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.
I see the point you're trying to make. Let me make it clear that in all likelihood, I absolutely agree with you guys about this sort of thing. I'm just trying to take this discussion in a more meta-analysis kind of direction. So, on a purely logical sense, how can we define what makes a war bad? In this quote, LB, you say that 10,000 civilians dying means that the war is escalating. But civilians dying doesn't imply a war's escalation. I totally see how this conclusion can be reached, but in my counterexample the only people dying are civilians. This seems to be somehow intrinsically more heinous than a war where only soldiers die. The corollary to this is of course: how many civilians need to die before a war becomes "bad"? Is that number greater (i.e, more significant) than how many soldiers die? Perhaps my bias objection also needs explaining. If 10,000 people die today, that's nothing like 10,000 people dying, say, in ancient Greece. The ratio of deaths to the total population should count more than the number of deaths themselves. All in all, not that many died during the Black Death (at least, compared to how many people die in a day today), but it's significance lies in the fact that it was something like 50-60% of the total European population.
Then the Pres. will send out more troops and it will become more deadly, which will be a bad war.
Again, while I think I fundamentally agree with you, this line of argumentation begs the question. You must assume that more people dying = worse for this to work. But that's exactly what you're trying to conclude here. A true logical explanation (if one exists) will avoid fallacies like this.
Moegreche, thank you for the compliments and agreements. But I would agree with you 100%, the only thing that is wrong is that there were to many big words.
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.
Go back and look at the previous page as to why I did that. It's called irony. As for staying on topic, the worst war for America was the Civil war. I'd have to think about in general.
I think the worst war was the war against the Greeks and the Persians. I think this because even though it was not a big war it was deadly at least. The Spartans who held the Persians at Thermopolie and the warriors of Athens who tricked the persians to leaving and then killing them all. During this war the greeks managed to kill houndreds of thousands of Persians with their small force defending their lands.
i think that in terms of deaths easily world war II. 60 million people were killed during the war, and another 40 million died of starvation and disease after it ended. in terms of wars the backfired i would have to say the spanish inquisition because they literally killed all thier smart people and halted scientific progression in thier country for over 200 years.
There is more evidence in this thread, pointing out the fact that WWII is the worst war ever.
The worst war in history is referring to the worst war ever.
That is why WWII is the worst war in history. It caused the most damage a war has ever done, it affected most of the world and it changed history significantly.
is anybody know a good war ? think about a war ,cause 50 people to die is it better than 500 or 5000 ? if your answer is "yes" than think about that 50 people are your mother ,father , brother , sister,and your friends.
