Is war stupid?

[Mongolian]

My friend argues that war is stupid, that there is no meaning and value behind it, but I argued there was.

[Panzerbear]

well, there is definitely a meaning and value to it, I don't think I would argue against it.

but wars start when governments fail at their job. usually mutual differences are handled via diplomacy in a civilized manner.
war is obviously uncivilized and inherently evil, but so is humanity.

[Silverheart]

Well, wars are founded upon the simple stone-age concept "they have what we need, and won´t share it, so we have to take it".
The first wars were fought because one tribe NEEDED to take something that belonged to another tribe in order to survive.
And later on, wars became a way of taking things that you either need or just want.
Nowadays, there are no wars fought out of necessity anymore, but out of desire or lack of options.

I philosophize alot on the subject, but I think it would trigger a massive debate if I were to post all of those thoughts here... But I do know that wars DO have value and meaning still, although so many people refuse to accept it, and would certainly Not call it a stupid thing.

[Logios]

Well, wars are founded upon the simple stone-age concept "they have what we need, and won´t share it, so we have to take it".
The first wars were fought because one tribe NEEDED to take something that belonged to another tribe in order to survive.
And later on, wars became a way of taking things that you either need or just want.
Nowadays, there are no wars fought out of necessity anymore, but out of desire or lack of options.

I philosophize alot on the subject, but I think it would trigger a massive debate if I were to post all of those thoughts here... But I do know that wars DO have value and meaning still, although so many people refuse to accept it, and would certainly Not call it a stupid thing.

It's ok Silverheart, say what is on your mind, if not here then where after all.
If war is stupid then Total War must be totally stupid, and I am sure noone here will agree to that.
I think war can sometimes be a neccesity if a tension between nations can not be solved, but those with the overpopulation argument must understand that war does not usually kill that many people compared to diseases and stuff (compare WWI losses to the spanish flu) but cost many resources.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Poach, I recall in another thread you said something about being willing to die for your country.

Would you be willing to kill for it?

[Katsumoto]

I think this quote is greatly appropriate here:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

[Londinium]

War is just politics by another means. If you think war is stupid then politics is stupid. Afterall what is politics other than an elaborate form of deciding distribution of goods.

[hellheaven1987]

I never remember stupid people win a war once.

[Pickle_mole]

I think this quote is greatly appropriate here:

Brilliant quote, thanks for sharing.

Without war, there wouldn't be any countries. Wars forge national identities. Wars are necesarry. Anyone that says that wars are something barbaric and go screaming OMG when someone gets killed is living in his or her own world and hasn't a clue about reality.

I tend to agree but i think this whole discussion misses out on the mental toll war takes. When violence that extreme hits close to home, or is delivered by you there are severe consequences levied on most mens souls.

[Mongolian]

But what about the perspective of an ordinary countryman? If an invader steps foot on your soil, burns down entire villages and pillages them, how is war with no meaning after such circumstances? This is my prime example of why war is just and valued, because sometimes it is simply necessary.

[hellheaven1987]

But what about the perspective of an ordinary countryman? If an invader steps foot on your soil, burns down entire villages and pillages them, how is war with no meaning after such circumstances? This is my prime example of why war is just and valued, because sometimes it is simply necessary.

Burning and pillaging are optional part of war; without those two actions war can still continue.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

But what about the perspective of an ordinary countryman? If an invader steps foot on your soil, burns down entire villages and pillages them, how is war with no meaning after such circumstances? This is my prime example of why war is just and valued, because sometimes it is simply necessary.

In a war at least one side is being stupid, there can never be a war where neither side is being stupid or immoral.

Of course, in many wars one ide is only doing the right thing, deplorable as war might be. Naturally though there are others where both sides are just dickmongers.

[Panzerbear]

yes, you are correct. but the fact alone that you have something to fight for doesn't automatically make you an honorable, civilized and wise person.

here is a basic example
- somebody told you you are a ing bastard.
- you get pissed off and punch the asshat right in his ing face
- that somebody falls down and tries to stop bleeding from his nose

question
- was your act justified and at the same time wise/responsible/smart?

the war is this very situation, but multiplied by a million.

[Mongolian]

yes, you are correct. but the fact alone that you have something to fight for doesn't automatically make you an honorable, civilized and wise person.

here is a basic example
- somebody told you you are a ing bastard.
- you get pissed off and punch the asshat right in his ing face
- that somebody falls down and tries to stop bleeding from his nose

question
- was your act justified and at the same time wise/responsible/smart?

the war is this very situation, but multiplied by a million.

But what if this ing bastard steals your wallet and you decide to take it back after a couple of years? Or what if this asshat punched your friend, then what? And yes, I think retaliation and reprisal is very justifiable.

Burning and pillaging are optional part of war; without those two actions war can still continue.

Burning and pillaging is very common throughout wartime while civilian casualties are always inevitable. So regardless an enemy is always an enemy and under given circumstances (invasion) war would also be justifiable because you are not only defending your motherland but also your family and even yourself.

[hellheaven1987]

Burning and pillaging is very common throughout wartime while civilian casualties are always inevitable.

Common =/= necessary; just because everyone is doing it does not mean it is necessary or right.

So regardless an enemy is always an enemy and under given circumstances (invasion) war would also be justifiable because you are not only defending your motherland but also your family and even yourself.

Again, that depends. Killing civilian, burning settlements and pillaging are optional, not necessary parts of war; there are plenty of examples a victory without those actions been involved. Overall, war is just another way to achieve a purpose, with brutal force if need (Sun Zu has made it clear that best general is one that win a war without fighting).

Anyone who thought war has to involve violence is clearly not understanding what a war is.

[Mongolian]

Common =/= necessary; just because everyone is doing it does not mean it is necessary or right.



Again, that depends. Killing civilian, burning settlements and pillaging are optional, not necessary parts of war; there are plenty of examples a victory without those actions been involved. Overall, war is just another way to achieve a purpose, with brutal force if need (Sun Zu has made it clear that best general is one that win a war without fighting).

Anyone who thought war has to involve violence is clearly not understanding what a war is.

A war without violence is tensioned diplomacy where one party gives in under certain conditions, kind of like the anschluss. A real war involves physical clashes between two opposing parties fighting for a purpose (like you say), so by achieving said purpose is already just and meaningful to the definition of war itself.

[hellheaven1987]

A war without violence is tensioned diplomacy where one party gives in under certain conditions, kind of like the anschluss. A real war involves physical clashes between two opposing parties fighting for a purpose (like you say), so by achieving said purpose is already just and meaningful to the definition of war itself.

No, when there are physical clashes, it is called battles/skirmishs. A war, however, can be conducted in diplomate, economical or even social way, which are part of grand strategy; violence is just one part of grand strategy to win a war.

[NotYetRegistered]

nah

war helps to depopulate the earth

[Panzerbear]

nah

war helps to depopulate the earth

social darwinism for the win .

obtain thousands of machineguns, pass them around to worst ghettos and slums on earth and grab a popcorn bucket .

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

nah

war helps to depopulate the earth

This. If there was no war, people would just starve to death periodically.