The Morality of War

[CyberWar]

Some time ago I happened to go through an amusing situation, which made me think of this topic in depth.

I was having a discussion with an aquaintance about war in Iraq. Since our country was an active supporter of the US campaign, and this girl had relatives in the military, she would speak about supporting the campaign to make the world a safer, terrorist-free place. However, when I showed her some materials about genocide against Iraqi civilians on the net, including gruesome pictures of incinerated women and children, she changed her opinion for 180 - that was so funny I could hardly refrain from laughing in her face.

Why?

Because I think there are no morality or ethics that can be spoken of in warfare. War is by definition a contrary to any concepts of morality.

The essence of war is a legitimate killing of human beings, whatever the reasons. So, there is no real difference in who is being killed, as the essence remains the same - destruction of human life on the opposing side. Since all existing codes of ethics and morality oppose killing of human beings, there can be no just cause to war, nor there can be any division in "lawful" and "unlawful" targets. So, unless we want to revise the moral principles underlying every human society, it is either total war, or no war. Morality of war is just as fictious as democracy in the modern world (zealous democrates, pardon the comparision).

Thinking pragmatically, there is no difference in whom you kill. The most obvious targets are armed soldiers. But why not kill civilians then? They contribute to the war effort as well - men and women work in factories, pay taxes and keep the enemy economy running. Women give birth to children and raise them, replenishing the manpower of enemy state. Even a defenseless child is theoretically a legitimate target - in 15 or so years, he or she will become a potential soldier or in the least, somebody that keeps the enemy state going. Even senior citizens, no longer capable to fight or work, still can help advance the enemy goal with advice, if nothing more.

Nor can there be a division in "humane" and "inhumane" weapons - a flamethrower gets its job done just the way a bullet or missile does, only way slower. And it is even better in breaking enemy morale. Same thing goes for chemical weapons - what real difference it makes, whether the enemy dies quickly from gunshot, or slowly and painfully expires, choking from a nerve gas? There is no difference - the enemy dies or at least becomes useless to the war effort, and that is the purpose of war, right? So we can set aside the concept of humanity in this matter too, if we wish to make war. More logical would be a ban on ecocidal weapons, for it is the environment we share with our enemies.

Never leave a job half-done. Gulf War of 1992 was probably the biggest error in the history of warfare, intended only to weaken, not to annihilate the enemy. If you hated to wash dishes and started washing a big pile of them, you'd probably force yourself to wash them all so you would not have to return to that disgusting job later, yes? Same thing goes for war. If there is ever a sufficient reason to take up arms, then that reason must definately be great enough not to stop until the last of the enemies has stopped breathing. A number of ancient cultures had a custom - once a sword was drawn, it could not be sheathed until blood was drawn.

If the purpose of war is conquest, the enemy civilians may be spared, but not because of some fictional moral concerns, but of purely utilitarian - to make "them" into "us". Mongols were probably the first to realize and apply this - whenever they went to war and encountered an enemy city, they gave them opportunity to surrender. If surrender was accepted, the city was spared and the citizens would continue their lives as Mongol subjects. If the city resisted, however, it was razed to ground. Inhabitants were, obviously, given no quarter.

Today, we are so accustomed to speak of cruelties and injustices of wars past and present. I find that illogical and nonsense for the reasons explained above. If we wish to make war and maximize efficiency of it (as is the slogan of all strategists), the first and foremost choice should be forgoing concepts of morality and ethics that belong to civil life. War is always cruel and unjust to somebody whatever the reason, and there is no way of making it otherwise. Or, if we wish to retain our illogical moral concepts, then we should forgo war entirely.

What are your thoughts on this matter? (NOTE: try to look at this from the logical, not ethical point of view)

[Tiananmen]

That was a very interesting take on the concept of morality in war and I agree. I think that we hold on to the concept of morality so to make it seem like we are better than whoever we happen to be in conflict with for propaganda purposes. Who would want to fight against someone with higher moral standards than yourself? The most logical sense would be to completely ignore the rules of engagement and destroy the enemy, which includes all members of the opposing group soldiers and citizens, in the most efficient manner, which may mean biological weapons and in very very dire situations nuclear warfare. The only limit that should be imposed is on nuclear weapons, simply because they are very damaging to the environment and can make an area uninhabitable for years. They should only be used when you are about to be destroyed and a few well placed nukes will turn the tide of the war.

[Random]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

What are your thoughts on this matter? (NOTE: try to look at this from the logical, not ethical point of view)

Logic and morality are independent, and are often in conflict. What are you seeking from this thread?

[CyberWar]

I seek for, perhaps, an opposing view that would attempt to counter-weight my arguments for "immorality". Usually when I bring up the topic in a public discussion, I'm usually barked at for being an inhuman, insensitive clod, without the public giving any real arguments in defense of "morality".

[DeathToSociety]

A while back there was a fight at school, one of the kids kicked the other kid in the nuts. After the fight everyone was saying shit like what a cheap shot it was, like the balls are off limits or something. I thought that's fucking stupid, Its a fight, you do what you can to win.
War is the same, except its just on a larger scale.

[CyberWar]

Correct, the rational purpose and the desirable outcome of combat (in any form) is to win.

On the moral aspect, honourable combat proves your sophistication as a gentlemanly person. However, that is only possible (and advised) when both sides have formally or otherwise agreed to certain rules. Even if you are a gentleman, there is no point of treating an unworthy enemy honourably, unless you are certain of your victory and wish to display some chivalry as a sign of superiority.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by Tiananmen

The most logical sense would be to completely ignore the rules of engagement and destroy the enemy, which includes all members of the opposing group soldiers and citizens, in the most efficient manner, which may mean biological weapons and in very very dire situations nuclear warfare.

Might seem good at first, until you take into account the fact that completely annihilating a country would turn the rest of the world against you. Economic sanctions alone could cripple your own country. That's a logical reason to limit the damage to military targets.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

Thinking pragmatically, there is no difference in whom you kill. The most obvious targets are armed soldiers. But why not kill civilians then? They contribute to the war effort as well - men and women work in factories, pay taxes and keep the enemy economy running. Women give birth to children and raise them, replenishing the manpower of enemy state. Even a defenseless child is theoretically a legitimate target - in 15 or so years, he or she will become a potential soldier or in the least, somebody that keeps the enemy state going. Even senior citizens, no longer capable to fight or work, still can help advance the enemy goal with advice, if nothing more.

Most modern wars aren't measured in years anymore. The Iraq "war" was over in weeks. Not enough time for children to grow up and become soldiers. (The occupation is another matter.) Moreover there are many people who make no contribution to the war effort. People on welfare for example, or the sick and elderly. You would be doing the enemy a favour by killing them.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

Never leave a job half-done. Gulf War of 1992 was probably the biggest error in the history of warfare, intended only to weaken, not to annihilate the enemy. If you hated to wash dishes and started washing a big pile of them, you'd probably force yourself to wash them all so you would not have to return to that disgusting job later, yes? Same thing goes for war. If there is ever a sufficient reason to take up arms, then that reason must definately be great enough not to stop until the last of the enemies has stopped breathing.

Not necessarily. If you fight for defence then protecting your own country is sufficient - no need to kill everyone else. If Japan had been completely wiped out during WW2 they wouldn't now be one of our largest trading partners.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

If the purpose of war is conquest, the enemy civilians may be spared, but not because of some fictional moral concerns, but of purely utilitarian - to make "them" into "us".

I agree with this part. If you can assimilate them into your own culture so much the better. In any case, if you want the resources of a country it helps to have the industries already in place. Why kill them when they can work for you?

[CyberWar]

True indeed, but what if they do not wish to work for the conquerors?

Let's take a good example of Afghanistan. The US Coalition forces like to boast themselves as "conquerors" of Afghanistan, if such wording would be appropriate. The sad reality is that no Coalition soldiers dare to leave their base without a heavy escort of tanks and gunship helicopters - that would be plain and simple suicide.

Freedom-loving people like the Afghans never give up their fight. Add religious fanaticism to that, and you got a force that, while not being able to win militarily, will certainly make the lives of occupants and colaborationists so miserable they will eventually stand down, demoralized and exhausted, with public opinion against them. Afghan tribes have NEVER been conquered in the 2000 years of their history for using these very same tactics.

To defeat such people, the only viable (if brutal) way is to wipe the last traces of them off the Earth.

[headcase]

So you're suggesting hyper-aggression in the nuclear age? I can see it all ending quite badly for humanity.

Political tensions in the world are reasonably low at the moment. This is largely due to "moral" concerns. Whether it's public opinion at home or concern with a more international outlook, systems are in place that strongly discourage total war. What would have happened if the US military had annihilated the Afghan population? A massive backlash at home certainly. International allies would withdraw support while more cagey countries (Russia and Iran for two) would become ultra-defensive, probably restarting the Cold War. Except with another button for Ahmadinejad.

It could be argued that a more balanced war than the invasions of Iraqi and Afghanistan would change the situation. There was more at risk, for example, in World War II than there is in the Middle East at the moment (but I imagine another war of that magnitude will end in the destruction of the planet anyway).

[CyberWar]

The point is that modern war is no longer a war between countries or ideologies. It is a war between civilizations, in which the West and the Islamic World fight for world domination.

And in such clash of epic scale, there is no place for mercy. The importance of victory is simply so great that it goes beyond the question of right or wrong. That is what all the anti-war activists and most politicians fail to realize. It is our totally-corrupt mindset that would cause backlash at the homefront, not the immorality of genocide as such. Not so long ago, Western society was expansionist and not afraid of social conflict. Now we have become expansionists that terribly fear social conflict and so we instate all kinds of BS tolerance, anti-racism and integration laws, propagate these pseudo-values as good and essentially dig our own grave. We allow the enemies to enter our keeps with a warm welcome, silencing any protesters.

Muslims, on the other hand, are very harshly realistic about these matters. For this reason, they only pay lip-service to our "civilized" values, while their mindset and resulting actions remain largely as they were in the Middle Ages (which really isn't that bad - for them). Do you, a white Christian (I presume), really expect to be tolerated when the towelheads gain the upper hand?

Therefore I really think the only restrictions in warfare should apply to ecocidal weapons. The final battle against the hordes of subhuman scum of the Middle East is coming fast, and mass genocide of them will then probably be the least of evils to choose, I'd rather say, a necessity while we still have the edge in technology.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

True indeed, but what if they do not wish to work for the conquerors?

While some people, like the Afghans, will always resist, most simply aren't as tough or determined. A modernised western nation would be much easier to subdue. If you had control over electricity, gas and water supplies the population would have little choice but to fall in line.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

The point is that modern war is no longer a war between countries or ideologies. It is a war between civilizations, in which the West and the Islamic World fight for world domination.

Actually it seems more like a war between arabic nations and the US, for control of oil. Thus far, Islam has produced some fanatical terrorists, but nothing that actually threatens the existence of the west.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

And in such clash of epic scale, there is no place for mercy. The importance of victory is simply so great that it goes beyond the question of right or wrong.

Since we live on different continents, we don't have to wipe out the eastern nations, even if war does eventuate. Bombing them back to the stone age would suffice.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

Do you, a white Christian (I presume), really expect to be tolerated when the towelheads gain the upper hand?

I'm not christian, and I don't believe headcase has mentioned his religious orientation (if any). But no, I wouldn't expect to be tolerated in an islamic country. That's why I don't go there.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

Therefore I really think the only restrictions in warfare should apply to ecocidal weapons. The final battle against the hordes of subhuman scum of the Middle East is coming fast, and mass genocide of them will then probably be the least of evils to choose, I'd rather say, a necessity while we still have the edge in technology.

Genocide will not be necessary. Just defence, if it comes to that.

[CyberWar]

But tell me, what defence is better than offence? Although I sincerely wish that genocide will not become a necessary evil, all indicates that this might just happen soon enough.

Why? Because the biggest threat from the Islamic world comes not from few bomb-wearing fanatics, but from those very same "innocent" civilians that migrate to Europe in an endless stream. Even now, when they are too few to become a threat just yet, signs already show the danger that they pose - riots in France and Benelux, rapid rise of crimes perpetrated by Islamic minorities in Germany, troublesome illegalsin Spain and Italy. We are tolerating enemies at our own home, quite literally nurturing snakes under our wings.

When they grow in numbers sufficiently, guns and bombs will become secondary - no advantage in technology will save Indo-Europeans then.

[headcase]

So we destroy the East? Then they'll destroy the West and we'll all be dead. Your worries abont vague immigration issues seem to pale against your solution of a nuclear holocaust.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

But tell me, what defence is better than offence? Although I sincerely wish that genocide will not become a necessary evil, all indicates that this might just happen soon enough.

Currently the existence of the west is not under threat. Pre-emptive genocide is not warranted.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

Why? Because the biggest threat from the Islamic world comes not from few bomb-wearing fanatics, but from those very same "innocent" civilians that migrate to Europe in an endless stream. Even now, when they are too few to become a threat just yet, signs already show the danger that they pose - riots in France and Benelux, rapid rise of crimes perpetrated by Islamic minorities in Germany, troublesome illegalsin Spain and Italy. We are tolerating enemies at our own home, quite literally nurturing snakes under our wings.

When they grow in numbers sufficiently, guns and bombs will become secondary - no advantage in technology will save Indo-Europeans then.

Again, this is an argument for controlled immigration. If they can't live peacefully under western law then we should halt the flow of migrants. Besides, wiping out the source countries will not do anything about those already here, except give them a reason to fight.

[CyberWar]

But what if that is exactly the plan - making the immigrants at the home cause trouble to warrant a purge?

Besides, I would not say that the existence of West is safe - while in short term the Western countries will be able to hold their own, that is likely going to change within our very lifetimes. 5% of Germany's population are now Turks, Arabs and other "religious minorities", and the migration still does not stop. Turkey actively campaigns for EU membership, which would then lift all restrictions of migration, flooding Europe with largely undereducated religious fanatics. If they are accepted, that will be only the legal part - millions of refugees and fortune-seekers from the Middle East will use Turkey as a gateway to Europe illegally.

Think what will happen, if very strict measures are not taken against them (not necessarily genocide). Turks, who are perhaps the most liberal Muslims, are already known for intolerance and violence, so imagine what Arabs and Persians must be like.

[Steve_TPF]

If you don't want them, change your immigration laws. They can only be a threat to your country's existence if you allow them to be.

[Foxfreezer]

I think that most of the higher-ups in the war departments understand this concept that morality is futile in war and that it only cripples your own offense. However, if you recall what happened in Korea, the American society was shocked by the horrors of war and the length of the battle and conditions. Society can make or break a war, if your people dont support you, your at an uphill struggle. Morality is a must in society, thus, by transitive property, there must be morality (to a degree) in war.

I also agree with previously posted, that the economic situation alone when the world turns against you would force your country to its knees.

[CyberWar]

True, not letting them inside in the first place would obviously be the best solution, but the retards that run the EU seem to start realizing the problem only now, when some larger cities have a nearly 20% Muslim population and the ethnic majority starts to express significant concern.

But what to do with those already inside? As citizens, they cannot be legally expelled or have their citizenship revoked.

If some form of morality is really a must even in war, then an inverse Golden Rule would probably be the best.

[Steve_TPF]

If a 20% muslim population gives you serious concern then you'd best abandon your dream of global domination. After all, if you can't handle a civilian disturbance (or even uprising) when you have a 4:1 advantage, you would never prevail against a united muslim country.

What to do with them? Simple. Make it clear that the law applies to them, same as everyone else. If they don't comply they can be jailed, or in some cases deported.

Your OP asked me to consider this from a logical point of view rather than an ethical one, and I have been. I have not opposed you on moral grounds, just pointed out the practical reasons why your proposal is unnecessary and indeed, counter productive. There would be an international backlash against any purge and your country would be crippled.

[CyberWar]

A fine example of Western domination was rather seen in the colonial era - the British empire held control of 1/4 of planet and 2/5 of human population at the time. Add Russian empire and other colonial powers of the time, and you have nearly 80% of the world in some way subjugated to the West.

However, colonial model proved itself as rather inefficient, so I would instead suggest a model of indirect cultural/economic domination, enforced by military force when necessary. By providing for all needs of the Third World in exchange of concessions for raw resources and flooding their lives with our cultural elements in the process, the West could gain a total control of their economy without actually invading them. Military would only be put to use when some nationalist or traditionalist element gained sufficient power to resist the cultural or economic occupation.

To achieve that, it would be necessary to either drive China back into isolation by economic means, or convince the Far East to side with the West as allies. That would essentially leave the populations of South America, Africa, the Islamic World and India as exploitable assets by the West-East Axis of the developed, predominantly West or Westernised nations.

To maintain social order, the populations of different races and religious convictions should be segregated - and not in the manner of South Africa or USA, but by entire continents, as has been historically. In the colonial era, there were next to no ethnic minorities in Britain, and they were predominantly found only in big cities. People of colour could attain high social status in their homelands, but never in the metropolis that ruled over them. Each to his own place is the golden rule of domination that contemporary politicians seem to forget. That means, 20% Muslim population would not be a problem in West-dominated world if they were kept largely confined to their native lands.

And yes, you have not touched moral issues and given purely rational arguments in opposition, which I appreciate.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

I would instead suggest a model of indirect cultural/economic domination, enforced by military force when necessary. By providing for all needs of the Third World in exchange of concessions for raw resources and flooding their lives with our cultural elements in the process, the West could gain a total control of their economy without actually invading them. Military would only be put to use when some nationalist or traditionalist element gained sufficient power to resist the cultural or economic occupation.

I'm with you on the cultural and economic aspect of this plan. Yes, influence their culture with ours, and make aid dependent on resources and social improvement. (Such as human rights.) Additionally, other countries would see you as helping, rather than invading, and would be happy to follow suit when they saw an economic advantage for them. This is a much better plan! I see no reason to enforce this with military action though. Other considerations aside, forcible control creates resentment which would slow down the process of "westernisation".

Originally Posted by CyberWar

To maintain social order, the populations of different races and religious convictions should be segregated - and not in the manner of South Africa or USA, but by entire continents, as has been historically.

Difficult to achieve with the current population spread. Why not encourage those living in your own country to adopt your values/customs and show them how life improves? Then they can tell their friends in the old country how good things are - helping the assimilation process.

So I'm with you on the economic/cultural plan. I'm just not with you on the invasions and genocide.

[CyberWar]

Well, that is because in the process of argumentation and counter-argumentation, we collectively figured out that genocide is not a viable way of subjugating rivals - ethical concerns aside, the process is too difficult and wasteful. That means an alternative is required.

Military action is necessary from time to time, though. For example, if the government of an African country willingly conceded, let's say, uranium mining rights (uranium ore being the main source of income for that state) to the Western Imperium, but local nationalists objected against selling their future, formed armed resistence and seized the mines (which are legally Western property), then the West would have a legitimate excuse to take back their property by force.

I don't think human rights are that important, citizen rights are what truly matter. Consider the Roman Republic as example - they had no concepts of human rights, tolerance, democracy or individual freedom, yet their government system was more democratic than most contemporary "democracies". What we recognize as human rights was entailed in Roman citizenship. Gaining full citizenship was the dream of every man among the Roman allies. Enacting a similar system in contemporary world could, in fact, help speed the assimilation - imagine people of all the subject nations with only basic legal protection looking up to the full citizens and dreaming of enjoying all their privileges one day. If adopting certain cultural tenets was a requirement in becoming a citizen, I calculate that subject cultures would cease to exist within about a century.

The reason why segregation should be enacted even in a world state is that when people of two radically different cultures come in contact, there ought to be trouble. Here's a real-life example of how a seemingly casual cultural conflict can turn into a major problem for an entire nation:

Muslims find the way Western women dress, behave and live utterly unacceptable, and are extremely intolerant of non-conformism within their community. A Muslim-born woman who, influenced by the Western environment around, chooses to Westernize, becomes a very likely target for violence from her kin. That, in turn, seems absolutely wrong and immoral to us, who emphasize individual freedom to choose one's destiny. Let's say that woman is killed by her very brother for becoming Westernized. To us, that constitutes a breach of her human rights and a murder, for which the brother is punished severely. Muslim community, however, goes in uproar - to them, the brother only did what was required of him by tradition and faith to preserve family honour. Being hot-tempered, the community starts a riot and vandalizes the properties of innocent Westerners in the process. Police, already unhappy about immigrants attempting to dictate their rules, brutally disperses the riot. Those having suffered property damage also turn against the Muslim community. Repressive actions follow, and radical elements in the Muslim community ultimately begin to consider using violence against the infidels.

That is why people of starkly different cultures should be kept apart - migration restrictions and forced repatriation of culturally-illoyal elements should suffice.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

Military action is necessary from time to time, though. For example, if the government of an African country willingly conceded, let's say, uranium mining rights (uranium ore being the main source of income for that state) to the Western Imperium, but local nationalists objected against selling their future, formed armed resistence and seized the mines (which are legally Western property), then the West would have a legitimate excuse to take back their property by force.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

I don't think human rights are that important, citizen rights are what truly matter. Consider the Roman Republic as example - they had no concepts of human rights, tolerance, democracy or individual freedom, yet their government system was more democratic than most contemporary "democracies". What we recognize as human rights was entailed in Roman citizenship.

Which was only available to a limited section of the population. A society that allowed slavery, gave women limited rights and let only some of its population have any say in politics could hardly be called more democratic than a contemporary democracy.

I don't agree that different cultures have to be kept separate. They just have to learn tolerance. Frankly this seems to be easier for the west than for the East.

Aside from that, we have left the original topic The Morality of War and moved on to a blueprint for the westernisation of the world. As such I believe we have discussed this to its logical conclusion and reached a measure of agreement, so I'm ending it here.

Nice debating with you.

[CyberWar]

Agreed. Let us switch back to the original topic. One note, tolerance indeed will save some troubles, but will also inevitably cause others, so I think a healthy degree of isolation from the starkly different would be rather better - isolation, in fact, preserves variety.

Let's look at the war from purely moral aspect now instead of rational.

It seems that every war without exception is motivated by man's deepest urges for a game, economic, political or religious reasons only being the overt expressions of what cannot be explained in words. Every human being, just like every animal capable of doing so has a killer instinct. The development of this instinct varies from person to person, but fact is that everybody has it - even the most determined pacifist would kill, given the right motivation. So people in power often use this killer instinct to manipulate the masses into acts of warfare. However, that does not mean they would be worthless cowards that have others do their bidding - these people participate in the game just as intensely as those in the front lines, only on a whole different level, without the direct risk to their lives (although in total war it may very well be the case). Ancient world was rather more honourable in this way, as kings and generals were expected to lead the wars, themselves fighting alongside their men. But, although war has largely devolved into a frenzy of clicking launch keys today, it still remains a game of hunting and seeking, in which the ultimate prize is life.

Similarly, every human being has a lust for power. Even the most humble, harmless and pacifist individual still secretly lusts for power - perhaps he or she supresses that lust or doesn't even realize it, but it is there and will come to action with proper stimuli.

Also, humans seem to direct hostility only towards outside packs while being highly protective of their own pack.

Given these factors, I'm inclined to say that war itself cannot be defined either as moral or immoral as it is caused by natural reasons. War is a morally-neutral process. Since war is not a single activity but a complex group of actions, each of which may be either moral or immoral, and considering that morales themselves are relative, there is no real way to judge it. Neither can war be judged as "right" just because it is defensive - for example, would one justify the defender that has been invaded for commiting genocide?

[Darkshadow666]

War is to kill the enemy, and send the message to any other enemies "dont fuck with us".

If its war, it's war. morals only get in the way at that point. I would give the order to drop a shit ton of nukes without question.

[CyberWar]

Now, nukes are impressive in their effect, but they are expensive as hell, do an awful damage to environment and ultimately will turn everyone against you - nobody wants to suffer from you hogging up the world's environment through no fault on their part, so in any war it is best to keep it between the two conflicting parties.

Conventional weapons like WP, napalm, flamethrowers and FAE can be used just as effectively to terrify the enemy, and at a fraction of a nuke's price. Plus little environmental damage.

[Random]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

Now, nukes are impressive in their effect, but they are expensive as hell, do an awful damage to environment and ultimately will turn everyone against you - nobody wants to suffer from you hogging up the world's environment through no fault on their part, so in any war it is best to keep it between the two conflicting parties.

Conventional weapons like WP, napalm, flamethrowers and FAE can be used just as effectively to terrify the enemy, and at a fraction of a nuke's price. Plus little environmental damage.

What is WP?

What evidence is there that those weapons are just as effective at terrifying an enemy as a nuclear weapon?

What evidence is there that those weapons are able to be produced and used at a fraction of the price of a nuclear weapon?

What evidence is there that there is little environmental damage in using these tools?

[General Grim]

What is WP?

White phosphorus, horrible, horrible stuff. Does this to people.

What evidence is there that those weapons are just as effective at terrifying an enemy as a nuclear weapon?

They aren't, these weapons only terrify the soldier on the battle field- a demoralizing tool. Their effectiveness against civilians is futile at best as they can be easily countered by destroying the missiles/carriers.

What evidence is there that those weapons are able to be produced and used at a fraction of the price of a nuclear weapon?

A lot, can't find any reputable figures but I had to study the design for an assignment and can tell you the complications and construction of a single nuke would greatly outweigh tonnes of any other of the weapons mentioned.

What evidence is there that there is little environmental damage in using these tools?

The damage (if any) done by these tools are regional. Nothing compared to the world-wide effects of the theorised Nuclear Winter.

[CyberWar]

The effects of nukes are instant and offer comparatively little suffering when compared to being scorched by WP or napalm. What makes incendiary weapons so demoralizing is that they rarely kill instantly and, unless applied directly, often do nott kill at all, instead causing extremely painful and permanently disfiguring injuries.

The price of building a quality nuclear weapon goes into 100 million dollars. Even a low-yield makeshift nuke (with no guarantee to work) would still cost well over 1 million dollars. The builder will need hi-tech precision equipment, scientists with quite specific education, and quite rare materials. The greatest difficulty comes from obtaining nuclear fuel - even natural uranium is not exactly the substance you could buy in Wal-Mart, much less the enriched uranium that is used to generate nuclear power. Obtaining plutonium is even harder since it requires a nuclear reactor to manufacture. So, unless you own a large nuclear plant, getting the material for a true nuke (not a dirty bomb) is next to impossible. Even the states capable of building nuclear weapons (Japan could probably assemble a nuke in a matter of weeks if it wanted to) mostly choose not to because of the political repercussions.

Napalm, on the other hand, can be quite literally made in the back yard. All it requires is lots of benzene and a thickening agent like polystyrene. Both of these substances are legally available in bulk and require only simple industrial equipment to make en masse. Building WP weapons is little harder, but not much more expensive.

The bottom line is that several hundred thousands of conventional incendiary bombs can be made for the price of a single nuke - more than enough to turn a few big cities to desert. And they are completely legal by international laws.

[Darkshadow666]

Nukes work best for causing fear. I'm also a fan of biological weapons. A crop duster full of anthrax would work nicely on an enemy city, just without the fun of a nuclear explosion.

And if "global warming" is real, we might need to start a nuclear winter on purpose.

The true cause of global warming: Confederate Axis of Darkness