US army of the future knocking on the door!!

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Actually if by honor you mean agreeing with your enemy that you will met on Field X tomorrow at time X and draw at the same time and fire at teach other at the same time, I don't call that honor I call that stupidity.

That's not what I meant by honor. Honor is a recognition of martial prowess, an understanding of the consequences of battle, and many other concepts probably lost on modern men like ethics and fair play, discipline and social virtues. Honor is not about english grenadiers lining up and firing in neat rows, honor is about standing tall and advancing before your men to confront the champion of the opposing force. Honor is about refusing to bring shame to your side or your family by stooping to tactics better left to tyrants. You can keep using your infested blankets and dirty radiological weapons, but it makes you a mad dog in the eyes of every warrior left alive. Mad dogs are destined to be put down.

The truth of war is, you still have to live afterwards, often side by side with those you conquered. The Romans knew this, so did Salladin - history remembers their efforts. Those who strayed from the righteous path live on forever in infamy. You should not be prepared to do anything in war that would nullify the sanctity of your mission during the conflict. For example, don't request the use of chemical weapons when invading a foreign sovereignty to 'look for chemical weapons.' Don't bomb children to prevent the death of children, etc...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
War is about completing your objective and saving as many lives on your side as possible. There is none of this honor BS in War, like a famous commander once said, “War is hell”.

No, the world is hell, war is simply a human endeavor like any other - it can be conducted brutally and without thought, or it can be a work of art, a calculated effort, the consequences of which outlive the warriors who fought and died. The name of the game is efficiency, and efficacy. It's not efficient to kill as many enemies as possible, it's much more efficient to go through a staged escalation of diplomatic pressures to preclude the use of force and prevent the inevitable losses. That fails; threat display to show you mean business (all animals know this, why don't you?). That fails; precision, lightning fast surgical strike to cripple the enemy and force his surrender. This will contribute to your windfall at the bargaining table, you cannot extract resources from an enemy no longer alive.

If that fails, and your enemy is stupid or brave to varying degrees, you destroy his forces without remorse, while offering fair treatment to all those who surrender.

It's not just honorable, it's sensible.

Of course, some of the older warrior clans fought for more than victory, they fought for the thrill, for the challenge. I respect their pursuit of martial perfection, but I question their brash and careless use of violence. A true warrior knows that a blade is best kept sheathed whenever possible. It adds weight to threats of violence if you mean what you say, and say what you mean.

Honor also means mutual respect between warriors. Too often in modern times the 'civilized' armies have looked down on and ridiculed their opponents, ignoring their creativity, their inventiveness and their often archaic but highly effective tactics. Mutual respect goes a long way in peace time, and in war, it can mean the difference between battle and genocide.

What you're talking about is exactly the logic used to justify plague blankets and death camps. It's simply not the way honorable men do things.