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.
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.
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.
[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.
Unless it's a utopia where everyone sucks a lotus and agrees on everything, weapons will be used as tools.
Of course, but I am portraying a world where no war exists, therefore there is no need to develop weapons as there is no need to use them. The time and research used on weapon development would otherwise be used on progression in another area for the advancement of humans such as Agriculture.
In the real world, as you pointed out, this would never happen, therefore we are still progressing but in the area of weaponry development instead of alternative points.
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.
Really? If North Korea attacks South Korea, then they know that the countries within the U.N. have the capabilities to wipe them off the map. They're not that stupid. Which reminds me, I think if an ally is at war and they were not the aggressor, then I think we could also help that ally.
Really? If North Korea attacks South Korea, then they know that the countries within the U.N. have the capabilities to wipe them off the map. They're not that stupid. Which reminds me, I think if an ally is at war and they were not the aggressor, then I think we could also help that ally.
The UN has very weak mandates for mediation through armed force, and mostly sends troops into territories where the main government is weak (Somalia, Congo), or the country at hand is rather small on the global stage (Cyprus). It won't/can't even send troops with the mandate to fire upon enemies first to Syria, let alone NK.
The UN has very weak mandates for mediation through armed force, and mostly sends troops into territories where the main government is weak (Somalia, Congo), or the country at hand is rather small on the global stage (Cyprus). It won't/can't even send troops with the mandate to fire upon enemies first to Syria, let alone NK.
Okay, perhaps not the U.N., but there is still a few countries that would come to the aid of South Korea as long as they aren't the aggressors, and the U.S. would be one of them. North Korea isn't prepared for the possibility of a war with the United States. Even if we wouldn't put boots on the ground, I'm sure the North Koreans would still have to deal aerial attacks and drone strikes.
Is war necessary to the progression of humanity; or does it hinder it?
To my knowledge, in order for the most part, yes depends on your point of view It must be, for humanity has been doing it for a while I can't see why it would be I'll say yes because of history and yes. We were able to create the rocket for space based on the V-2 Rocket in WWII.
Okay, perhaps not the U.N., but there is still a few countries that would come to the aid of South Korea as long as they aren't the aggressors, and the U.S. would be one of them. North Korea isn't prepared for the possibility of a war with the United States. Even if we wouldn't put boots on the ground, I'm sure the North Koreans would still have to deal aerial attacks and drone strikes.
Major duh. That's why NK doesn't actively wage a large scale war.
