Which is worse: old warfare or modern warfare?

Question

I read some books on WWII, about how men talked about how dying and serving for your country was the most glorious and honorable aspect a man could ever achieve in those days. However, veterans from WWII write that now, modern warfare is disgusting, and that "you will die as a dog and for nothing but to serve a higher political power". So which is worse to participate in: old warfare or modern warfare?

Answer 1

Old warfare is worse of course. Omaha beach landing for example, they took the beach with brute force, send in as many soldiers as possible and hope that enough would survive to take the beach.

In old wars, they use overwhelming number of troops to rush a place they wants to take control of, this means that lives are killed in huge numbers, and aircraft drops bombs indiscriminately on cities

In modern warfare, such tactics are no longer used. air raids and high precision weapons are used, targeting military and strategic site instead of an entire city

While modern weapon are more devastating, the way a modern war is fought still result in lesser number of casualty.  

Answer 2

old warfare more people died at a horific rate!

Answer 3

old warfare was far more bloodly and horrible wo decent medicine. Also the geneva conventions and modern technology have done some but not enough to mitigate the violence that is war Most wars thru out history including ths one are waged for profit/egotism by politicians safely ensonsed in their capitals making speaches  a few like wwii are actually for a valid cause

Answer 4

Modern Warfare is worse... much more devastating weapons such as bombs that can level entire cities, Chemical weapons, machine guns, tanks, submarines, and etc. in old warfare you at least stand a chance now a days a bomb drops and bang 100 ppl dead in like 2 secs

Answer 5

I think "Hornet One" gave a very good answer and i give him a thumbs up!

Answer 6

When you say "old" warfare, I would take that to mean pre-firearms or early-firearms warfare, maybe warfare up until WW I at the latest. But anyway, I think that the nature of the enemy has a lot to do with it. In WW II, we fought an enemy that wore uniforms and we're a part of distinct nation-states. Warfare was somewhat less complicated. But wars like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq have been different, and that can certainly be frustrating for soldiers brought up to imagine war as fighting in battles against guys wearing uniforms who usually follow at least a semblance of what have been the historically recognized rules of warfare.  

Answer 7

Old warfare. Manifest destiny, genocide, invasion, annexations. See the US expansion.

Answer 8

i gotta say that fighting like they did in WWII must have been hella tough.