My question is, is it the soldier or the weapon you have to watch for.
What makes a man kill another, or what kind of bullet does it.
Pilots in a fighter plane do not know what's happening under them.
Functionally, warfare is an instinctive behavior inspired by but ultimately unrelated to predation. For a lion will kill a cheetah, a leopard or
their cubs. Even though they are not in anyway a prey species or even direct competitor to their principal bioniche. Just as lions will ambush and
slaughter hyenas and seek out and attack their dens. Because they ARE such a danger.
Lions will even battle other prides when the hunting territories become too densely overlapped or encroached upon, especially in bad years. Lions
will also seek to dominate for rights of mating relative to older and younger generational changeout between rogues.
And there are HUNDREDS of similar examples, throughout the wild kingdom. Such that you cannot make moral judgments based on what emotions humans
display when engaged in the act of killing (whether through true joy, guilty-pleasure as a release from societal norms or as FOF stress relief) but
must acknowledge that, within fixed limits, war is a functional tool of great evolutionary value in isolating cultural, strategic and natural
resources to a stronger social body.
Take a look at a ground fighter in afghanistan www.compfused.com...
And for those who think he is waked, take a look at this american pilot.
The real question is whether each is serving a function. Or whether, /by allowing a warrior to fight without hope/, it is more evil to endorse
'indirect warfare' as a spoiling tactic via client sponsorship.
If this MANPADS shooter was a Native American fighting the Westward Expansion and he attacked a flying conostoga wagon which was simply /passing over/
his tribe's home range. Would you feel more pity for what he is about to lose? Or more anger for what an 'innocent civillian' was about to be
hosed for? Or rage for the trader who enabled the encounter? Keeping in mind that this Indian does not know any of the tribes in Oregon or
California where the settler is finally heading. And would himself compete with -them- if they entered into his territory.
OTOH, the simple ability to synthesize and condense a personal environmental awareness into a condensed descriptive commentary as "I got a bunch of
individuals moving down the street". Probably vastly exceeds the pilot's physical skill in adjusting targeting-pod cross hairs onto a given cluster
of video-MTIs (which any computer could be taught to recognize as raster-discrete translating points of interest).
In these examples it is obvious that man sees a separation from ascendency in the act and 'meaning' deriving from it's successful prosecution.
Whether he be a Roman Legionaire fighting on a cluttered battlefield whose final outcome or decisive point he literally cannot see an end of. Or an
isolated group which sees NOTHING BUT the obvious illustration of mortal futility (with no response possible), as a single F-15E drops a GBU-12 on
them, from 10,000ft.
If there is any simple answer to these matters (for me) it is this-
1. If, today, you made war a crime in name as it was effectively 'morally' stated to be at Nuremburg. Subjecting any leader, industrialist,
engineer or soldier who created, exported or enacted weaponized conflict beyond their own borders to an instant death penalty eligibility under
international law. War and all it's preparative waste would be a historical anecdote by Monday morning and all actions would be 'policing' related
against small arms at most.
2. As long as we continue to breed without care or concern for the planet's ability to sustain life independent of our existence, war will be the
inevitable resource-access competitive outcome and also the simplest LCD board leveler. Unfortunately, this means elective genocide for the races and
classes which breed the most, in the poorest and richest cultures. Victimizing them for their procreativity.
3. Man sees himself in any opponent. As an identity polar for the 'current' of rage, jealousy, fear or frustrative spite to flow to. To kill the
opponent is to remove the focus but not the cause of his feeling. If you destroy the identification displacement process by making a machine
intelligent enough to kill 'without a face'. Then there is no psychology of coup inherent to the emotional release. If you remove the emotional
justification, you eliminate the driving force behind which a symbolic threat justification is made. Each F-16 costs 550 college graduates a chance
at a real life. Who knows what that kind of money could buy in the 3rd World.
4. War must pay for itself. If you haven't the honestly to take-forever what you need from someone, you haven't the morality to place yourself
above him as a 'better person', morally obligated to kill.