Caporegime
what world do you live in where there's no war.
Using animals in wars is almost as old as wars itself.
Look at all the horses killed in WW I for example.
Dogs parachuted into Afghanistan
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
what world do you live in where there's no war.
Using animals in wars is almost as old as wars itself.
Look at all the horses killed in WW I for example.
Soldato
They need Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams, though their effectiveness in the desert is up for debate................
I think war dogs are immense animals. I love german shepards anyway, most 'useful' dog I think.
I can't help but feel sorry for them being used on kamakazi runs if thats the odds though.
However, man kind has a long history of employing animals in warfare. Dogs as far back as recorded, horse elephant and camel, pony and pigs on fire. Throwing dead rotting ones about to inflict biological warfare etc
I also echo what someone above hinted at; the humans are in the same boat.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...2882585/SAS-build-shrine-for-hero-hounds.html
I can't help but feel sorry for them being used on kamakazi runs if thats the odds though.
However, man kind has a long history of employing animals in warfare. Dogs as far back as recorded, horse elephant and camel, pony and pigs on fire. Throwing dead rotting ones about to inflict biological warfare etc
I also echo what someone above hinted at; the humans are in the same boat.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...2882585/SAS-build-shrine-for-hero-hounds.html
Last edited:
Irrelevant. It's one thing if you want to kill people in a war but to use another innocent being because your too cowardly is another thing entirely, reminiscent of child soldiers.
I don't think its got anything to do with lack of courage when it comes to the special forces.
It's just the odds, and to preserve life. Expensively trained life I'd guess.
Same goes with the dogs, you don't want to throw them away.
HA-HA cowardly, not at all. Just a better weapon in certain situations.
How is it reminiscent of children?
Which wars are you talking about, were they even classed as children. Age of adult hood has changed a lot.
Seems like the definition of the word to me.
I'm not talking about a particular war I'm talking about soldiers under 18, i.e. clearly too young, regardless of what the legal classification of adulthood is. I already explained why it's reminiscent, your sending an innocent into combat.
But it isn't.
Is using a gun cowardly?
Surely it should be swords and..or how about fists?
Surely the equipment and training disparity is 'cowardly'?
I think your maybe taking this a bit too far, like me.
explain an innocent, and adult hood does matter. In years gone past you had kids in early teens and life expectancy was 40. So yes it makes a great deal of difference.
Please explain how it's cowardly? these soldiers put themself in line of fire many times, but you use the best weapon for the situation. sometimes that's soldiers, sometimes helicopters, sometimes a UAV and sometimes a dog.
Not mentally developed enough to be able to make an informed choice.
You honestly can't see the difference between helicopters and dogs?
Avoiding combat by sacrificing others is cowardly, they can't face up to the situation so they must make others do it for them, I really don't know how to explain it any more simply than that...
Which is at what age? and only use modern clarification for modern wars and we do not use children any more. As I say go back hundreds or thousands of years and diffention of adult hood is very different and so was life exptency. Some countrys tribes are still more like that.
It's no diffrent to using humans.
Avoiding combat by sacrificing others is cowardly, they can't face up to the situation so they must make others do it for them, I really don't know how to explain it any more simply than that...[/QUOTE]
But they are putting them self in the firing line, they are just musing all the tools they have, that includes themselves.
How can you clear a house using a helicopter?
I already said 18, though this thread is about animals, I think we can agree that they cannot volunteer for the military, no?
They are not putting themselves in the firing line in this situation.
Are you reading a different thread to the rest of us?
Caporegime
Dogs have a choice too
If they start running off, not following orders they become a liability and will be taken off duty.
No point in relying on a dog that cant be relied on.
Caporegime
I'm in tears of laughter at some of the posts in this thread. Either that or tears of despair at the sheer stupidity. 
No, it was a simple question.
You can't without bombing it and no one suggested otherwise, which is why I can't understand your question.
The point I'm making is that the dogs are being used to clear buildings etc with remote cameras to warn op's of hiding taliban etc. This wouldn't be possible otherwise without the chance of human casualties, so in this case the best tool as pointed out by other posters is the dog. I would rather loose a dog than a multimillion pound helicopter.
I'm not arguing the effectiveness, just the ethics.