Who do you think is more ready for war and willing to die?

Question

I don't know if asking who is more “dangerous” is the right word, so I say “vengeful” maybe?  #FeelFreeToList

NathanDavis · Accepted Answer

because of some of the regions in which I've lived... I've actually seen both... so I can say, from what I've seen... that the most dangerous are those who have prepared for both

but they're "dangerous" in different ways... most people, yes, they do want to protect their family and they do as much as I can, but very few people have their families in "true danger" so when you actually prepare for these kind of things, it just goes to a very different level and dying is very much a possibility... the things that one can do in order to protect their people from a very present danger can be a bit extreme and it will never be a nice thing, and someone prepared to face these things, and still lose family... this person can become a danger because they have lost a beloved, a controlled danger or out of control danger of some prepared to retaliate and "end things"

on the other side... many that have "nothing to lose" also have "nothing to live" so they are many times, drawn into this kind of life in which they will risk their lives and might endanger the lives of others too... but I've known of many and seen a few of people like this with "nothing to lose" and once they do face the true danger on this kind of living, they quickly find out that they do not want to lose or risk

those who truly are wrong in the head, and psycho... they actually have something to live for, and that is madness... true madness and a very sick taste for many things wrong, and dangerous stuff, and many of them are calculating and cold people and that is what makes them truly dangerous if they were to focus on you for whatever reason, truly crazy stuff

BCRanger10 · Accepted Answer

The person with something or someone to protect. They have something that motivates them. They will ideally be more analytical and responsible and will be a more fierce warrior.

The person with nothing to lose is just biding their time. They're more likely just waiting and wanting to die. They're target practice.

LaFemmeFatale_1 · Answer

My country is quite small and was always surrounded by imperailistic Countries.

Throughout the history we sometimes had wars with Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, Persia, Russian Empire.

Georgia, still survived, surprisingly. Because all these countries were much much bigger and stronger than us.

Our enemies said that one Georgian man takes down at least 20 men of the enemy.

Even our dances are about wars.

Wars seemed to become our tradition and Georgians became very good Warriors.

Because they fought for their families, fir their children, wives, mothers, fathers, sisters.

They were ruthless in fighting.

There’s a little poem, I’ll try to translate

“We won’t take away anyone’s homeland,

Nobody should try taking away our homeland either,

Or I promise, we’ll put you in such a misery,

even the dead will stand up laughing.”

love_conquers_lust · Answer

War requires discipline. I'd say those with something to protect are least willing to die without a cause ie. someone to protect. But likely best suited for survival during war.

Those with nothing to lose are probably most willing to die. They likely don't care whether it's war or not. Least suited for survival during war.

Quoting Patton: "I ask not that you die for your country, but that you let the other poor bastards die for theirs."

I've protected my sister a couple of times from other boys that ticked me off.

I pulled my niece out of a pond when she fell face first into it. I karate chopped the water and yanked her out in a split second, I didn't care how it would affect my bum shoulder.

I once made the stupid mistake of locking my keys in the truck after having secured her in the car seat on a hot summer day. This was at a dealership. I was picking it up after they'd just finished repairing hail damage. I immediately went inside and told them that I needed a blunt object and would have to bust out the window. They did me a solid and used a tool that was able to jimmy the door open.

My sister laughed at me for that one , "Now you know."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ooGFLoRBGCM

^^^I loved this series as a teenager

Oliverlogan263 · Answer

Hmm that's a tough one. I think both could be willing to die for what they believe in.

A) Someone with a family probably feels like they have no choice but to fight to protect them. Like their family is counting on them and they wanna do everything they can to keep them safe.

B) But someone with nothing to lose might fight even harder cause they have nothing keeping them back. They're alone so it's like what do they have to live for anyway? Might as well go all out.

I dunno, it prob depends more on the person. Someone could have a family and fight real hard cause of their love for them. Or they could have nothing and not wanna die cause they're hoping things turn around. There's prob vengeful dudes in both groups. It's sad anyone would feel they have nothing to lose.

Shark_61695 · Answer

With nothing to lose, they are probably more willing to die but that doesn't make a great soldier. They will take suicidal risks which isn't ideal for working in a team.

Something to fight for, less reckless but won't be as motivated in offensive manoeuvres. Defensively probably the better option.

AlexEfron · Answer

I know a lot of people voted for someone who has nothing to lose, but that begs the question, if they have nothing to lose they won't have the will fight back. Any loss or pain or hardship would be met with indifference.

I find the whole "got nothing to lose" to be a fancy tagline to boost the ego. If you truly have nothing to lose then you'd probably be suicidal and not vengeful.

That's just my theory

Joshydavid25 · Answer

I think the person with nothing to lose.. If they have motivation.. Somebody with something to protect may be dangerous, but it depends.. If they hold their life in less regard than the people they wanna protect, then they are willing and ready to go to war.. But it could also be a very unwilling and scary event for them to where it's just something they have to do. Whereas somebody with nothing to lose motivated by nothing but let's say "vengeance" probably doesn't care anything else but getting to that thing they see as an enemy.. I give the edge to the person with nothing to lose.

SunnyRS · Answer

The answer for both is different because the person who has someone or something to lose is more ready to fight but i don't think they are more willing to die. They might die trying to protect them but they won't be willing because they need to protect them.
As for the person who has got nothing to lose might fight hard and is willing to die as well but they won't fight as hard as the person who needs to protect someone.

Agape93 · Answer

A for how quickly one can be ready to kill until loved ones are safe. But b will keep going until they are stopped

ShadezMcgee · Answer

When you have someone or something to protect, it gives motivation and. akes it all the more meaningful to take the risk to fight and face death.

One of my favorite phrases is this.

"A true soldier fights not because he hates what's in front if him, but because he loves what is behind him."

Yannae · Answer

I think they're both just as ready, but the person with nothing to lose won't play by any rules, laws or morals, they'll go all out and that is why I think they are more dangerous.

RHK36 · Answer

They both about the same in terms on likely to try something, but the person that has purpose most likely will accomplish more than person with nothing to lose.

abc3643 · Answer

When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose.

DreamLife7 · Answer

Someone with nothing to lose will help you lose everything

mstbooblover · Answer

Sorry, and really no offence meant, but only idiots and ignorant people claim willing to wage a war and die for whatever cause. War is the worst evil on earth launched by the Devil.

andreasderjuengere · Answer

Who? ... the ones who are too dumb to see that that life is the one and only present that the world gave to each of us.

RavVid · Answer

I think fighting to protect would just have the edge but not by much.

Twalli · Answer

One of the main reasons Germany entered World War I was because they were convinced that there would eventually be a war, and that while they could win now, they might not be able to later.

exitseven · Answer

somebody with nothing to lose. like Bob Dylan said "When you ain't got nothin , you got nothin to lose."

The-Stud · Answer

What about the ones who wants war just for the fun of it? Haha

Jamie05rhs · Answer

I have nothing to lose, and I'm 100% ready to fuck some shit up.

Jerre · Answer

I go with protecting family and other country people

Worst · Answer

I think it depends on the context of their situation, cause either could be equally as deadly

ThrillSeeker01 · Answer

Someone with nothing to lose I think

HouseMoat · Answer

Someone who feels they have noting to lose

Abdulwahh · Answer

More someone with something to protect

Slim57 · Answer

Someone with something to protect always

Who do you think is more ready for war and willing to die?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Who do you think is more ready for war and willing to die?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.