In defense of War?

[Decemvir]

I have been thinking a lot about war lately and I thought I'd share a bit and invite others to add their thoughts on the subject.
Is war something that is completly counter-productive, or for lack of a better word, evil? The 20th century was the bloodiest in all of human history and so I feel that those who lived through that century must (yes, must) think about war and its ramifications. While most people recognize that war has brought untold amounts of misery and bloodshed to all of humanity it has also brough about innovations that have improved the lot of many others.
I have read (unfortunatly I cannot remember the sources, so I cannot comment on their validity) that many improvements in medicine have occured because of the experience that doctors and military medics earn in the field, during war. So while many people have died in war, so too have many people been saved with the knowledge that has been gained from battlefield experience.
I have also read (any American history textbook will back this up) that was has been quite profitable for the United States. Arms production always stimulates the US economy. Specifically, WWII helped the US get out of the Great Depression and led it on a path of prosperity that has not yet been equaled. So while many young men suffered through the horrible conditions of war the rest of the US society, as a whole, prospered.
The threat of war can not only kick-start an ailing economy but it can also cause drastic jumps in the level of technology. Goverments are more willing to give funds to experimental research in times of war in order to ensure victory. Often these military projects end up having results which benefit societies as a whole. Computers, microchips, and satellites are just a few examples.
What do you all think? Do the benefits of war outweigh the suffering that war inflicts? Can human misery be measured and valued against improvements for society? I'm not convinced that the commoditization of human suffering is a good thing but it does occur daily. However, the advances in medicine, the economy, and technology have been made possible (or perhaps a better description would be, kick-started) through war. Do these advances make war acceptable or even necessary to society?

[hsimoorb]

For one thing, a war based economy is a double edged sword at best. Check out Eisenhower's farewell speach about that. The military industrial complex will ultimately destroy a country. Look what it did to soviet russia? Why should us americans think that we will fare any better in the long run?

[Lancea Quantum]

Without war, thousands of jobs would be lost.

Any country which is prepared to give up its military, is usually a conquered country.

No way will peace be seem with such an easy access to guns, so such wars can be made with militas (in Africa tribe vs. tribe)

[hellheaven1987]

I must say, human love war, as it is probably the oldest "job", along with other fews, which remain until today.

Therefore, if we love war, why it is evil?

[Tom Paine]

The fact we love something does not make it good, nor does it prevent it from being evil, by any means.

[MaximiIian]

The fact we love something does not make it good, nor does it prevent it from being evil, by any means.

Not really. Good and evil are dependent on what one personally feels is good or bad. If an individual likes war or in this case, if a species loves war, and they see it as a good thing to love fighting, then war could be considered good. It's all in perspective.

Personally, I think war can be a useful population control. Like a wolf is to the antelope.

[LoZz]

humans war, its what we do, you will find that everyone here would go to war over diffrent things, even the biggiest peace loving hippy would go to war in a primitive sense if someone threatened his life or the life of his children its what we are its part of us.


also the richests nations in the world today have all been largly involved in war, confilt and empire building, so it is a good thing for a country as long as you win!

[Decemvir]

Well, I wouldn't say that the US is a war based economy. I would argue that the US economy has greatly benefited from war. While our economy is not geared exclusively towards war, a lot of companies benefit from the advances made in technology due to military inovations. Also, military/government contracts usually create a large amount of new jobs.
Yes, I agree that just because we like something does not make it good but just because we hate it does not mean it's evil either. I don't know if something as complex as war can be classified as either good or evil. But the question remains, is war necessary?

[hellheaven1987]

And why a war is evil? Because all the killing? Hey, no one forces you to kill, even your commanders ask you to do that. In fact, you kill or got kill in a war because you choose to join the game - and you know the game rules before you join it, so it is totally not an evil thing for war - even Romans did not sack a city everytime.

[Tom Paine]

Civilians in nations attacked do not choose to join the game. Those who are conscripted do not choose to join the game. The famed "collateral damage" casualties do not usually ask to join the game. If I choose to kill someone does that make it a non-evil act? How about if they also choose to die? Does that make it non-evil?

[hellheaven1987]

Civilians in nations attacked do not choose to join the game. Those who are conscripted do not choose to join the game. The famed "collateral damage" casualties do not usually ask to join the game. If I choose to kill someone does that make it a non-evil act? How about if they also choose to die? Does that make it non-evil?

They do actually, but passively. If the people in a nation really do not like war, they can all march out on the street and protest. Even army cannot stop the population of whole country march around right?

Same situation in Iraq now. If Iraqis really want to stop the war, they should prepare some self-protection, not sitting in their house and try not to face the probelm - the war won't over in such way.

[Tom Paine]

They do actually, but passively. If the people in a nation really do not like war, they can all march out on the street and protest. Even army cannot stop the population of whole country march around right?

One has guns. The other does not. Who therefore wins? Who therefore dies en masse before being cowed into submission?

Same situation in Iraq now. If Iraqis really want to stop the war, they should prepare some self-protection, not sitting in their house and try not to face the probelm - the war won't over in such way.

Self-protection. You mean weaponry. So now even more Iraqis are armed and fighting, wonderful.

[hellheaven1987]

One has guns. The other does not. Who therefore wins? Who therefore dies en masse before being cowed into submission?

Come on man, just go and get some guns. Besides that, who say the population in developed country need guns to decide what they want?

Self-protection. You mean weaponry. So now even more Iraqis are armed and fighting, wonderful.

Personally, I believe army can not really protect the local population probably. In fact, history shows that unless the local population do something, rather than waiting at home and let the irregulate fighters knocking their door, there would be no end to solve the gureilla threat.

If they do not like Amercian soldiers, kick them out from Iraq by themselves, or stop complaining.

[Tom Paine]

Come on man, just go and get some guns. Besides that, who say the population in developed country need guns to decide what they want?

You used the example of protest at a war. In usch a situation martial law may well be applied. Equally, it doesn't seem to have had any effect recently.

Personally, I believe army can not really protect the local population probably. In fact, history shows that unless the local population do something, rather than waiting at home and let the irregulate fighters knocking their door, there would be no end to solve the gureilla threat.

If they do not like Amercian soldiers, kick them out from Iraq by themselves, or stop complaining.

Um, where's th ehistorical evidence of this that you promise?

[Tom Paine]

I might point out that some people love things while hating both their love of it and the thing they love.

[Decemvir]

Well then, what is good and what is evil? Wouldn't you say that it is more important to determine what is acceptable by society's standards than one person's morals? The concepts of good and evil are arbitrary and depend upon what society one lives in. Even so called universal evils are not universal. Killing is usually thought of as bad/evil/wrong but there are always exceptions.
Yes, civilians don't choose to be involved in war but neither do conscripted forces. A person who lives in a nation which requires military service of all citizens may be just as unenthusiastic about war as a civilian.

EDIT - completly missed that tGS already mentioned conscripted civilians.

[Tom Paine]

I mentioned both cases, but neither really holds; the nation may be eager for war while its ctizenry is set dead against it.

[Sher Khan]

Which is why we don't openly break into war every single second. A nation - if prepared - will consider war, but the morale and opinion of its people are a necessary check to keep war to a minimum level. That of course only applies to nations where the people have some form of power against their central government.


I wouldn't say it's evil. I won't even say it's necessary. War simply happens. Sooner or later it happens to you or your friends, and you'll have to choose to either roll over with your ideals, or fight back. It all reminds me of a good Jack Handy SNL quote:

"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."

For all your attempts to live in a 'world without war,' someone else will come in with a bit more practical view of things and attack you. Again, I'm not saying it's a good thing (though it is for the growth of a nation), nor is it necessary. I'm saying war is inevitable.


Historically, war is useful for any growing power, as the people or nation gathers considerable wealth, land, resources, slaves, and loyalty afterwards - at the expense of their losing neighbors of course.

[the Eternal Cocoon]

it has also brough about innovations that have improved the lot of many others.

mostly becuase those inovations were government sponsered, governments usally having the largest potential income to invest in inovations ( there would have been no moon landing without the government, for example).

I have also read (any American history textbook will back this up) that was has been quite profitable for the United States. Arms production always stimulates the US economy. Specifically, WWII helped the US get out of the Great Depression and led it on a path of prosperity that has not yet been equaled. So while many young men suffered through the horrible conditions of war the rest of the US society, as a whole, prospered.

by that logic slavery could also be held as morally justifiable; the coutnry as a whole benifitted enourmosly from taking away the rights of africans and forcing them to pull the american economy into prosperity. But why is prosperity good? For one reason; it imporves human life. So if that improvement in human life comes at the cost of human life, it no longer improves human life, and is no longer moraliy justifiable. Otherwise, the wisest thing to do would be to kill of 49% of america, and distribute thier property and wealth among the other 51%, creating an enourmous per capita rise in prosperity.

The threat of war can not only kick-start an ailing economy but it can also cause drastic jumps in the level of technology. Goverments are more willing to give funds to experimental research in times of war in order to ensure victory. Often these military projects end up having results which benefit societies as a whole. Computers, microchips, and satellites are just a few examples.

that begs the question of what stops the government of funneling those funds into research without war? The only real answer is war mongering and lazyness. you say "Goverments are more willing" as if the government has a will of its own completly un understanable and uncontrollable by the people it governs, If anything its the other way around. If there was a big enough of a a push for it, the government would provide funds for research without war. Most of the time the people are simply to lazy or stupid to ask for it.
all together, all the benifits war offers can be achieved without war. War only provides incentive, protecting your country, or your home, or family has always been a powerful and convincing calling to mobalize the masses to produce.

[Lavastein]

wars are useful in dealing with enemies and political oposition. I am always in agreement for war if its goals are set on bringing both land and financial gains.