From the end of the Napoleon wars (1815) to the Crimea war ( 1855) there were few major wars and post Crimea to about the turn if the century there were very few armed conflicts involving major state powers*

* not to say there wasn’t ‘war’ by definition, just that they were limited and relatively short

two significantly large groups trying to murder/kill each other

How is significance calculated? 😀

I would argue the linguistic definitions as well as the political definitions are important. Often these form part of the national or cultural memes about how we define ourselves.

Also the definitions add legitimacy to ‘legal’ as to ‘illegal’ armed conflict – for example no one would try to legally argue that crew of a Sherman tank killed when it was hit in Normandy in 1944 were murdered compared to those RMP lads who were killed in that Iraqi police station a few years back.

Please note that I am not saying what is ‘right’ in the moral sense but it is important that these definitions are understood else (legally, politically, linguistically) else the next time you argue over your parking space with your neighbour… you get my drift.

How is significance calculated?

By a variety of differing means. The UN iirc goes with 1000 deaths per annum. Others go with combat deaths only.

As far as I’m aware there is no universally accepted definition.

legally argue that crew of a Sherman tank killed when it was hit in Normandy in 1944 were murdered compared to those RMP lads who were killed in that Iraqi police station a few years back.

Legally no, but philosophically? It all looks like murder to me, regardless of whether it’s state sanctioned and/or a necessity of self defense and ethically acceptable.

From the end of the Napoleon wars (1815) to the Crimea war ( 1855) there were few major wars and post Crimea to about the turn if the century there were very few armed conflicts involving major state powers*

The Americans were pretty much in a permanent state of war between 1815 and 1855.

It all looks like murder to me, regardless of whether it’s state sanctioned and/or a necessity of self defense and ethically acceptable.

But that’s an absurdity – the whole point of the word murder is that it contains an element of opprobrium or moral condemnation. If it were a legally or philosophically neutral word, it would just mean the same as “homicide”.

Arrse says 1968 is the year for no British combat deaths and they should know .

Yup, they SHOULD. However ARRSE, or to be more precise a serving NCO, also says that NATO .5.56 ball doesn’t fragment (in fact NEVER fragments) under certain ranges/above certain velocites, and they should know that too!

5th indeed

There were wars nearly every year I between those dates. But significant numbers of people in the world were not affected by war, an unusual state at that time.

But that’s an absurdity – the whole point of the word murder is that it contains an element of opprobrium or moral condemnation. If it were a legally or philosophically neutral word, it would just mean the same as “homicide”.

Its all absurd.

I’ll post later when not at work. But just to clarify, it’s my perception of the matter rather than a statement of fact.