If we still fought with swords and shields do you think there would be less war?

Question

do you think the leaders would fear the amount of casualties?

Answer 1

I think you're mistaken:  look at ancient history - the Greeks, the Romans, all of the wars were years and years long...why do you think that they called it the Hundred Year's War?

Answer 2

A question for you..... In the history of warfare.....ancient and modern.....has any commander "feared" casualties .....( other than the loss of his own life)

War is a part of mans nature ( and some other primates also)..... the choice of weapons or number of casualties makes little difference.....

In modern warfare we can vaporize 40,000 + people with a single bomb.... has that shocking fact stopped or even slowed our ":hobby"......  

Answer 3

judging by your avatar it looks like you wanna with swords

Answer 4

No; historically speaking, these are peaceful times and the sure knowledge that a great power war would kill so many has stopped many situations that would have led to war in the past to not do so in modern times.  

Answer 5

Yes its harder to kill a person up close and personal.

Answer 6

definatley have you felt how heavy they are.

Answer 7

No, there would be more because no one is concerned about ICBM's crashing though there windows.

Answer 8

There would be more war

Answer 9

you could back technology up a thousand years and find out that war was even bloodier and messier back then. And humans were more like animals. To stand there and hack at another human with a piece of metal sometimes for an hour at a time, sometimes both would lose a limb or just fall over from loss of blood. It was very grisly and nasty.

No there would be no less war, nor any more. Just messier.

Answer 10

yeah, and if i had a time machine, i would go back a few years and watch you get beat up in school.

Answer 11

It didn't stop the fighting between nations throughout the centuries, why would it stop anyone now!  Leaders don't give a hang about casualties, of course, if they had to lead the troops into battle as they did long ago, it just might cause them to consider going to war a bit more seriously!  If President Bush had to lead the troops into Iraq, I'll bet we wouldn't have sent troops there!