Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

General War Discussion

Posted May 25, '13 at 8:26pm

SonOfVader

SonOfVader

113 posts

war...

nothing is like war...


Haha mate I think we should both get some sleep :P
 

Posted May 25, '13 at 9:04pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,477 posts

the aggressor isn't.

That depends on what you mean by aggressor. Like, who actually fired the first shot, who invaded first, who first prepared to invade, who first prepared to fire, who imposed restrictions, who threatened first... Often both sides are at least partially at fault.

However, if we are attacked by a foreign power, then it is perfectly reasonable to retaliate.

What counts as enough of an attack? Is a credible threat enough? Does it have to be a physical attack?
 

Posted May 26, '13 at 12:41am

Salvidian

Salvidian

4,299 posts

Is war ever inevitable?


Yes. We've had many pointless wars that were highly avoidable, but ended being fought because some moron(s) thought it was completely necessary and somehow got the Ok. *Cough* 'Nam *Cough*

Is it justifiable?


It depends on what the end result is, and how the end result is reached.

Is waging war a part of human nature?


Yes. It's what makes us special.

Is war a legitimate form of foreign policy?


No, and I believe it's weird to think so.

Does war have a place in the 21st century?


War is being fought now, and I see no end of it in sight, so yes. Very much so.

Is war necessary to the progression of humanity; or does it hinder it?


If it's a war that eliminates hinders to progressiveness, then yes, it's necessary. If it doesn't, then no.
 

Posted May 26, '13 at 1:04am

Blkasp

Blkasp

1,357 posts

Is war necessary to the progression of humanity; or does it hinder it?


It depends in which way you want humanity to progress.

War will naturally progress the human race to develop more warlike inventions, thinking and morals whereas if does not exist, there is no need to develop weapons/tactics, and that time would have been spent doing something else and most likely humans would have progressed in another area.
 

Posted May 26, '13 at 6:12am

partydevil

partydevil

5,130 posts

That depends on what you mean by aggressor. Like, who actually fired the first shot, who invaded first, who first prepared to invade, who first prepared to fire, who imposed restrictions, who threatened first... Often both sides are at least partially at fault.


who actually fired the first shot, who invaded first,

those 2 is what really counts.

Often both sides are at least partially at fault.

whit the circle of violence it often looks like that yes.

Is a credible threat enough?

a threat is not a attack. so, no it's not enough.

It depends on what the end result is, and how the end result is reached.

the end result could be good while the meanings to head to war were utterly stupid.
and the end results for who? there is always a loser that isn't going to justify the war.

If it's a war that eliminates hinders to progressiveness

you can call a example of a war that did this? i'm not sure i'm getting it.

there is no need to develop weapons/tactics

yea there is need. if you dont do it, then some1 els will. and then they could attack you whit your old and dusty weapons. so for the sake of defense you have to keep up whit the innovations on weaponry.

also are sometimes these innovation not used for war eventually. but to see clear in the night or the smoke of a burning house (night/heat vision). or it makes us able to have contact whit each other while being away a few 1000 miles from each other. (i-net)
i think those are inventions done for warfare that have progressed humanity of it's own. (not to forget nuclear power of course)
 

Posted May 26, '13 at 1:22pm

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,863 posts

Is war ever inevitable?

Is it justifiable?

Is waging war a part of human nature?

Is war a legitimate form of foreign policy?

Does war have a place in the 21st century?

Is war necessary to the progression of humanity; or does it hinder it?

Sometimes
Always (at least in the mind of the one waging)
Yes
No
Yes
 

Posted May 26, '13 at 10:01pm

infinight888

infinight888

41 posts

(i suppose you mean by "we", usa)


Well, in my case, yes, but I think that all countries have that responsibility to defend themselves if necessary.

of all the wars you had since ww2, for how many was this actually the case?



This is a red herring isn't it? I'm not arguing that all of our wars are justified, or even that any of them are. I am saying that war sometimes is justified.

What counts as enough of an attack? Is a credible threat enough? Does it have to be a physical attack?


What do you consider credible? North Koreans javking off to fantasies of jabbing their giant throbbing missiles into our most thickly populated regions for example, would hardly be considered a credible threat.

If there is serious threat, then we should send diplomats to negotiate. If those diplomats' severed heads are mailed back to us and the talks of war persist, then I would consider it time to invade.
 

Posted May 27, '13 at 12:17am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,477 posts

What do you consider credible?

As far as threats go, clear and persistent demonstrations of capability and intent.

North Koreans javking off to fantasies of jabbing their giant throbbing missiles into our most thickly populated regions for example, would hardly be considered a credible threat.

Currently, it's not, because we know to a realitively high degree of certainty that they lack the range to do so. However, they do have the ability to attack SK and others. For them, the threat is very real.
 

Posted May 27, '13 at 2:01am

Blkasp

Blkasp

1,357 posts

[quote]there is no need to develop weapons/tactics
yea there is need. if you dont do it, then some1 els will. and then they could attack you whit your old and dusty weapons. so for the sake of defense you have to keep up whit the innovations on weaponry. [/quote]

Way to take words out of context.
I said "if war does not exist" naturally there is no need for weapons as fighting will not take place, ever. As it does not exist.

[quote]who actually fired the first shot, who invaded first,
those 2 is what really counts. [/quote]

No way. If a country is obviously preparing to invade your country, and taking the first shot means that you save your country, you have done the right thing. Just because you performed a preemptive attack, the hostile countries actions were clear enough that you were obviously in defence of your country.

E.g. "We are going to elimiante you off the map Country A"
Country B begins building weapons to eliminate Country A while constantly asserting their intentions.

Country A can respond by performing a preemptive stirke yet the other country was obviously the aggresor.
 

Posted May 27, '13 at 2:14am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,477 posts

"if war does not exist" naturally there is no need for weapons as fighting will not take place

Unless it's a utopia where everyone sucks a lotus and agrees on everything, weapons will be used as tools.

At what point does civil unrest become civil war?
 
Reply to General War Discussion

You must be logged in to post a reply!