In battle, would you rather use current weapons or old style weapons.?

Question

Lets say the world changes and everyperson has to use these types of weapons. Which would you perfer to use and why? Current weapons being like tanks, plaines, nukes, guns. Or would you reather use old weapons. like swords, armor, bow/arrows, catepults. Why would you chose the weapons you do?

Answer 1

Old weapons. the only people killed would be the people in battle. If you use nukes that is killing alot of innocent people that may not even believe in the war or what they are fighting about.

Answer 2

That would depend on what the "other side" is using... I am very interested in medieval weapons,but using these against an army equipped with 21st century armaments would be suicidal.

Modern weapons could prove unreliable in a situation where a global breakdown in infrastructure has occurred..... In those circumstances I would lean towards the more basic (and trustworthy) weapons. A tank without fuel is just a block of iron...

Answer 3

Britain has policeman on horses and they do a great job of quelling riots. Horses are still relevant in this modern age of technology. What happens if someone dismantles the great techo electronic war machine by cyber war? what you going to do then if you have all your eggs in one basket? Borders still need protecting and horses and swords would do the trick in the case of a virus dismantling modern weapons. Art of warfare is to be flexible and not put all your eggs in one basket. Aircraft carriers can't be everywhere at once like horses can. What are you going to do if someone takes out your stationary aircraft carriers? Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks!

Answer 4

Cristina O... Are you retarded? With modern weapons, we can take out a building, without moving the dust on the one right next to it. That`s what`s good about modern weapons. Now with capatults, you`re not gonna take out a tank or anything for that matter. I`ll smile while the hippy ******* get slaughtered by our guns.

Answer 5

what would I rather use? the weapon that I didn't get hurt with and the one where there were no civilian casualties. As weapons have developed the attacker has always try to distance himself from the actual conflict...ie it started with clubbing each other..then the sword (arms length away) catapult (much further away) and to the extreme nuclear missiles. I think that I would rather use a sword as it would be with honour and you could see who you kill and it would affect you if you were the victor. HOWEVER like the rest of the human race I would prefer not to face up to the horror of actually killing someone and foreshortening their life so would probably go a fly a stealth plane with laser guided missles. How about you? Chicken?

Answer 6

If you're saying that everyone had it, I would probably go with "Old" style weapons, because they make for much better action sequences in movies, which I suspect you watch too many of. There is a great argument for modern weapons, however: Explosions.

Answer 7

If both sides are evenly matched it won't matter. The one difference, however, is that swords don't level entire countries as nukes do. There is no fall out from conventional bombs or from a trebouchet as there is with nukes. Arrows rarely cause mass dist ruction as nukes do.

Answer 8

I would rather use current weapons cause u have more of a chance not dieing in battle.

Answer 9

old style weapons, because it makes the battle a little more personal, and people might think twice about going to war.

Answer 10

I believe the age old saying "If you're going to a gun fight you'd best bring a gun" applies here. If my enemy has an AK-47 I damn sure wouldn't try to take him on with a sword.