realism of CM is moving us in that direction. If one could add a greater RPG element to CM, I could easily envision such an over-connection to "our commands." Something to think about. As one of the first to call it to your attention...uh, thanks for kicking off an interesting discussion. Your (entirely admirable) angst at sending men to their deaths reminds me of an interview with the developers of the Squad Leader boardgame. [Much paraphrased] They knew they were on to something special when a playtester quit rather than make a last desperate charge. Spoiler! . . . . . . . . . . . AAR: Defender: Why are you quitting? Attacker: I'm not sending my men into that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottDT Posted January 15, 2003 Author Share Posted January 15, 2003 Great story! I really think with the advent of super-powerful video cards and ultra-realitic wargames like CM, a new golden era of wargaming is definitely on the horizon. They are becoming something more than games.... I hope the next CM will allow a live audience to watch online games in progress, much like you can watch and kibitz an online chess game. Allowing an audience to sit in on a game on CM is a great way to attact new wargamers and add a whole new level to competitive wargaming. But I digress.... As for my ethical issue, game-wise I am okay with the decision, but I know that if it happened in "real-life," it would probably haunt me for years. Wow, if CM can provoke ethical considerations like this, it truly is a great game! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Originally posted by mididoctors: No its the other way round isn't it? ...... the group marching is part of a well honed practice of stripping a recruit of his/hers individuality thus.. if we can get them to perform humiliating routines in sync like mindless circus seals we can get them to do anything (including going to their death)..why do modern armies still instill group mentatility with drill? .. however I do agree that the US divebomber crews at midway were brave men. Boris london FIELD MANUAL No. 22-5 PURPOSE The purpose of drill is to: 1. Enable a commander to move his unit from one place to another in an orderly manner. 2. Aid in disciplinary training by instilling habits of precision and response to the leader’s orders. 3. Provide a means, through ceremonies, of enhancing the morale of troops, developing the spirit of cohesion, and presenting traditional, interesting and well-executed military parades. 3. Provide for the development of all soldiers in the practice of commanding troops.Unless you've put a gaggle of wall-eyed Privates through their paces with snap and vigor, don't knock it as a means of building esprit-de-corps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 I have drilled troops and yes it does give the men a sense of pride when done well. notalex Thank you for the b-day wishes. BTW, I wouldn't even advocate sending an enemy to the peng thread. I think there is something in the Constitution about that. I think it is interesting how many people sound off about the immorality of war but remain curiously silent about the things that are allowed to happen just to avoid one. At least a soldier has some chance to decide his own fate. Allowing a country to slaughter its population while we stand by and preach about the virtues of not getting involved is not only unethical but disgusting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mididoctors Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Originally posted by von Lucke: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mididoctors: No its the other way round isn't it? ...... the group marching is part of a well honed practice of stripping a recruit of his/hers individuality thus.. if we can get them to perform humiliating routines in sync like mindless circus seals we can get them to do anything (including going to their death)..why do modern armies still instill group mentatility with drill? .. however I do agree that the US divebomber crews at midway were brave men. Boris london FIELD MANUAL No. 22-5 PURPOSE The purpose of drill is to: 1. Enable a commander to move his unit from one place to another in an orderly manner. 2. Aid in disciplinary training by instilling habits of precision and response to the leader’s orders. 3. Provide a means, through ceremonies, of enhancing the morale of troops, developing the spirit of cohesion, and presenting traditional, interesting and well-executed military parades. 3. Provide for the development of all soldiers in the practice of commanding troops.Unless you've put a gaggle of wall-eyed Privates through their paces with snap and vigor, don't knock it as a means of building esprit-de-corps.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mididoctors Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Originally posted by Sgtgoody: I think it is interesting how many people sound off about the immorality of war but remain curiously silent about the things that are allowed to happen just to avoid one. At least a soldier has some chance to decide his own fate. Allowing a country to slaughter its population while we stand by and preach about the virtues of not getting involved is not only unethical but disgusting.[/QB]Sorry I do not fully understand your meaning here? That is a generalism no? Can such a fixed morality work in all instances? Surley there are times for war and times to avioid war? Perhaps morality has very little to do with decisions to go to war, instead they tend to be based on self intrest...for instance no international task force was sent to Rwanda in 1994 (and am NOT arguing one way or the other whether one should have been). It just seems to me no one had any self intrest in such a war... Now that realy was the case of a population being slaughtered. estimates of 500,000 plus out of a total population of 8,000,000! So the argument "it has nothing to do with us" has been used as a reason by goverments to avoid intervention which latter may advocate involvement in other locals on moral grounds.....this the PR frontend of realpoltik if you like..... Whether this a correct form of behaviour or not is irrelavent IMHO and I do judge decisions or issues in a Isolated moral manner. The term 'greater good" comes to mind..which on a global scale is very hard to judge (this is the USA's predicament). One perhaps should be less offended by critism , reacting with indignation, than accepting that any policy may have negative conintations and adjust policy for ONES OWN benifit to account for views which condradict your own. OF course this can include popaganda. Ironicly I may be more of a hawk than some may think reading this post. Boris london 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 The eternal question isn't it. Are ethics ever really anything but our best interests? Do we have a moral obligation to everyone or only those who can benefit us in some way? Even though it has mostly become a tool of misinformation and half truths at least the worldwide nature of the media has started people asking these kinds of questions. Not much is being done to find any answers but at least it is a start. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mididoctors Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Originally posted by Sgtgoody: The eternal question isn't it. Are ethics ever really anything but our best interests? Do we have a moral obligation to everyone or only those who can benefit us in some way? .Perhaps the trick may be to redefine OUR AS IN US, so that divsions cease to exsist of course this has the terrible truth inside it... we must take an idelogical stance so we can define what is in everyones intrest. Is this a clash of civilisations? Pragmaticaly speaking of ethics of the current situatio [iraq] ...I am less anti-war than I am anti-peace settlement post war! We have heard plenty of reasons why the ability to breath air should be denied to certain individuals but almost NOTHING about what we intend to do post such a desirable outcome? Ethicaly a moral crusade against "evil" could be hi-jacked for a greater "evil". What are our intentions? Are we being lied too? In all honesty what is ones gut feeling? This whole situation is getting down to some pretty basic denominators. Boris london 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mididoctors Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Originally posted by scottdt: Two, some of you suggested that I shouldn't lose sleep over this issue---I assure you I haven't. But that is an interesting thought: has wargaming reached the level of realism where our units cease to be pixels and start to become something more? Certainly, the great graphical realism of CM is moving us in that direction. If one could add a greater RPG element to CM, I could easily envision such an over-connection to "our commands." Something to think about. .I had a regular opponent back in the day when i was a serious ASL head.... after a while last turn charges where considered "bad sport" by both of us. In essence we applied self discipline over the issue.... This may be a desire to avoid gamey play rather than anthropormorphising cardboard counters thou.. Boris London 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.