Forums → WEPR → General War Discussion
| 60 | 23615 |
Pretty self explanatory.
A few kick-starters:
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?
I hope these arn't too vague, but it's all I could think of off the top of my head. I'll venture to share my own views if this thread attracts any interest.
- 60 Replies
Sorry for double posting, just want to say that if my long ramble up there is a bit incoherant it's because I was thinking and typing at the same time. I basically just wrote what came to mind, and I noticed I didn't really answer the second from last question. xD
No problem, thanks for sharing
Have to say I disagree with you over the necessity WW2, being a European.
Is war ever inevitable?
No, it is not. Anything can be solved through conversation. At very best if someones an issue put poison in their water or food or something.
Is it justifiable?
No, it is not again. Why? Casualties is a price payed in blood, this blood is being spilled by people like you and me. Issue's government makes is a price the people pay, so it is not justifiable at all.
Is waging war a part of human nature?
Engaging in conflict is human nature yes, all out war, not so much. You don't see an army of gorilla's ready to smash a militia of orangutans in the forest. Evolution can not be achieved by dissolution.
Is war a legitimate form of foreign policy?
I can't answer this question with all certainty when I don't have much knowledge when it comes to "olitical matters". So I'm going to say that the definition of it being a policy is strictly verbose.
Does war have a place in the 21st century?
No, we've come this far from being monkey's (as some people have claimed) we should be doing productive and creative missions, set an example for the world. Eventually the rest of the world will get with the program.
Is war necessary to the progression of humanity; or does it hinder it?
The only progression it makes is for the world to learn from it's mistakes, which it has not. People should learn that violence is no solution when it comes to the greater good.
No, it is not. Anything can be solved through conversation. At very best if someones an issue put poison in their water or food or something.Unfortunately, some people aren't interested in talking things out peacefully, and when one person wants something the other person has it isn't likely to happen peacefully.
I can't answer this question with all certainty when I don't have much knowledge when it comes to "olitical matters". So I'm going to say that the definition of it being a policy is strictly verbose.Foreign policy, imo, is how you go about trying to change the situation between your country and another country. Sometimes, this may include warfare, not just politics.
No, we've come this far from being monkey's (as some people have claimed) we should be doing productive and creative missions, set an example for the world. Eventually the rest of the world will get with the program.War can be found anywhere in time and space, just because we are "advanced" or "evolved" doesn't mean we are any better than the humans that lived 6000 years ago. It is just the mindset of humans.
The only progression it makes is for the world to learn from it's mistakes, which it has not. People should learn that violence is no solution when it comes to the greater good.The entire space race was part of a war, the Cold War. Because of that we developed many technologies, ten of which are listed in this article.
Although war comes at a great loss of life, more so now that we have better technologies to break things and better technology to avoid our things getting broken.
~~~Darth Caedus
The goal of a state is to act to ensure its existence. All other ideals come second, because said ideals would have no meaning if the state no longer existed. Thus all actions a state commits to must be governed by the will to continue its existence.
War is this an effective means of policy for a state. Defensive war, obviously, as a state is fighting for its existence. Offensive war, too, as the benefits of a successful engagement can be used to ensure the continued existence of a state by reinforcing an image of security and power to other states. It removes states which pose a threat to the state, and serves as an example to those left.
War is merely a means to an end, and so long as the end is achieved, all means are moral.
and so long as the end is achieved, all means are moral.
This reminds me of the end of Dr. Strangelove where they're discussing how to defend against a Soviet attack against mineshaft shelters after a nuclear war.
Unfortunately, some people aren't interested in talking things out peacefully, and when one person wants something the other person has it isn't likely to happen peacefully.
Unfortunate indeed. I just feel that war has existed too long for it to be relevant in the evolutionary process from our current state. And if I am to be governed, I would like to create peace in relevant matters. Conflict is bound to exist in any world as you said.
Foreign policy, imo, is how you go about trying to change the situation between your country and another country. Sometimes, this may include warfare, not just politics.
Change seems to be important though. Policy or Warfare, it isn't the immediate solution to a threat. I don't believe. If many people will be hurt in a short period of time, yes. But for the time being it would be logical to create alliances, not warfare.
War can be found anywhere in time and space, just because we are "advanced" or "evolved" doesn't mean we are any better than the humans that lived 6000 years ago. It is just the mindset of humans.
As this may be, history repeats itself if a point was not explicit enough. And I do believe that man is bound to repeat these mistakes. What shocks me is that no one actually takes the time or effort to evade such ideals and come up with a better conclusion. We are smarter then our ancestors, putting it to use would be self explanatory.
Although war comes at a great loss of life, more so now that we have better technologies to break things and better technology to avoid our things getting broken.
Being the Breaker and the Broken is the not exact interpretation of war. Yet still accurate to a point. One person will be the victor, the cause of breaking, and one will be left broken.
I don't believe in weaponizing technology. Technology is to expand ones understanding of the universe we live in and it shouldn't be at someone else's cost. It should be to the benefit of all people. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'd want a planet full of hippies, I just don't want a planet that it's main historical cliche being war.
Defense is a must, Offense is a must, but is not to be used commonly. It's like using a fork for soup, it's an irrelevant object or objective to the bigger picture. Sometimes a spoon is more necessary. And you can't kill a man with a spoon. (at least I hope not...)
War is merely a means to an end, and so long as the end is achieved, all means are moral.
Not moral, no. Necessary evil in some cases, maybe. Just because it helps preserving a state, does not mean the act itself is moral.
Question: what is more moral, trying to preserve an artificial construct such as a state, at all costs, even human lives by the millions; or giving in to save those human lives, even if it means they are subordinated to another artificial construct (that in the best case will try to follow the same primary ideal as the previous state, which is to survive).
I just feel that war has existed too long for it to be relevant in the evolutionary process from our current state.
I'm not sure if I get what exactly you mean by that?
But for the time being it would be logical to create alliances, not warfare.
Agreed. War is only a "foreign policy" (urg) measure if you are threatened by a country, in a martial way. Of course war is most often not that; it usually serves more primitive, personal goals like conquest, ressources, enforcing of your own ideals, etc.
As this may be, history repeats itself if a point was not explicit enough. And I do believe that man is bound to repeat these mistakes. What shocks me is that no one actually takes the time or effort to evade such ideals and come up with a better conclusion. We are smarter then our ancestors, putting it to use would be self explanatory.
But we are already way more connected than our ancestors. I don't think we are more intelligent, we simply interact more. European countries used to fight each other; now they still struggle economically, so conflict has merely shifted, but at least we don't go on open warfare against each other anymore.
Is war ever inevitable?
No, I might sound crazy saying that but I believe it isn't.
A lot of wars could have been prevented easily, maybe some couldn't have but a hell of a lot could have been prevented.
Is it justifiable?
Only ever in self defense and too often we don't act of insecurity and not out of self defense example Iraq.
Is waging war a part of human nature?
I liked to say it isn't
Is war a legitimate form of foreign policy?
No, communication and building friendly relationship's through free trade is.
Does war have a place in the 21st century?
I think we are started to see that it doesn't due to the finical costs in the finical age of the 21st century.
Is war necessary to the progression of humanity; or does it hinder it?
I think this is a very interesting question I can see it both ways hopefully we learn how to prevent wars from former wars so those former wars help us progress but then obviously we have the cost of war and how that can set us back and we see war can ruin relationships between two countries
Only ever in self defense and too often we don't act of insecurity and not out of self defense example Iraq
let me correct myself
too often we act out of insecurity and not out of self defense
To go to Iraq: Does a preemptive strike count as defense or aggression? War is all about getting a leg up on your opponent, waiting to be attacked might not be the best tactical move.
Suppose country A and B share borderrs. Country B begins to build up its military along its border, and soon bfins to point missiles and the like at Country A's citites. Could Country A be justified in moving first to destroy such a threat to their existence?
To go to Iraq: Does a preemptive strike count as defense or aggression? War is all about getting a leg up on your opponent, waiting to be attacked might not be the best tactical move.
Do you mean Iraq, or Iran?
Anyways, preemptive strikes are still aggressions, even if part of a defensive strategy. This is so martially, but even more so diplomatically.
Suppose country A and B share borderrs. Country B begins to build up its military along its border, and soon bfins to point missiles and the like at Country A's citites. Could Country A be justified in moving first to destroy such a threat to their existence?
Wouldn't you build up your own troops and defenses at the border first of all? Especially if there was no declaration of war beforehand.
Iraq; US invasion was a preemptive strike.
Officially, yes. But they had no evidence for WMDs and accordingly found none. That invasion was only sugarcoated as 'reemptive'. And in the end made everything worse.
Anyways, preemptive strikes are still aggressions, even if part of a defensive strategy. This is so martially, but even more so diplomatically.
Suppose then that all avenues of diplomacy have failed, and all that remains if for the first shot to be fired. If in attack upon Country A by Country B is immenent, can Country A be justified in defending itself and its citizens by acting to remove the threat upon them?
Wouldn't you build up your own troops and defenses at the border first of all?
For the sake of the example, I suppose. Though couldn't Country B justify an attack based on the troop buildup being a sign of aggression?
Realistically, no. Nuclear war heads have the capacity to annihilate any congregation of troops, so a gathering of a force in an area would be kept as short and small as possible. Modern doctrine in the West is more dependent on having rapidly deployable, highly mobile, "expeditionary" forces that can engage an enemy long enough for main forces to be mobilized and deployed. In the above situation, troop buildup on the border might not be needed, as troops could very quickly be brought to the point of attack. I highlight a troop buildup merely to show one nation's obvious prepsrations for war.
Post submitted accidentally.
Officially, yes. But they had no evidence for WMDs and accordingly found none. That invasion was only sugarcoated as 'reemptive'. And in the end made everything worse.
Heck yeah it did. Mostly. Does anybody think that this is connected to the Arab Spring in any way?
I'm a fan of Teddy Roosevelt's quote, "Speak softly and carry a big stick...", I feel thats an accurate statement. While we may strive for peace, or somebody else is, there is always somewhere that is warmongering or thirsty for more so if we appear strong, we're fairly safe.
You must be logged in to post a reply!