I have always been interested in who is braver between these two sets of soldiers: the ones with all of the technology needed to be safe and victorious, and the ones with measurably less technology that makes them unsafe and usually less victorious when compared to the previous group. I will not be directly naming the two groups I am thinking of, but I will use two examples, which are the technologically advanced US soldiers and the less advanced insurgents/terrorists of our time.

So who is braver between these two classic examples? I will admit that both are brave simply because both groups have decided to participate in battle, but I must also admit that I believe that one group is braver than the other. Who is braver in this case: Two men decide to fight. One man has a gun even though he knows his opponent has only a knife. The second man, knowing that the first man has a gun, as stated previously, willingly goes into the fight with just a knife. Is the braver man the man with the gun? Or is it the man with the knife? The man with the gun must feel safe and must feel that he will be victorious since he knows his opponent only has a knife, right? So this man is not that brave, right? The braver man is obviously the second because he goes to fight with only a knife even though he knows his opponent has a gun, right?

These are simple, thought-provoking questions.

Let's move on to some real life examples.

Who is braver, the US fighter pilot who has the capability to shoot down his opponent from half the world away, or a terrorist who lives amongst his enemy for any number of years, hijacks an aircraft, and stares death in the face by crashing it into a building filled with civilians? Putting the reasons and targets of this example here aside, ask yourself who is braver. Who is braver, the US soldier equipped with Kevlar body armor, night vision goggles, advanced weapons and other such equipment, and who is always under the watchful eye of the Predator UAV, or the insurgent with none of these great things? Who is braver, the US soldier in an everything proof vehicle, or the same, naked insurgent?

Allow me a final example. Who is braver: A student with a cheat sheet, or a studious student without one?

Does being prepared make one less brave than one who is measurably less prepared, but still engages in the same activity as the prepared one?

I know this is a heated topic since there is a war going on, but let's tackle this philosophically if nothing else.

The least technology advanced are considerably braver, but this does not make them right.

While you might not agree with their cause, they are willing to die for it even seeking it. A modern soldier tries their best not to get killed.

But Bravery and righteousness are not the same thing...

these are merely the opinion of romantic people who are stucked at the past when "everything is better in the past without technology", unfortunately life continues to develop and evolve, so does technology, and who can not catch up will extinct, no matter "how brave they are".....

avatar was a story about some primitives winning from technology advanced barbarians, our sympathy for these "brave" primitives are prolly one of the reasons such a movie with merely some good visuals and crappy story would break box office records.....

I think the Op is confusing bravery with fanaticism. Fanatics such as religiously inspired terrorists are not brave. They have no rational thought.. such as self preservation, or primal instinct such as 'fight & flight'. Who needs such things when your promised a paradise full of virgins in the afterlife?

I'm almost tempted to suggest that a guided missile has more cognitive ability than many of these religiously programed meat bombs.

Whoops! I already said it!

IRM

[edit on 19/1/10 by InfaRedMan]

Of course the people defending their country from occupying forces are more brave. They have no fear of death. They pray that they die as a martyr. They have a reason to fight, a reason worth dying over. Most Americans would say it was worth risking their lives to defend from occupying forces if they came to our own lands. Is national sovereignty not a cause worth fighting for?

US soldiers are scared of death. They don't know what they're fighting for. They have no cause worth dying for. They know they're just pawns in life-sized game of Risk. They hide behind their technology and hope they don't get blown up while riding in their Hummers.

I have another analogy for you. Who is braver, the Israeli in the tank, or the 6 year old Palestinian throwing the rock?

Who is braver? Not as hard as you think, although most folks here came up with the wrong answer.

WHo is braver, a nation's all-volunteer armed forces with access to nuclear weapons that could literaly obliterate the forces they fight from the face of the earth in an instant, but instead choose instead to fight with inferior weapons that cause an unpopular war to drag on for years (or maybe even decades) because they will not resort to mass murder or genocide to solve their problems? Or those who fight these forces with whatever weapons they can get their hands on, and kill whoever they can?

Who is braver, those who fight for a people and government that at least in theory support the rights of all individuals to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in a manner they best see fit - only constrained by laws? Or perhaps those who would kill anyone they judge to be violating the law of an ancient semi-religious text, and the dictates of non-elected tribal cheifs and self appointed interpreters of the will of god?

Who is more brave, those who leave their homes, families, and friends and travel half way around the world in an attempt to stablize a foreign government so that a foreign people - with no real ties of cultural or philosophical similarity - may hope to live a life free from terror? Or perhaps those that hide in caves like spiders, or among destitute women and children, only to emerge from them to murder a stranger who has never done them personal harm, sometimes merely because he heard they are godless, or have committed the sin of fraternizing with the opposite sex, or have not genuflected quite properly enough in their five-time daily mandatory prayers, or perhaps simply because they don't agree with them and their friends?


I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. I guess it all depends on the questions you ask.

Originally posted by JesusChristSuperstar
Brave men do not win a battle. Smart men do.

Thanks for changing the subject.

Originally posted by Occy Anonymous
The least technology advanced are considerably braver, but this does not make them right.

I am not debating the rightness or wrongness of either side, I am just interested in who is braver of the two sides.

While you might not agree with their cause, they are willing to die for it even seeking it. A modern soldier tries their best not to get killed.

I didn't want to mentioned this just yet because I knew I would be flamed for it, but since you mention it: How are professional soldiers (again, not singling out US soldiers) brave when they try their best not to die? Are they really facing death with all that technology on their side? Are they willing to die? What about, I have to single out the US now, many US soldiers being in the services just for college money? How are they ready to die when they are planning for the future? Good call, Occy Anonymous!

Originally posted by yiersan
these are merely the opinion of romantic people who are stucked at the past when "everything is better in the past without technology", unfortunately life continues to develop and evolve, so does technology, and who can not catch up will extinct, no matter "how brave they are".....

Off topic. By the way, I love technology.

avatar was a story about some primitives winning from technology advanced barbarians, our sympathy for these "brave" primitives are prolly one of the reasons such a movie with merely some good visuals and crappy story would break box office records.....

Way off topic.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I think the Op is confusing bravery with fanaticism.

I don't think I am. Remember, though, I asked you all to put aside any reasons for the actions in question aside, so this levels the playing field a lot.

Originally posted by LordBucket
Choice of technique does not convey bravery or cowardice. If you have a man fighting unarmed, he does not become more or less brave when you hand him a gun.

I am talking about evaluating two separate groups, not whether one, single person is either brave or not in two different situations. I am evaluating one group when compared to the other. To fix your example, I want to determine who is braver between an unarmed man who knows that his opponent has a gun, and the man with the gun who knows the other guy is unarmed.

Let's say a student takes a test on monday without a cheat sheet. Then on tuesday he takes a test with a cheat sheet.

Did he become cowardly?

Again, I am not talking about one, single individual.

Originally posted by Sashromi
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. I guess it all depends on the questions you ask.

Sorry, but I am putting reasons aside in this debate.