Apparently, in the interim period after the Watergate story leaked and before Nixon was politely asked to exit his house-that white one- Richard got drunk in Lincoln's bedroom. Now Richard Nixon was never one to needlessly obey borders, so because of a combination of his intoxication and a natural efficacy towards foreign policy, Dick ventured out of Lincoln's sleep area and towards the world at large (inside the white house). Drink in hand our hero roamed and slurred violently through the secret Da Vinci Code esque passageways that only Presidential families ever get to explore. During his travels it happened that our one time president brought the country to high alert thus bringing every missile pointed at our Red Enemies into standby mode. It's because of those magical lips of Henry Kissinger and a few other terribly frightened white house staff members that we are lucky to own our lives this day. Has a drunk dial ever carried so much weight?

It is not my point to admonish Nixon. I think History has done its job on that front. No, my interest is in war. My interest is in the command structure. My interest is in the men who make the decisions and where they are in relationship to the battlefield. In ancient wars the generals were right up front. They fought and died alongside their men. The whole chain of command was in action. How did this effect war sentiment I wonder? And can we ever really know? All we have are the accounts left over and history's interpretation. But when you think Alexander the Great you think of a giant Roman badass tearing through Persian scum. And even if he wasn't there on the front line, even if he directed from a tent in the back, he at least was as much in a position to die as his soldiers, he at least saw the battlefield. How do you picture war fought today? I picture Men in suits sitting in front of a screen that eerily resembles Risk. There is a round table and dark walls and no window, you can imagine you'd have to travel through miles of hallways before you found the sun.

Sure wars are fought differently today. Alexander would see no semblance in Iraq to the dozens of wars he fought 2400 years ago. But what exactly has happened to so radically alter our ethical stance on war in those 2400 years ago? It's easy to say technology and the capabilities of mass destruction have opened our eyes to the hellish realities of war, but I think the realities of war would have been more prominent in ancient wars. I mean before Christ there were armies of hundreds of thousands battling, often to the very last soldier standing. A war meant upheaval everywhere, and in a world drastically less populated and less secure, the death of the head of a household meant a high chance for a similar fate for the rest of the family. Back then people were closer to war and the ethics were fully in favor. Today we're thousands of miles away and we cringe. I can't help but feeling this has to do with the leadership.

With Caesar and Alexander and Napoleon, king leaders, the command was putting their own lives at the helm of the fight. The image of your leader fighting is like watching your flag manifest into a person. There was nationalistic meaning behind battles of old. Now a soldier only knows the top of the command by name. They are not your country, they are a representative, your country is busy with other appointments. Today your command is relaying information to you from half a world away. It's easy to tell someone to shoot a gun when you won't even hear it fire. Nixon was ready to obliterate the world because he can't hold his alcohol. How can you ever make that decision when you'll only hear reports of its consequences.

Sorry for the tangental response, but I do have some conclusive questions:

Why does war seem scarier to us today when we are so far away? What was the catalyst that changed our ethical relationship to war?

Patrick Renfield began this discussion with a contradiction: 'War is bad', and it has been an integral part of humanity since the dawn of time. A cursive reading of history quickly reveals that the history of human civilization is comprised of wars. Our civilization records wars as the events which civilization turns and progresses. It's easy to dismiss this fact by talking about the militarization of history, but that's really a form of intellectual denial. 
The reality is war is an integral part of civilization and economic development. This case has been made most convincingly in recent years by Prof Niall Ferguson's works like 'The Ascent of Money'.

Ancient wars were wars of annihilation. For whatever reasons, one tribe (or culture) attacked another. In the ensuing war, one or the other of the tribes was destroyed. Their cities were burnt to the ground and their people killed, or scattered, or enslaved (which may be the most complete form of assimilation.) The valuables of the defeated tribe were carried back to the conquering city to make the king or general richer and more popular.

As history marched on, this pattern proved wasteful. Fewer soldiers were killed relative to the overall population and the number in the opposing forces; and far more captives were taken. The result is fewer societies were annihilated if they went to war.
Civilization has progressed to the point that the value of a population is no longer only measured in what can be taken from their dead bodies. In fact, civilization has progressed to the point that we see people as economic units: sources of taxes, work, and innovation.

But war still has a role in society. It is the most efficient means to bring societies together to a common purpose. War is a means to drive innovation and technical development. It's far easier to get funding for new weapons than new cars, for example. And, war is a means for a government to ease unemployment, inflation, and nearly all the other evils of modern economic theory.

As a result, a kind of war has appeared. Instead of a war that can be won with definitive goals within a time frame, we have invented sustainable war. One form of sustainable war is the peacekeeping force. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are the most prominent examples, but the concept is as old as the Roman Empire. (Read about Trajan and why he didn't follow through on his victory.)
Sustainable wars have very few casualties, and almost never a real victory for anyone, but they do allow billions to be spent on technology; and a great deal of energy spent in support of troops.

As a civilization we have changed the morality of war from one of survival to one of supporting the quality of life within our society. The changes were not instantaneous. It a couple thousand years for all the concepts to be digested and understood.  There is very little reason to doubt that any subsequent society will not build on these concepts.