Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Do we have the right?

  1. Mar 27, 2003 #1
    Hi all my names Thomo and this is the first thread Ive 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 lets assume we are being invaded as a first case senario and then an attacking force and lets assume war is unavoidable
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 27, 2003 #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...
  4. Mar 27, 2003 #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.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Do we have the right?
  1. Do we have souls? (Replies: 29)