NATION

PASSWORD

Do you believe that there are cowardly strategies?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Cwonation
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Jan 24, 2015
Ex-Nation

Do you believe that there are cowardly strategies?

Postby Cwonation » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:49 am

My point of view has changed recently, I think, and I figured this might be a fine topic to discuss

Running away – to some, it seems inherently cowardly. Why would it be such a bad thing to avoid a battle?

Some people think that hiding in the shadows and attacking from stealth is cowardly. But is it? Stealth takes skill, and it often carries significant risks if failed. People who are skilled in stealth tend to take particular advantage of the weaknesses of the opponent(s), but they are often at a disadvantage in open combat. Some warrior types seem to think that if you don’t fight them by trying to bash through their armor, then you’re a coward

Poison – applying poison to a weapon in battle doesn’t seem cowardly at all to me under most circumstances. One exception is in a duel where it is secretly applied. It is a significantly different scenario when poison is applied to something consumable in secret, though that still carries risks and I’m not sure what to make of it

Attacking from a distance – let’s compare distance to armor. Some people use armor to protect themselves. Other people use distance. Kind of a trade-off, isn’t it? But what if the person who uses distance also uses armor? If you wear armor, you’re generally slower, so you can create less distance to protect yourself. Again, a trade-off

Drones – Killing people with machines that you control remotely from a significant distance is, in my opinion, significantly cowardly. It’s different, however, if you control your machines from the battlefield or close by

The nuclear bombing of the Japanese cities is, to me, one of the most dishonorable things ever done in the history of human war. Was it cowardly, however, or just dishonorable and despicable?

These were just examples. Is any fighting style inherently cowardly, or is there something else that defines cowardice? Maybe a certain style coupled with a certain something else?

User avatar
Jute
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13735
Founded: Jan 28, 2014
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Jute » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:52 am

The nuclear bombing has been discussed a lot already. The question is, what would have been the alternative? Fight every Japanese soldier to death and risk heavy casualties on both sides, or try to force a capitulation quicker to bring the war to a quicker end?
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...
The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
"Boys and girls so happy, young and gay / Don't let false worldly joy carry your hearts away."

See the Jutean language! Talk to me about all. Avian air force flag (via) Is Religion Dangerous?

User avatar
Russels Orbiting Teapot
Senator
 
Posts: 4024
Founded: Jan 20, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Russels Orbiting Teapot » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:54 am

I would generally say that the most cowardly tactics involve putting an otherwise uninvolved person in danger to protect yourself from harm.

So hostage taking, terrorism, etc.
Last edited by Russels Orbiting Teapot on Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cwonation
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Jan 24, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Cwonation » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:55 am

Jute wrote:The nuclear bombing has been discussed a lot already. The question is, what would have been the alternative? Fight every Japanese soldier to death and risk heavy casualties on both sides, or try to force a capitulation quicker to bring the war to a quicker end?

But wouldn't you find it cowardly to destroy your opponent with them getting any chance to fight back when all it takes is the press of a button?

User avatar
Independent Republic of Not My Problem
Envoy
 
Posts: 279
Founded: May 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Independent Republic of Not My Problem » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:56 am

As a general rule, the only fair fight is the one you lose, but I think strapping bombs to children, the elderly, and the infirm is cowardly.

User avatar
Shilya
Minister
 
Posts: 2609
Founded: Dec 03, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Shilya » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:56 am

When it comes to fights to the death, there's no such thing as cowardice, there's means that work and others that don't. If you pick something that's less likely to work because it would be dishonorable, or cowardly or something like that, that's called being stupid. Also, dead.

What does matter is cruelty. If your methods are excessive relative to your goals, that's still a no go.
Impeach freedom, government is welfare, Ron Paul is theft, legalize 2016!

User avatar
Cwonation
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Jan 24, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Cwonation » Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:08 am

Independent Republic of Not My Problem wrote:As a general rule, the only fair fight is the one you lose, but I think strapping bombs to children, the elderly, and the infirm is cowardly.

So would strapping bombs to an adult be okay?

User avatar
Puryong
Diplomat
 
Posts: 690
Founded: Jan 25, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Puryong » Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:13 am

Cwonation wrote:
Independent Republic of Not My Problem wrote:As a general rule, the only fair fight is the one you lose, but I think strapping bombs to children, the elderly, and the infirm is cowardly.

So would strapping bombs to an adult be okay?

It isn't a case of 'okay' it's a case of, if you're going to do it, it should be someone willing & fully able to understand what they're doing. It's never 'okay' but there are times when it would be more cowardly.

It's like a 20 year old convincing a 15 year old to have sex as opposed to a 20 year old convincing an 8 year old to have sex with them, both are awful but one is considerably more disgusting and immoral because of the age & innocence.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 163861
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:19 am

Of course there are. But if what you're worried about is looking brave then maybe the fight you're engaged in isn't all that serious.
He/Him

beating the devil
we never run from the devil
we never summon the devil
we never hide from from the devil
we never

User avatar
Tayrona
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 128
Founded: Apr 21, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Tayrona » Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:19 am

Some cal it cowardly, some call it stealth. Depends on context and personal views.

Real cowardice is continuing a war after it's won or in vengeance.
Former optimist. Current cynic.

User avatar
Cwonation
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Jan 24, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Cwonation » Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:30 am

Puryong wrote:
Cwonation wrote:So would strapping bombs to an adult be okay?

It isn't a case of 'okay' it's a case of, if you're going to do it, it should be someone willing & fully able to understand what they're doing. It's never 'okay' but there are times when it would be more cowardly.

It's like a 20 year old convincing a 15 year old to have sex as opposed to a 20 year old convincing an 8 year old to have sex with them, both are awful but one is considerably more disgusting and immoral because of the age & innocence.

So what you're saying is that when there is no other way, one should pick the lesser of two evils?

User avatar
Puryong
Diplomat
 
Posts: 690
Founded: Jan 25, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Puryong » Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:57 am

Cwonation wrote:
Puryong wrote:It isn't a case of 'okay' it's a case of, if you're going to do it, it should be someone willing & fully able to understand what they're doing. It's never 'okay' but there are times when it would be more cowardly.

It's like a 20 year old convincing a 15 year old to have sex as opposed to a 20 year old convincing an 8 year old to have sex with them, both are awful but one is considerably more disgusting and immoral because of the age & innocence.

So what you're saying is that when there is no other way, one should pick the lesser of two evils?

Of course, if there's no way to get around hurting someone and you have an option to do something which will do the least harm to fewer people, that's what you should do.

User avatar
Zottistan
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14894
Founded: Nov 26, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zottistan » Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:07 am

More often than not, bravery is a nice way of saying stupidity.
Ireland, BCL and LLM, Training Barrister, Cismale Bi Dude and Gym-Bro, Generally Boring Socdem Eurocuck

User avatar
Narland
Minister
 
Posts: 2530
Founded: Apr 19, 2013
Anarchy

Postby Narland » Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:47 am

My point of view has changed recently, I think, and I figured this might be a fine topic to discuss
My responses are from the context of soldiers on the battlefield.

Running away – to some, it seems inherently cowardly. Why would it be such a bad thing to avoid a battle?

running away to avoid battle as a warrior (soldier/sailor/etc) is cowardly because that warrior is expected to stand up to the attacks of the enemy for those who cannot. avoiding battle (as a people) in general is not cowardly, but wise. killing people and breaking things as a rule to settle disputes is barbaric and destroys the livelihood of an entire generation which is why it is only used as a last resort to the imminant threat of an intractable hostile force for those countries who consider justice an objective. the US lost its objectivity a long time ago, and many nations never had it.

Some people think that hiding in the shadows and attacking from stealth is cowardly. But is it?
Possible, but the distinct word that comes to my mind is insidious, or guileful. It can be a part of cowardly behavior to attack from concealment in order to gain advantage, just as it can be dastardly, craven etc., but that is merely an aspect or connotation of cowardly behavior outside the scope the narrow definition.

In war, killing as many of the combatant enemy and destroying as much of their implements and infrastructure as quickly as possible that is facilitating the war in such a way as to leave no doubt in the mind of the enemy that they are utterly defeated and any continued hostilities are utterly futile should be the goal; and battlefield sniping is a part of that. In this case it is part of the rules of engagement. On the battlefield, one should expect that death is imminent from any source including sniping, and ambush--war is hell, and should be avoided if at all possible.

Stealth takes skill, and it often carries significant risks if failed. People who are skilled in stealth tend to take particular advantage of the weaknesses of the opponent(s), but they are often at a disadvantage in open combat. Some warrior types seem to think that if you don’t fight them by trying to bash through their armor, then you’re a coward

Poison – applying poison to a weapon in battle doesn’t seem cowardly at all to me under most circumstances. One exception is in a duel where it is secretly applied. It is a significantly different scenario when poison is applied to something consumable in secret, though that still carries risks and I’m not sure what to make of it
You may not have thought this through. When poisons are used on the battlefield they arent always immediately effective and they can leave wounded behind who suffer for years to come even after the hostilities are over.

Attacking from a distance – let’s compare distance to armor. Some people use armor to protect themselves. Other people use distance. Kind of a trade-off, isn’t it? But what if the person who uses distance also uses armor? If you wear armor, you’re generally slower, so you can create less distance to protect yourself. Again, a trade-off
If we keep too much distance we shall find that the whole of the earth has become the battlefield.

Drones – Killing people with machines that you control remotely from a significant distance is, in my opinion, significantly cowardly. It’s different, however, if you control your machines from the battlefield or close by.
In general agreement--do what it takes to get the war over with as quickly and as efficiently as possble without hurting the civilians.

The nuclear bombing of the Japanese cities is, to me, one of the most dishonorable things ever done in the history of human war. Was it cowardly, however, or just dishonorable and despicable?
It was necessary. My grandfather on my father's side lost 5 of his 6 brothers between the Battle of Leyte Gulf and Iwo Jima. To go island by island and loose another 100,000 men and have the war drag on for more than more than another year instead of using the atom bomb would have been both dishonorable and foolish. My aunt (Okinawan-American) would be stuck in an internment camp for that much longer, and a great uncle on the other side of the family who was a POW probably would have died over there. We used two, and it stopped the war. Had we used them relentlessly or vindictively without giving the opportunity to surrender then yes, it would have been dishonorable.

These were just examples. Is any fighting style inherently cowardly, or is there something else that defines cowardice? Maybe a certain style coupled with a certain something else? the honorable lunatic art of kowagari-tsu? If you are in a person to person fight (in war on the battlefield) it is kill or be killed. Do what must be done to incapacitate your attacker as quickly and as effeciently as possible.
Last edited by Narland on Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:06 am, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Uawc
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5115
Founded: Oct 24, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Uawc » Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:54 am

"Self-preservation is the highest law." - Anton LaVey

I'm not dying for some rich asshole's interests. I know the only recognition I would get is a five-second mention on the evening news and maybe my name chiseled into a wall (if I'm lucky), after which I would be permanently forgotten. But I guess my mentality is why I'm not military.

I think there are plenty of cowardly tactics, like terrorism and the use of nuclear weapons. I don't think stealth is cowardly at all. A lot of skill and risk is involved.

Ultimately, what I think doesn't really matter, as people will continue to use whatever tactics they want regardless.
Last edited by Uawc on Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pro-democracy, pro-NATO, anti-authoritarian, anti-extremism.
Ex-leftist and ex-Muslim.

I stand with Ukraine and Israel.

User avatar
Alsheb
Senator
 
Posts: 4415
Founded: Jul 07, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Alsheb » Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:56 am

I don't much believe in the existance "cowardly" strategies and tactics. When it really comes down to it, I'd take "cowardly" victory over "honourable" defeat any day. Guess that's my philosophical materialism talking: ultimately you want to reach a goal. If your strategies fail to meet that goal, honourable as those strategies might be, you probably should change them into something more useful for the reaching of your goal.

That being said, I don't believe in full "end justifies the means". There's a difference between cowardice and morality. I don't, for example, think that the US drone warfare is a "cowardly" way to fight a war. It is a criminal and despicable way to wage war though, and it should be banned for those reasons. The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't cowardly. It was criminal and completely senseless, and it was a war crime.
Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninist and Zaydi Muslim Pan-Islamist
About Alsheb: An Islamic people's republic, based upon the principles of Marxism-Leninism and Zaydi Islam
Member of the Committee for Proletarian Morality
Pro: Communism, Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Axis of Resistance, Syrian Arab Republic, Ansarullah, Hezbollah, Palestine, Iran, Novorossiya, LGBTQ acceptance, feminism, internationalism, socialist patriotism.
Anti: Capitalism, imperialism, racism, fascism, zionism, liberalism, NATO, EU, Wahhabism, revisionism, trotskyism.
Freedom is nothing but a vain phantom when one class of men can starve another with impunity. Equality is nothing but a vain phantom when the rich, through monopoly, exercise the right of life or death over their like.
Jacques Roux

User avatar
Constantinopolis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7501
Founded: Antiquity
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Constantinopolis » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:01 am

Alsheb wrote:I don't much believe in the existance "cowardly" strategies and tactics. When it really comes down to it, I'd take "cowardly" victory over "honourable" defeat any day. Guess that's my philosophical materialism talking: ultimately you want to reach a goal. If your strategies fail to meet that goal, honourable as those strategies might be, you probably should change them into something more useful for the reaching of your goal.

That being said, I don't believe in full "end justifies the means". There's a difference between cowardice and morality. I don't, for example, think that the US drone warfare is a "cowardly" way to fight a war. It is a criminal and despicable way to wage war though, and it should be banned for those reasons. The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't cowardly. It was criminal and completely senseless, and it was a war crime.

This is also precisely my opinion.

There are such things as immoral strategies. But no strategy is "cowardly". If your strategy makes you win, then it was an intelligent strategy, and if the enemy complains that it was "cowardly", he's just a sore loser.
The Holy Socialist Republic of Constantinopolis
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile." -- Albert Einstein
Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64
________________Communist. Leninist. Orthodox Christian.________________
Communism is the logical conclusion of Christian morality. "Whoever loves his neighbor as himself owns no more than his neighbor does", in the words of St. Basil the Great. The anti-theism of past Leninists was a tragic mistake, and the Church should be an ally of the working class.
My posts on the 12 Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church: -I- -II- -III- -IV- -V- -VI- -VII- -VIII- [PASCHA] -IX- -X- -XI- -XII-

User avatar
Great Nepal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28677
Founded: Jan 11, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Great Nepal » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:15 am

Alsheb wrote:I don't much believe in the existance "cowardly" strategies and tactics. When it really comes down to it, I'd take "cowardly" victory over "honourable" defeat any day. Guess that's my philosophical materialism talking: ultimately you want to reach a goal. If your strategies fail to meet that goal, honourable as those strategies might be, you probably should change them into something more useful for the reaching of your goal.

That being said, I don't believe in full "end justifies the means". There's a difference between cowardice and morality. I don't, for example, think that the US drone warfare is a "cowardly" way to fight a war. It is a criminal and despicable way to wage war though, and it should be banned for those reasons. The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't cowardly. It was criminal and completely senseless, and it was a war crime.

Would you somehow feel better if people were there shooting at other people and obviously hitting civilians in the process, increasing overall death toll instead?
Last edited by Great Nepal on Sun Nov 29, 1995 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
The Empire of Pretantia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 39273
Founded: Oct 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Empire of Pretantia » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:21 am

Cwonation wrote:
Jute wrote:The nuclear bombing has been discussed a lot already. The question is, what would have been the alternative? Fight every Japanese soldier to death and risk heavy casualties on both sides, or try to force a capitulation quicker to bring the war to a quicker end?

But wouldn't you find it cowardly to destroy your opponent with them getting any chance to fight back when all it takes is the press of a button?

No. "Cowardly" is just a word used to make the dumber person seem better.
ywn be as good as this video
Gacha
Trashing other people's waifus
Anti-NN
EA
Douche flutes
Zimbabwe
Putting the toilet paper roll the wrong way
Every single square inch of Asia
Lewding Earth-chan
Pollution
4Chan in all its glory and all its horror
Playing the little Switch controller handheld thing in public
Treading on me
Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, and all their cousins and sisters and brothers and wife's sons
Alternate Universe 40K
Nightcore
Comcast
Zimbabwe
Believing the Ottomans were the third Roman Empire
Parodies of the Gadsden flag
The Fate Series
US politics

User avatar
Cwonation
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Jan 24, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Cwonation » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:35 am

Constantinopolis wrote:
Alsheb wrote:I don't much believe in the existance "cowardly" strategies and tactics. When it really comes down to it, I'd take "cowardly" victory over "honourable" defeat any day. Guess that's my philosophical materialism talking: ultimately you want to reach a goal. If your strategies fail to meet that goal, honourable as those strategies might be, you probably should change them into something more useful for the reaching of your goal.

That being said, I don't believe in full "end justifies the means". There's a difference between cowardice and morality. I don't, for example, think that the US drone warfare is a "cowardly" way to fight a war. It is a criminal and despicable way to wage war though, and it should be banned for those reasons. The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't cowardly. It was criminal and completely senseless, and it was a war crime.

This is also precisely my opinion.

There are such things as immoral strategies. But no strategy is "cowardly". If your strategy makes you win, then it was an intelligent strategy, and if the enemy complains that it was "cowardly", he's just a sore loser.

But where do we draw the line between immoral and cowardly strategies? When a civilian is hurt? When one side betrays another?

User avatar
Shilya
Minister
 
Posts: 2609
Founded: Dec 03, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Shilya » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:39 am

Cwonation wrote:
Constantinopolis wrote:This is also precisely my opinion.

There are such things as immoral strategies. But no strategy is "cowardly". If your strategy makes you win, then it was an intelligent strategy, and if the enemy complains that it was "cowardly", he's just a sore loser.

But where do we draw the line between immoral and cowardly strategies? When a civilian is hurt? When one side betrays another?


Generally, I'd say excess is the keyword. It's not always possible to keep civilians out of the fight. Every war has civilian deaths, they're not avoidable. As for betraying, meh. Changing alliances is a legitimate thing to do in warfare.

Ultimately, there's no simple line. Any situation must be judged on its own merit.
Impeach freedom, government is welfare, Ron Paul is theft, legalize 2016!

User avatar
South Pacific Republic
Diplomat
 
Posts: 617
Founded: Jul 17, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby South Pacific Republic » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:42 am

Cwonation wrote:
Jute wrote:The nuclear bombing has been discussed a lot already. The question is, what would have been the alternative? Fight every Japanese soldier to death and risk heavy casualties on both sides, or try to force a capitulation quicker to bring the war to a quicker end?

But wouldn't you find it cowardly to destroy your opponent with them getting any chance to fight back when all it takes is the press of a button?

Kind of sounds like Pearl Harbor

User avatar
Nazi Flower Power
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21328
Founded: Jun 24, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Nazi Flower Power » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:43 am

Lots of stuff is cowardly. That doesn't make it bad strategy and it doesn't mean it's wrong.
The Serene and Glorious Reich of Nazi Flower Power has existed for longer than Nazi Germany! Thank you to all the brave men and women of the Allied forces who made this possible!

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54847
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperializt Russia » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:45 am

Any person who holds regard for the suggestion that "cowardice" is an important thing in conflict has no understanding of anything.
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54847
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperializt Russia » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:47 am

Cwonation wrote:
Jute wrote:The nuclear bombing has been discussed a lot already. The question is, what would have been the alternative? Fight every Japanese soldier to death and risk heavy casualties on both sides, or try to force a capitulation quicker to bring the war to a quicker end?

But wouldn't you find it cowardly to destroy your opponent with them getting any chance to fight back when all it takes is the press of a button?

That is exactly the win that the western armies have been aiming for since the nuclear age began.
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eahland, El Lazaro, Ethel mermania, Infected Mushroom, Kannap, Keltionialang, Kostane, Port Carverton, Simonia, The Two Jerseys, Tungstan, Uiiop

Advertisement

Remove ads