Nothing really, I just want to make mine look diffrent. I wish they had 'Lime' color text.....
Anyway, yes, even though that sounds odd and uncaring, the truth is, a world with peace would most likly be more dangerous then the world we see today.
Well, Blaze, at least it makes you stand out. And lime color text, thats just weird, bu cool.
The only think i can debate is how could the world be more dangerous with all peace. Wouldn't it be safe.The people wouldn't have to worry about war. I think it would be safe.
Wow, this is a pretty old thread that got picked back up But this discussion is moot unless we can somehow axiomatize what makes a war "bad". Is it just the casualty rate? If so, that seems to support a bias for modern warfare which will have a higher casualty rate simply because of a higher population. I think similar tactics that involve casualty ratios to total population might also fail other biasing reasons. Is there a way to strictly define what makes one war worse than any other?
The thing that makes war so bad is ow many people die so yes, you could say the casualty rate.
Moegreche, war is mostly about defending a country or gaining rights. If you defend your country, you will do anything for it. An example would be the American Revolution, they fought for their land. When you fight for rights, then you are fighting to persue a dream of a better country. An exmaple would be the Civil War.
The only think i can debate is how could the world be more dangerous with all peace. Wouldn't it be safe.The people wouldn't have to worry about war. I think it would be safe.
If you think about it, a world where no one is angry, makes weapons and whatnot would be safe. But then again, most advancments we have made come from wars. So, it's like a trade off.
What I'm trying to say is, what if no one cared in the world, because we were all so nice and happy. How would we settle some disputes? Could we talk them out? Sure, but could we get the same conclusion that we have gotten from war?
But remember "War" is not just fought with people. It is fought with dieseases etc.
It is spelled diseases, sorry, I have to have things spelled correctly.
That is true but if everyone is at peace, you would have to figure that we would be in one true alliance. In that case we would all combine and make a vacine that would keep use immune to disease.
yeah, its true, wars do help in the advancement of technology like the internet which was supposedly made for the military to pass info secretly, or the nuclear bomb which resulted to nuclear power, and other stuff...
But still, in reality, wars are really immature. Adults always tell children fighting that they shouldn't do it because its immature, yet the truth is, rulers of countries do it too.
Couldn't we make advancement without using war as a medium for ideas?
It is spelled diseases, sorry, I have to have things spelled correctly. That is true but if everyone is at peace, you would have to figure that we would be in one true alliance. In that case we would all combine and make a vacine that would keep use immune to disease.
DAMN TYPOS!!!!
Anyway, sure we would all work together, but remember the space race the US had against the USSR? Well the USSR was a little skeptical of lunching a man into orbit. But since the US wanted to out do thier oppisition, they didn't really care or worry of that fact.
We have gotten so much from wars, some good, some bad. I dislike wars as much as anyone else, but we can't say all wars are bad.
Things would have been a lot diffrent if wars were not fought. The US would not be independent, hell, England would not have come all the way here.
I mean remember the ottom turks, who closed off the 'Silk Road' route to china? Well they were one of the reasons why England came looking for North America.
If the road was not closed they would have not tried finding North/South America.
The thing that makes war so bad is ow many people die so yes, you could say the casualty rate.
Like I mentioned in that post, I don't think just having the casualty rate at the sole signifier of how bad a war is will work. There is the biasing problem I mentioned before, but there is also a swamping problem: Let's say there are two different wars, each one killing 10,000 people. But war A kills only military personnel while war B kills only civilians. I think we would be inclined to say that war B is "worse" than war A, but counting casualties doesn't account for this difference. Again, I don't think the casualties of a war are a sufficient standard for judging how "bad" it was.
Well I believe it is, the more people die, the worse the war will be. It is just that if 10,000 civilians die, then it will men the war is intensifying which will make it worse. If you kill 10,000 soldiers, it will just men that the war "is on." Then the Pres. will send out more troops and it will become more deadly, which will be a bad war.
Well I believe it is, the more people die, the worse the war will be. It is just that if 10,000 civilians die, then it will men the war is intensifying which will make it worse. If you kill 10,000 soldiers, it will just men that the war "is on." Then the Pres. will send out more troops and it will become more deadly, which will be a bad war.
True, but what Moe meant was that, when civilins die in the war, they are helpless victims. They were not in the war, nor did they sign up to perticipate. So, the war with civilins will be the worst war, because innocent people died.
