It depends what the war is being fought for. For instance, the Korean War and the Vietnam War of the American history didn't achieve much. (Ok, fine, it was declared a police action, so what? people died like in a war)
War does have some SHORT TERM uses, like Xanatu said. Some short term acheivements was like settling the citizens of the one country, to settle retaliation. Long term effects of War is sometimes useful. For instance, WWII stopped the Holocaust. The American civil war solved slavery, and it united the Union together.
However, loss of human life cannot be ignored. Every soldier that has seen military action is scarred for life. Whether the scar is death, injury, emotional inconvience, it will toll on them for their whole life. It basiclly destorys a whole generation. For instance, the whole generation of men that was aged 16-50 was scarred for life, and it affected the following generations.
It does solve something and when the war is over, it brings peace and harmony to all the people surrounding the area.
Do you realise the irony in what you just said. Has that happened in Iraq? No it hasnt, a war was undertaken to overthrow a tyrant and yet there is still conlict there.
I agree with RathRaid. Wars especially on a majo scale have extremely long lasting effects domestically. I mean WW1 1million British men were wiped out from the ages of 16-40. A whole generation was killed and the ones that came back were scarred for life. WW2 an estimated 40 million people died. As a result the UN was created as was the state of Israel and Russia was a new world power. Korea and Vietnam many men were killed and many more were either seriouly wounded never mind the psychological damage. So wa does solve problems but at a terrible cost. But i think it is very specific to each war. Wars are started for ifferent reasons and depending on the weapons and used and the time have very different outcomes so it is hard to generalise war but from a moral standpoint i guess you can but it is still hard to do so in this day and age. I mean tactics change so innocent civilians are less effected. As a pilot in the air force i know quite a lot about the new weaponry which will be used in the future. For example if you wanted to bomb a factory in the old days you would carpet bomb it and would risk high civilian casualties. Then as technolgy developed and accuracy increased you would aim for specific parts of the factory to destroy certain machinery. Now people are developing non kinetic weaponry which leaves no physical damage but stops he factories producing. There are now bombs being used which are similar to EMP devices which shut down both electrical and mechanical machinery. There are also cyber bombs which disrupt communications of enemy forces without having to knock out a radio tower. My point is that now war is osmething that if done in a humane manner and if the countries involved have the right technology can be done minimising civilian casualties. I can see a ime in the next 50 years when civilians will be at a very low risk to a war even total war which will render the moral issues with civilian casualties useless. However for the soldiers on the ground war is still the same ugly thing.
When I saw this thread's name I immediately thought no! But I can understand people's opinions on why it does. But,you can solve it in a less painful bloodier way,can't you?!
i personnaly think it solves many thigns it puts nations in there place and tells them they are equal not better also it tells them you can't always win think of WW2 the Japanesse were plannign a last stand kind of thign they had no money and they thougth they coudl destroy everyone else their plan was when the invaision of Japan started the civilians woudl come charging down to the beach with sharped off peices fo bamboo and that war told them they were no better then everyoen else
Yes. War solves lots of things. If there are two opposing forces, and one force kills the other, the issue is solved. It may not be the the method of solving problems most would prefer. But is has always been, is, and always will be the most effective method.
Even the threat of war can change an entire force's tune.
War solves problems between 2 or more countryes when the problem is the owning of something or some other kind of problem. Anyways,i still think war is stupid. Why war,why kill people,why risk to die,when you can just TALK?
sometimes it does. but then it leads into many other bad things. suffering and wars create peace but then leads into other things. EX: world war II into middle east problems. but as Dwight Eisenhower said: "there is nothing good in war but there is good in why you fight it" plus if you fight for the right reason, you will be granted a place in heaven.
From an amazing book I read once, Starship Troopers, "war is rooted from overpopulation." All war is rooted and the very simplest to overpopulation. Now, this book was subject to much criticism, but this is true. Deep enough, war roots to overpopulation.
If some genius can solve population problems, essentially, war will end. This of course calls for the SciFi terraforming, but is called for nonetheless.
