2006-08-08 11:58:55 · 19 answers · asked by dopeysaurus 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Stalin's son served in the Red Army.
I think one of the Kuwaiti Royal family made a stand on the steps of the palace and was shot.
I think some of Mao's sons served in Korea.
The answer to your question is yes, they would be just as bad.
2006-08-09 05:46:00 · answer #1 · answered by MontyBob 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wars are barbaric because they are wars.
You are not going to change the nature of the
animal because someone else's son is on the
front line. Simply put there is no way to make
war sanitized.
In a way, wars would be ever more brutal if a leader had his son in the field. Think about it, if you had your kid on the front line, you would surround him with your best troops and order your army to protect him at all costs, not leave anyone alive to harm him. There would be utter massacres in every battle. To one would be taken prisoner, to quarter would be given.
2006-08-08 12:51:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wars would become even more brutal if leaders' family members were physically involved. Once the sons were killed or injured, generals would be ordered to take all gloves off, disregard international law, treaties, conventions, and escalate the war to the max. Leaders would use their propaganda machines to maintain public support for the war. The draft, if there were none, would be reinstituted to provide more lower class cannon fodder.
2006-08-09 03:21:16 · answer #3 · answered by TxSup 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good but hard question. It would go both ways. Some military leaders would not order the beginning of attack if it meant that their flesh and blood would probably die, but, you have heard the common expression, "married to your career, military, job and so forth. Some of the Military Career would be even harsher if it was their son or daughter who would be in the first battle. I am sure it has happened more than once in history.
2006-08-08 12:38:19 · answer #4 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Government leaders and army generals rely on fools joining the army. There is a saying that wars will end when men refuse to fight. A better way for this to happen is for people to refuse to join the army or the military.
2006-08-08 12:05:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. They would stop almost immediately. Then start up again as soon as they had rounded up some more cannon fodder. As Tony Blair might say: "Worth the blood price." Not of Leo or Euan, of course, but some poor b a s t a r d from a working class family.
2006-08-08 12:01:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
War is not barbaric it warfare styles that are barbaric. I think if war had to be fought and lead by countries leaders they might rethink their policies. Also if you had to fight face to face it takes a lot more to nerve to kill someone if you have to look they in the eye. We have made war and killing in the name of a lot more sanitary.
2006-08-08 12:07:52 · answer #7 · answered by Casca 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hon, if the politicians had to put their sons in the firing line, they would damn soon end all wars; other than a very few, they tend to be in jobs described as "essential for the war effort"- which means as far as possible from the nasty bullets; working class sons are just cannon fodder.
2006-08-08 12:04:58 · answer #8 · answered by k0005kat@btinternet.com 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know. War is barbaric by its very nature. WWII was one of the bloodiest wars of history, and Franklin Roosevelt had sons in the armed forces. FDR's sons weren't kept someplace safe in the rear, either. One of them served with a Marine Raider unit.
2006-08-08 14:47:34 · answer #9 · answered by kjdean68 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, wars would not happen if the leaders needed to send their kids in.
2006-08-08 12:06:08 · answer #10 · answered by Tommy D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋