Wars in which innocents were spared

Economics Political Theory
21

I agree. A libertarian army is likely to prefer weapons that severely limt or eliminate collateral damage.

This is one reason why a libertarian society is unlikely to produce, much less use, nuclear bombs, which from the standpoint of the NAP are the greatest possible evil, constituting the maximum number of aggressions per second via collateral damage to innocents.

Tactical nukes might be a different story however, those can be limited to field of battle with perhaps only a few kilotons going off.

A libertarian army might greatly prefer lasers as weapons, for these truly can be well limited. You could take out one aggressor in a crowd with a laser, from the air, and be assured a kill while also having high likelihood of harming no one else in the process. By such means terrorist bombers, for instance, could be eliminated, even while trying to use human shield.

I think the American military drive towards decreasing collateral damage is a positive one, but clearly there’s a ways to go. Ancient armies simply didn’t give a damn. We’ve progressed as a society a bit in that regard, but clearly not enough.

22

You don’t understand, armies fed themselves by looting. When Alexander was in the Indus valley do you think he had people going back and forth between Macedon and Indus bringing him food? He took the food for his army from the locals.

23

Yes Marko I understood you perfectly and I said its a good point. However I also added that there were other cruel methods that were not necessarily used because of the expected blowback.