War is good & necessary: prove otherwise.

[O'Hea]

There did seem to be a kind of sweet spot in some past societies where wars were ritualized enough that there were few losses but decisive enough that issues were resolved, but it never seems to stick around. There's always a Mongol conquest or 30 Years' War or World War 2 where the rules get completely thrown to the wind and entire nations get decimated.

[Himster]

so, if we create one world government, why would we need wars?

Fighting the one world government is what will really unite all of humanity.

[Kitsunegari]

There did seem to be a kind of sweet spot in some past societies where wars were ritualized enough that there were few losses but decisive enough that issues were resolved, but it never seems to stick around. There's always a Mongol conquest or 30 Years' War or World War 2 where the rules get completely thrown to the wind and entire nations get decimated.

I think in some "tribal" societies war was actually ritual or sport-like, but that may just be western anthropologists misunderstanding it. The Spartans' supposed annual war on the helots seems to have been an example in the Western world, it served many purposes: kept helots down, gave battle hungry soldiers chance to fight, provided experience for young Spartiates, showed power to neighboring city states, etc. all without the risk of going to total war and irreplaceable casualties.

[knight of meh]

I think in some "tribal" societies war was actually ritual or sport-like, but that may just be western anthropologists misunderstanding it. The Spartans' supposed annual war on the helots seems to have been an example in the Western world, it served many purposes: kept helots down, gave battle hungry soldiers chance to fight, provided experience for young Spartiates, showed power to neighboring city states, etc. all without the risk of going to total war and irreplaceable casualties.

Aztecs where more ritualised that's because war became about getting the quota for ritual sacrifice though..

[Flinn]

the more the time passes the less war is necessary as a balancing force, unfortunately the less wars we do the more they are destructive when they will finally outburst.

said the above, yes war is somewhat necessary (like a fire in the wood or a flood in the plains) as the human being is simply unable to contain itself, but no I won't say it is good overall.

[Mangalore]

now, excluding human life, personnaly i find that war, is in itself necessary and a good thing, in reset the economy, and re-makes the 'picking order' of countries. looking at wars, usually what happens immidiately is that the economy is sent into a state of shock due to lack of manpower and such. within 10 years, the economy is 'reset'. then a golden age appears afterwards - even for a short time. unemployement drops significantly (death of lots of human). overall increase in quality of life and similar.
...

the golden age is usually about rebuilding all the crap that gots destroyed. There is a quality of life restoration from pretty crappy to hopefully pre war at some stage, that is not a golden age because more people would have lived better if there hadn't been a war to begin with. I just watched a documentary that the USA in WW2 probably is the only country we know of that restored its economic prowress during an allout war of attrition. Everyone else toasted his economy and society trying to win the damn thing!

But maybe this one time incident is the precedence for the perception war is good for economic development.

[Town Watch]

at first i thought that Roma_Victrix's post was a troll. but the other day i had a similar debat with a freind, and everytually he said: "why do we have to kill each other in war?" that made me laugh at first because in a battle, or similar, that is 'sort of' the point. however, the more i thought about it, the more it made more sense, why not have a war based on which country can provide the best 'care' or whatever over whatever they are fighting, let say china declared war with russia claiming Vladyvostok (not very realistic, but that is beside the point), then, the country which can provide the best care for that claim, without upsetting the balance of power too much, wins. or some other similar system.

in other words, why do we actually fight? i the purpose of a war is clear, but how come we used to fight pitched battles and now-a-days we have more or less random - on purpose - encounters. with a lot less pitched battles. why not have the national leader play a game of chess or something?

i certainly don't understand how that could work tho. and to me it sound futile... but interesting point he made.

Isn't this the sort of logic that goes into deposing evil dictators in the first place?

Saddam didn't deserve to rule over Iraqis because of the human rights violations. Saddam broke his end of the bargain, of the social contract, between iraqi people and himself. Therefore, the United Nations international law guarantee, which gives to the sovereign countries the authority to their own domestic affairs, doesn't apply to these habitual rule-breaker dictators anymore. That was the idea at least. Iraqi people deserved better than saddam, according to international law, and they got it.

In such a case, the war doesn't necessarily need to be bloody or overly destructive. It would after all be a liberation actually. This is, according to utilitarian morals. Why should iraqi soldiers and civilians have suffered from saddam's stupid reign. Saddam was but one man, after all, and from what I've heard, the case against him was somewhat solid anyway...

[wupwup]

The reason that war is good in your eyes (boosts the economy, changes politics) is simply because that is what modern politics is geared towards. The humanitarian cost of war far outweighs the economic benifits. Also, the economy should be a means to an end, a strong economy should allow a good quality of life to every citizen in a state. Quality of life should never be sacrificed for the economy. IF you do that your putting an abstract concept above real life events, which is stupid.

Even the ancient Athenians, living in possibly the most violent political climate in history (its right up there even if it doesnt take the top spot) knew that war was evil and unpleasant, and to be avoided if possible. Although copperknickers post is interesting. Personally I dread to see what a bunch of privileged rich white guys that have never dealt with adversity other than living at eton can do to this country.

This is not to say war is not sometimes necessary, but its rarely ever 'good'.

[wupwup]

On topic. Is progress possible without a war?

Progrress towards what?

[wupwup]

at first i thought that Roma_Victrix's post was a troll. but the other day i had a similar debat with a freind, and everytually he said: "why do we have to kill each other in war?" that made me laugh at first because in a battle, or similar, that is 'sort of' the point. however, the more i thought about it, the more it made more sense, why not have a war based on which country can provide the best 'care' or whatever over whatever they are fighting, let say china declared war with russia claiming Vladyvostok (not very realistic, but that is beside the point), then, the country which can provide the best care for that claim, without upsetting the balance of power too much, wins. or some other similar system.

in other words, why do we actually fight? i the purpose of a war is clear, but how come we used to fight pitched battles and now-a-days we have more or less random - on purpose - encounters. with a lot less pitched battles. why not have the national leader play a game of chess or something?

i certainly don't understand how that could work tho. and to me it sound futile... but interesting point he made.

Because, when china's leader looses at chess, hes gunna send in the troops to take what he wants anyway. Like mediation before war. If a country can acheive its war aims without war, war is avoided. If it cant, the war will go ahead regardless.

[Aurielius]

I have just read through five pages of tripe, not one actual fellow veteran that I could discern. The concept of War is not so esoteric when you are actually in one, I think a trip to Arlington or the Normandy cemeteries is in order for some of the armchair generals. War is the attempted attainment of objectives that were not attainable by diplomatic means.... a last worst resort not a first best option. A reasoned case can be made that sometimes war is necessary but only a civilian sophist would argue for it's goodness.

[Town Watch]

One does not need to be a veteran of armed force, in order to have a first hand experience of war. Not saying it to insult, but to simply note that there are actually people in this forum and probably this thread, who have been civilians of a said country affected by the military operations. Like that case in Yugoslavia for example. Not myself, but there you go...

Perhaps with the strict definition, war is not necessary. If war is simply organized violence, does that mean that all violence is actually war also?

By what merit do we say that war would even be necessary? I don't think anybody claimed so far, that war is necessary because it is is good for us! (at least in any serioous argument)

There have also existed some of these more primitive human societies which weren't very warlike, exactly speaking. So, it was done already at least once...

[wupwup]

One does not need to be a veteran of armed force, in order to have a first hand experience of war. Not saying it to insult, but to simply note that there are actually people in this forum and probably this thread, who have been civilians of a said country affected by the military operations. Like that case in Yugoslavia for example. Not myself, but there you go...

Perhaps with the strict definition, war is not necessary. If war is simply organized violence, does that mean that all violence is actually war also?

By what merit do we say that war would even be necessary? I don't think anybody claimed so far, that war is necessary because it is is good for us! (at least in any serioous argument)

There have also existed some of these more primitive human societies which weren't very warlike, exactly speaking. So, it was done already at least once...

War is violence sanctioned by the state, against another state surely? Which brings into question the legitimacy of the state to conduct war

[Aanker]

Apart from the fact that wars are a huge gamble in many ways.

The outcome of the war can be beneficial to a nation unless:

- no gains were made, essentially constituting a massive waste of resources and lives for no discernible purpose
- the war leads to a distrust in the politicians (and thus new, more cautious politicians gain traction) and a general opposition to the use of arms, even in situations where that use may be called for: see policy of appeasement
- debt accumulates and the economy is thrown into ruin because of it, for a long time
- the nation wins, but is overextended and/or exhausted, effectively throwing it into decline
- the nation wins, but consequently faces opposition from most of the world or the countries around it, also, distrust between nations increases, which might impede trade (-> usually, going against the entire world will result in failure and defeat)
- the nation loses, with all the effects that follow
- the success of the military leads to the current government being overthrown and replaced by a dictature, alternatively, the military is used by the current government to destroy the opposition
- loss of regions and entire resources through area denial weapons

The list is long and, as you can see, it's very easy to slip into one disaster or the other.

[Aurielius]

One does not need to be a veteran of armed force, in order to have a first hand experience of war. Not saying it to insult, but to simply note that there are actually people in this forum and probably this thread, who have been civilians of a said country affected by the military operations. Like that case in Yugoslavia for example. Not myself, but there you go...

Perhaps with the strict definition, war is not necessary. If war is simply organized violence, does that mean that all violence is actually war also?

By what merit do we say that war would even be necessary? I don't think anybody claimed so far, that war is necessary because it is is good for us! (at least in any serioous argument)

There have also existed some of these more primitive human societies which weren't very warlike, exactly speaking. So, it was done already at least once...

If you wanted to argue the necessity, legality or relative morality of war then I believe that all are equal in terms of gravitas but the goodness..no that takes some reference of the activity that is not academic. As far as I am concerned it matters not whether that experience was on the giving or receiving end both have a real perspective of which I would give credence to. However if this is just an intellectual exercise in Devil's Advocacy then by all means amuse yourselves.

[Mangalore]

Btw: Are there any critical studies concerning the claim that war fosters scientific advancement?

I mean it sounds plausible but some of the examples (like aviation industry etc.) seem to imply more that war fosters military advancement and possibly more risk taking and money is no issue attitude but that are more byproducts of changed decision processes due to war rather than war itself.

Also it appears war mainly fosters advancements of technology already discovered but still needing application. Cars, planese, dynamite etc. were all discovered before used in war and I'm not sure that in peace these industries wouldn't have simply developed differently and possibly more economically than the state ordering 1 million trucks bankrupting itself. Aka we'd lag behind in warplanes but had made more strides in developing civilian aircraft since the economic factors would have demanded more focus on aircraft being profitable alternatives.

[Town Watch]

Btw: Are there any critical studies concerning the claim that war fosters scientific advancement?

I mean it sounds plausible but some of the examples (like aviation industry etc.) seem to imply more that war fosters military advancement and possibly more risk taking and money is no issue attitude but that are more byproducts of changed decision processes due to war rather than war itself.

Also it appears war mainly fosters advancements of technology already discovered but still needing application. Cars, planese, dynamite etc. were all discovered before used in war and I'm not sure that in peace these industries wouldn't have simply developed differently and possibly more economically than the state ordering 1 million trucks bankrupting itself. Aka we'd lag behind in warplanes but had made more strides in developing civilian aircraft since the economic factors would have demanded more focus on aircraft being profitable alternatives.

If you look at the situation in the inter-bellum era, of the aircraft industry (from 1918-1939ish). You can see how the civilian industries were the most innovative, in the aircraft industry. Probably the same with the automotive industry. Think about all those racing cars and racing aircraft that they had, for example. Spitfire and Messerschmitt both were developed from aircraft racing planes. Technological progress was very rapid fostered by the competition in the market. World militaries were somewhat astounded, and were left twiddling their thumbs, with their older WW1 biplanes being left behind in the dust so to speak, by the faster civilian planes. It was a question of when to make the necessary investments for contracts, how good aircraft should the military settle with.

One of the government organized military projects that actually worked as advertised was maybe the Manhattan Project (and related nuclear industries). Admittedly there were some really smart brainiacs working out those solutions to the nuclear problems. Many of those scientists were Nobel- class experts.

Although, the Apollo Program would be a counter-example, because Nasa is a civilian organisation. Apollo Program was accomplished in essentially peacetime conditions, and many successful technologies were discovered from this project. Unless you want to argue, that America was able to conquer the Moon because they were fighting cold war or something like (actually, America was fighting a proxy war in Vietnam) Clearly it would be a highly ridiculous argument to say that war is the driving force of technological progress. There has actually been plenty of technological and scientific progress in periods of relatively long peace, between the major military powers. (thinking about 19th century for example, up to the start of WW1)

Even if we are willing to admit that necessity is the mother of invention, it does not necessarily equate to, war fosters technology better than peace. As much as war brings out the necessity and pools resources together, with more capital investments, the same necessity argument can sometimes also stifle the innovation, towards simpler designs and products. There's after all, less time to prepare for the harshness of war conditions.

[Diglytron]

Well, being a big fearer of overpopulation a war at its time issn't very bad. Issn't it wars today are a bit damaging for our climate/nature too.

[Maiar93]

I feel fearful at the prospect of people thinking war is necessary. I don't think it's good to simplify it in that manner - it'd be very irresponsible. I'll try my best to tackle the OP here.

now, excluding human life, personnaly i find that war, is in itself necessary and a good thing, in reset the economy, and re-makes the 'picking order' of countries. looking at wars, usually what happens immidiately is that the economy is sent into a state of shock due to lack of manpower and such. within 10 years, the economy is 'reset'. then a golden age appears afterwards - even for a short time. unemployement drops significantly (death of lots of human). overall increase in quality of life and similar.

Alright, so war is good because it resets the economy and creates new world powers. Wrong for two reasons: first, it does not reset the economy in the way you think; second, because our interaction doesn't need to rely on authority and picking orders - in fact the development so far has been away from such a picking order, with globalization and international mutual reliance on trade and stable politics. After the first world war, Germany plunged into a huge depression: people literally had to use stacks of one-million bills to heat their houses because it was cheaper than buying wood or coal. In addition to that, making war is very expensive stuff indeed. Britain, France, all the other countries involved - they were nowhere close to a golden age after the world wars.

It'd be very hard to say that war could never be a necessary option. So I'll go ahead and say that yes, it can sometimes be necessary. When we want to help a country's population that obviously is suffering under its current rule, it might be necessary to send in a police force to effectively protect the citizens. Which is what should've been done in Ruanda during the mass killings, for example.

Globally, each country and nation sorts out their differences, find out who's on top and resorts the picking order. so, politically it is a good thing. eventually, every nation will go along more or less fine, with difference from before the war gone, so it pretty much resets that aswell..

Maybe it is the only way for ultimate peace to come about that one country has all the power in its hands. A world government, as so many have mentioned before. And I can't imagine any other way of this happening than war, a long, bloody war. Because it's hard to imagine that all the leaders of the world suddenly find the sense and capability in themselves to create this world peace in harmony and cooperation. So I don't think we disagree that much here.

My answer is that it depends. Usually it's not good at all. It's always going to be horrible and cruel and extremely brutal business. But sometimes, for example in the case I laid out before, it can be a good thing all things considered. Is war necessary? No, it ought not to be necessary and therefore really isn't necessary. What I mean by this is that although politics are usually shunned upon and the best & brightest usually don't go down that road, there might come a time when enough people get together to consider this. And it is possible, even logical, if we think of the right people. Right now what we don't need are wars, but world policing and bringing it together.

[Hakkapeliitta]

How the hell does war boost industry? It boosts industry that produces things that goes useless in a puff of smoke! If that's the argument then why not just have a New Year/4th of July every day? A huge tax increase like during WW2 too? Alko factories making Molotov Cocktails? (NOOOUUuuu think of all the people who will die after trying to drink that) Might be fun for a while.