Has there ever been a war without civilian casualties?

You mean way back when, when the victorious army would never, ever, then go and burn down all the enemies villages, rape all their women, and kill all their male children?

2008-12-29 07:24:12

#10

jord: Member; +2,382|6982|The North, beyond the wall.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:
jord wrote:
Probably a long time ago when people fought with swords...
You mean way back when, when the victorious army would never, ever, then go and burn down all the enemies villages, rape all their women, and kill all their male children?

That did happen but there is probably one war in which it has not. Think a quick ending war a long time ago and you win.

2008-12-29 07:33:15

#11

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6709|North Carolina

Scorpion0x17 wrote:
jord wrote:
Probably a long time ago when people fought with swords...
You mean way back when, when the victorious army would never, ever, then go and burn down all the enemies villages, rape all their women, and kill all their male children?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... I don't think that's ever happened.

2008-12-29 07:45:26

#12

jord: Member; +2,382|6982|The North, beyond the wall.

There has been that many wars in the world, that it will have happened at one point.

2008-12-29 07:47:17

#13

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6846|Texas - Bigger than France

Maybe that one in the Himalayas.

2008-12-29 07:49:32

#14

jord: Member; +2,382|6982|The North, beyond the wall.

Tribes in Africa go and kill eachother with bows and arrows, they see honour in it. These are just as much wars as WW2 or Iraq...

2008-12-29 07:51:48

#15

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6709|North Carolina

jord wrote:
There has been that many wars in the world, that it will have happened at one point.

True... but one could argue that civilian casualties are probably lower during most wars now than they were before modern technology, since mass media now exposes civilian casualties.

In the Ancient World, killing civilians was typically standard practice. It was basically assumed to be the norm. For example, the Romans often took the "salt the earth" approach.

2008-12-29 08:02:11

#16

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6527|Escea

Falklands maybe? After all, not exactly an immensely populated place.

2008-12-29 08:02:41

#17

jord: Member; +2,382|6982|The North, beyond the wall.

Turquoise wrote:
jord wrote:
There has been that many wars in the world, that it will have happened at one point.
True... but one could argue that civilian casualties are probably lower during most wars now than they were before modern technology, since mass media now exposes civilian casualties.

In the Ancient World, killing civilians was typically standard practice. It was basically assumed to be the norm. For example, the Romans often took the "salt the earth" approach.

Ya but in older times we don't have large munitions to cause collateral. Alls it takes is some European tribes agreeing to fight man on man for an area of land honourably and I win. awsm smiley here

2008-12-29 08:07:36

#18

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6953

M.O.A.B wrote:
Falklands maybe? After all, not exactly an immensely populated place.

I thought the same, but a quick Google reckons there were a couple.

2008-12-29 08:16:43

#19

SEREVENT: MASSIVE G STAR; +605|6411|Birmingham, UK

M.O.A.B wrote:
Falklands maybe? After all, not exactly an immensely populated place.

and 3 women civilian casualties.

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/roh.html

Sadly, not.

2008-12-29 08:47:28

#20

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|6975|UK

the war of the roses. the movie innit.

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2008-12-29 08:58:43

#21

cpt.fass1: The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n; +329|7000|NJ

a war or a battle? I'd have to say the oldy days like the revolutionary and civil war time frame(not saying those wars but maybe a french/english war)...

2008-12-29 11:16:40

#22

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6715|'Murka

Nope.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-12-29 11:42:10

#23

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7011|67.222.138.85

There certainly haven't been any civilian casualties in total war, maybe in some of your half-assed wars there were a few.

2008-12-29 11:53:40

#24

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6905|132 and Bush

Maybe the Swedish/Norwegian War (1814)?

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-12-29 12:20:35

#25

Switch: Knee Deep In Clunge; +489|6767|Tyne & Wear, England

M.O.A.B wrote:
Falklands maybe? After all, not exactly an immensely populated place.

I bet a few sheep got wasted.

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.

BF2S Forums Has there ever been a war without civilian casualties?

jord wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

jord wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

jord wrote:

jord wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

jord wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Board footer