Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

General War Discussion

Posted Jun 29, '13 at 12:38am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,976 posts

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.

 

Posted Jun 29, '13 at 1:11am

Minotaur55

Minotaur55

1,244 posts

Knight

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...)

 

Posted Jun 29, '13 at 4:37pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,999 posts

Knight

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.

 

Posted Jul 6, '13 at 1:01am

benman113

benman113

331 posts

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

 

Posted Jul 6, '13 at 1:03am

benman113

benman113

331 posts

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

 

Posted Jul 6, '13 at 10:41am

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

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?

 

Posted Jul 6, '13 at 12:01pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,999 posts

Knight

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.

 

Posted Jul 6, '13 at 12:13pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

Iraq; US invasion was a preemptive strike.

 

Posted Jul 6, '13 at 12:22pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,999 posts

Knight

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 'preemptive'. And in the end made everything worse.

 

Posted Jul 6, '13 at 12:27pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

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.

 
Reply to General War Discussion

You must be logged in to post a reply!