Can we justify using animals in war as a means of protecting our loved ones?

  • Thread starter Thomo
  • Start date
In summary, The conversation discusses the idea of training animals to fight in wars instead of humans. The initial thought is that it would be better for animals to die in battle rather than humans, but there are concerns about the morality and practicality of this solution. Some points brought up include the difficulty of training animals and ensuring their safety, the avoidance of war at all costs, and the fact that war does still occur. The conversation also delves into the concept of conscription and the idea that it may be more morally acceptable to send humans to war rather than animals who did not choose to fight. There is also a discussion about using animals as the enemy in wars, in order to minimize human casualties. However, the conversation concludes that war is
  • #1


Hi all my names Thomo and this is the first thread I've started here but its been on my mind
The current war made me start thinking:

What if we trained an army of animals to kill other humans?That way animals die in the conflict not our sons ,daughters ,fathers etc
Sounds horrific, the animals are not there by choise but I as a father would rather see an ape die than my son.
A few points I am aware of:
a)It would be too hard to train them and ensure "our " saftey from an ape on our side with a gun
b) war must be avoided at all costs
c) war does happen

But my question is if it is morally abhorent to use animals is it not better than using humans?

To make it easier let's assume we are being invaded as a first case scenario and then an attacking force and let's assume war is unavoidable
Physics news on
  • #2
i'm not exactly an animal rights activist but i can see an issue with this solution, it would not be less morally right to send humans to war rather then animals as long as these humans have a choice. conscription is a different matter altogether in which case i'd rather see animals forced to die. i believe in everyman's right to die stupidly for a worthless cause. and you have to look at the fact that these people did choose to join the army and most of them would rather go instead of seeing animals fight their battles, pride, or something.

while we're on this, could we make the 'humans' our animal army is going off to kill possibly be animals too? seeing as the point of this is too minimise casualties. mass extinction in return for world peace without shedding a drop of human blood, hmmm...
  • #3
Elephants, horses, and other animals have been trained to kill and have fought bravely in battle. Fortunately/unfortunately depending upon your viewpoint, they did not replace people on the battlefield. The more weapons you use, the more your enemy will use.

For most of human history wars were fought up close and personal on land and at sea. Inevitably people invented weapons like bows and arrows that could kill at a removed distance. Modern cannons, not to mention cruise missles, can send projectiles up to 75 miles. Not only can you not see the face of the enemy, they are entirely over the horizon out of sight.

Since WWII it has been he who rules the air that wins the war, but this is now being challanged by the advent of terrorism. In response the US military is currently working to create small remote control robotic aircraft and crawling robots that can seek out and kill much more discriminately than a bomb.

Such things address the more overt, repugnant, and difficult to deny aspects of war, but will not eliminate war and the death it brings by any stretch of the imagination. Wars are also fought in the marketplace, in our living rooms, etc. Thousands if not millions of people die everyday because of economic warfare, hateful propoganda, etc.

1. Can animals be trained for combat purposes?

Yes, animals have been trained and used for combat purposes in wars throughout history. Some examples include dogs trained for scouting and messenger duties, horses used for transportation and carrying supplies, and even dolphins and sea lions trained for mine detection and clearance in the military.

2. Are there any ethical concerns surrounding the use of animals in war?

Yes, there are ethical concerns surrounding the use of animals in war. Animals may suffer physical and psychological harm, and their well-being may be compromised in a war environment. There is also a question of whether animals have the ability to consent to being used in war and if it is ethical to put them in harm's way for human purposes.

3. Are there any laws or regulations in place for the use of animals in war?

There are international laws and regulations in place for the use of animals in war. The Geneva Convention and the Hague Conventions have provisions that govern the use of animals in armed conflicts. However, these laws may not be strictly enforced, and there have been instances of animal abuse and neglect in war zones.

4. What are the benefits of using animals in war?

The main benefit of using animals in war is their abilities and skills that can be harnessed to aid in military operations. Animals can provide valuable support in tasks such as transportation, detection, and communication. They may also serve as a psychological boost for soldiers and provide companionship and emotional support.

5. Is there any alternative to using animals in war for protection?

Yes, there are alternatives to using animals in war for protection. Technological advancements have led to the development of robots and drones that can perform similar tasks as animals in war without putting any living beings in harm's way. Additionally, diplomatic and peaceful solutions can also be pursued to protect loved ones in times of conflict.

Suggested for: Can we justify using animals in war as a means of protecting our loved ones?