NationStates Jolt Archive

What if your view of war? Should it be used more often, less often, how? Should leaders keep their nations in a constant state of warfare, even if it means drumming up enemies to hate simly for the purpose of fighting them? Or is war never a good option, pursuable only for defensive purposes?

Violence never solves anything. I think that unless other countries are sending in troops to attack you, you shouldn't attack them. Use diplomacy or other means instead.

Violence never solves anything. I think that unless other countries are sending in troops to attack you, you shouldn't attack them. Use diplomacy or other means instead.

Oh yeah, diplomacy really works during an invasion.

Please stop invading me, we will be extra nice from now on! We will even pay tribute!

The French tried that when the Vikings came down the Seine river in longboats. It encouraged further Viking incursions into Europe.

Oops, my bad. You said unless they were sending in troops. My apologies. But, diplomacy still does not always keep ones enemies at bay. There are always the loose cannon that see the sending of diplomats as a sign of weakness and only respond to force.

only for defense

What if your view of war? Should it be used more often, less often, how? Should leaders keep their nations in a constant state of warfare, even if it means drumming up enemies to hate simly for the purpose of fighting them? Or is war never a good option, pursuable only for defensive purposes?

Since I doubt anyone wants to read a quote, I'll try Paraphrasing:

War should only be used when needed, but it is needed. It is a vital affair of the state, and those who forget war in times of peace will not last.

Those who love war, however, will be ruined by it. It is best to win through the minimum amount of force needed, to preserve your forces and get stronger from you enemies.

Though emotions run hot in war, the leader of a nation should never mobilize troops out of anger, for the dead cannot be risen and that which is destroyed cannot be mended.

Offensive war ought to always be the final option if it's an option at all. Pre-emptive or preventive war should never be an option. Defensive war is a duty and an obligation.

Just my two cents worth.

War is the pursuit of political goals by other means.

Violence never solves anything.

Uh...WW1 & WW2...

War is a necessary evil. We may not like it, but sometimes it is unavoidable. For example, diplomacy was never going to defeat Hitler's ambitions of conquering Europe. War was the only option to defeat him. Same goes for Saddam who had no respect for the UN or diplomacy.

However...a strong display of diplomacy can be witnessed on many occassions between the USSR and the USA during the Cold War. In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis ended with the world's two superpowers promising to work together in order to avoid a third world war. So diplomacy can work...

However, diplomacy will only work as long as both sides are committed to a peaceful end.

Violence never solves anything.
Preposterous. War has solved many things. Ask the Carthaginians. :roll:

As long there are humans there will be war. Bloodlust, greed, jealousy, pride and anger are the greatest causes of conflict and all mentioned are nothing more than human instinct. As long humans walk the earth the wheels of war will never be stopped. But the mentioned above are only the bad sides of war, as all things have a good and bad side about them. War has carved the world's history from it's very humble beginnings and it will play a major role for the days to come. War has built giant empires and war has brought them down. War made humanity strong, to surpass all trials placed before us and even to surpass ourselves.
Some may think that war is for the restless, however I strongly disagree. War to you might seem nothing more than carnage, however war to someone else may mean their very freedom. War for me simply means my country's ideals and beliefs being preserved by brave people that risked and lost their lives to make what we believe may come true. Humans will fight on, to any threats including ourselves. I've seen soldiers fight to the last ounce of life, some even gived up their own lives to protect their comrades in battle. A 20 year old man, almost drowning in a pool of his own blood, took several shots in the chest. Using the very last of his energy, got slowly back up on one knee, held his assault rifle with a single arm and squeezed the trigger until it had gone empty at the enemy. Satisfied he fell on the mud, finally resting. All of us who have experienced war from a soldier's point of view, know that we would've done the same anyday. We believe in our country, we will defend our country's borders and we will defend our interests OUTSIDE our borders.
Humanity turning a new leaf is very unlikely, we can see in history that we never learn from our mistakes. So I believe war will remain for the days to come, may it be on the radio, tv, sounds of gunfire and explosions in your neighborhood or when you find yourself jumping into a trench to take a few precious moments to regather yourself and then take the fight head-on again with rejuvenated morale and energy. That's all.

Yeah. I don't believe that all war will come to an end until Jesus comes again. I still don't think that it's right to use violence, though.

True, violence does "solve" some problems. But it always creates more. Look at Iraq. True, they got rid of Saddam Hussein, but now many American and Iraqi lives have been lost.

I oppose all forms of violence for whatever reason, other than self-defence. War should never be an option unless a country is being attacked directly.

War is necessary and the moral thing to do sometimes, like removing bad regimes. Diplomacy and things should be tried first, because sometimes they work (Col. Qaddafi in Libya, Aparteid) but sometimes war is the only option left.

Sometimes war is just, but only in extreme cases and it is always regretable when such cases arise.

DP

:x

I oppose all forms of violence for whatever reason, other than self-defence. War should never be an option unless a country is being attacked directly.

But then the other country is violating the first bit.

There are countries that might violate the first bit.This does not entitle me to do the same.

War is an extension of a state's foreign policy. A necessary evil as well.

As far as finality of war goes, several cultures, cities and people's have passed unto the ages when rampaging armies have crossed them.

Violence is the supreme authority from which ALL other authority comes from.

War is the oppression and killing of other people to further one's own agenda. War is never neccessary. War is evil. Evil is never neccessary, but to be avoided. Peace is good and the ultimate goal which allows mankind to grow freely without fear. War can never give life, it can only take life away.

Ultimate peace can never exist... Human nature to fight, so war will always exist, and why not propogate it if we cant stop it?

War can never give life, it can only take life away.
It can preserve some lives by ending others. And when the life preserved belongs to my family or friends and the life ended belongs to some poor heathen bloke I don't know, it's worth it.

Ultimate peace can exist if mankind overcomes its petty problems. Right now, it is impossible to have peace everywhere. The EU is very closeto the "ultimate" peace though. It is impossible that any country within the EU can ever again have a war against another country in the EU. With peace, our union can flourish and people can grow and live their ideas.

War cannot give life. War is the process of oppressing people, destruction and killing humans. The word alone means that war cannot *give* life. It may prevent the loss of lives, but only at the cost of other (usually a whole lot of) lives. The only thing that can give life is peace and love, which happens to preserve more lives than war could ever preserve. Otherwise we'd all die like flies during times of peace. It is never a solution to wage war on others. There is always a different solution that does not involve the death of many humans. The sad truth is that most nations, especially the US of A, are too blind or arrogant to explore all options.

War as in between two countries. War between people (if you'll let me call it that) and crime and violence are war in my opinion and can never be stopped completely...

War is the oppression and killing of other people to further one's own agenda. War is never neccessary. War is evil. Evil is never neccessary, but to be avoided. Peace is good and the ultimate goal which allows mankind to grow freely without fear. War can never give life, it can only take life away.

You're right, we should have let Hitler take over the world. DOWN WITH WAR!!!

Hitler attacked other nations. Thus the nations he attacked had the right for self-defence.

Hitler attacked other nations. Thus the nations he attacked had the right for self-defence.

Thus, war. War is inevitable. That was my point.

War is not inevitable. Had Hitler been prevented from becoming the "dictator" of Germany, he'd not have had the chance to do what he did.

War is not inevitable. Had Hitler been prevented from becoming the "dictator" of Germany, he'd not have had the chance to do what he did.

So.....you're an anarchist?

Germany was put into a lot of pressure by WW1 and Japan was extremely fed up with the way westerners countries treated them once they opened their ports. Germany is a proud nation which I respect very much, what happened are simply consequences. As for Japan, they worst fear was to become another China being run over by every other nation. Many negative diplomatic meetings with the West caused a great deal of grief to the japanese government. So they suprised attack Pearl Harbor... so what? What irrational being would assault a fleet head-on? Surprise attacks happen everywhere, both by allied and axis sides in that war as well.
....'But they attacked the US'.... Ok if you build a military facility you should know war will eventually come from there or simply go there. The Japanese had not targetted civilians, civilians killed in the attack were villages that were too close and of civilian personnel working in and around the bases. But because they attacked the US, we've nuked them. I'm an atheist but with the majority christian populace of the US, you would not want to target the most christian city of a country right? But Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked anyways, the warhead detonated on impact with a children's hospital.
'....Well it's not like they targeted it especially....' I know, but it still happened. The US invades other countries anyday, at any given time ignoring what the UN even has to say. Not as bad when you are the one invading isn't it? All I'm trying to say is that everything is a consequence created by another. If something happens to people it's because they were part of it. To simple examples from 'I tripped on a rock and busted my ankle' Well you should try using the crosswalk from now on or afford yourself a car. To the most complicated "What cames first the chicken or the egg?" Birds evolved from dinosaurs then different birds bred with one another creating the first eggs that Chickens came from.
-
I'm not trying to insult anybody I simply had to make this point, if you feel offended I already apologize. Peace.
-

To this very day japanese people especially the older generations see the air strikes on Japan as the equivelent of the apocalypse, armageddon, ragnarok or whatever you think is most appropiate. A few years ago an elderly man, lucky enough to survive Nagasake was because he worked for the automobile industry and was comissioned to man another plant somewhere else. His family that was taking care of the moving process were caught by the radiation and died in days. Not too lucky afterall? Well it gets worse... at his sleep he woke up to the sounds of sirens and had a heart attack in his bed caused by a group of firecars that were rushing to a scene to deal with an accident regarding gas tanks in the area. The old man thought he had heard sirens caused by an air raid and immediately died of a heart attack. Japan had a very impressive air defense system, the whole country would turn their lights out and go somewhere for cover. Not much difference from when you are teached how to respond to earthwake warnings at the age of 5.

I'll shut up now... I promise.

To this very day japanese people especially the older generations see the air strikes on Japan as the equivelent of the apocalypse, armageddon, ragnarok or whatever you think is most appropiate. A few years ago an elderly man, lucky enough to survive Nagasake was because he worked for the automobile industry and was comissioned to man another plant somewhere else. His family that was taking care of the moving process were caught by the radiation and died in days. Not too lucky afterall? Well it gets worse... at his sleep he woke up to the sounds of sirens and had a heart attack in his bed caused by a group of firecars that were rushing to a scene to deal with an accident regarding gas tanks in the area. The old man thought he had heard sirens caused by an air raid and immediately died of a heart attack. Japan had a very impressive air defense system, the whole country would turn their lights out and go somewhere for cover. Not much difference from when you are teached how to respond to earthwake warnings at the age of 5.

I'll shut up now... I promise.

To this very day japanese people especially the older generations see the air strikes on Japan as the equivelent of the apocalypse, armageddon, ragnarok or whatever you think is most appropiate. A few years ago an elderly man, lucky enough to survive Nagasake was because he worked for the automobile industry and was comissioned to man another plant somewhere else. His family that was taking care of the moving process were caught by the radiation and died in days. Not too lucky afterall? Well it gets worse... at his sleep he woke up to the sounds of sirens and had a heart attack in his bed caused by a group of firecars that were rushing to a scene to deal with an accident regarding gas tanks in the area. The old man thought he had heard sirens caused by an air raid and immediately died of a heart attack. Japan had a very impressive air defense system, the whole country would turn their lights out and go somewhere for cover. Not much difference from when you are teached how to respond to earthwake warnings at the age of 5.

I'll shut up now... I promise.

<b>Gigatron: War is the oppression and killing of other people to further one's own agenda. War is never neccessary. War is evil. Evil is never neccessary, but to be avoided. Peace is good and the ultimate goal which allows mankind to grow freely without fear. War can never give life, it can only take life away.</b>

Yup, that's what the Revolutionary War was all about. Suuuurre thing... A solid offense is the best defense, that's my stand.

@Gigatron: And when those countries (Poland, France, etc.) were overrun by the Germans? Would you have had the UK and the US stand by and do nothing until they were attacked? If you had been in charge, when Hitler offered Britain peace in 1940, would you have taken his offer, knowing that you were condemning more than ten million to death? How would you have stopped the Holocaust totally exterminating those Hitler hated?

@Circulum: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs airbursts?

Personally, I believe there are times when war is necessary/right, but only as the lesser of two evils or in self-defence. For example, a war to attack Hitler would be right, as it would be removing an evil, genocidal dictator. A war to remove Saddam Hussein would be right too, (even perhaps a unilateral war) were there some sort of plan to put the country back together afterwards. Personally, I think Saddam should have been taken out in the First Gulf War. The Americans encouraged the southern Iraqis (the majority grouping that Saddam oppressed, I can never remember whether it's Sunnis or Shi'ites) to revolt, and then went home while they got slaughtered. They should have gone in, followed the fleeing Iraqi armies, taken out Saddam and set about having some democracy in Iraq. The world would be a much different place today, hopefully for the better, although I cannot say this with any degree of certainty.

I agree with Insane Troll, to a point. War can not be stopped. I also believe that war should be constant. War is the engine of Darwinism, the ultimate test of who is fit to survive. It is also the engine of Social Darwinism, proving which cultures are superior. Especially in today's world where war involves as much thinking as it does shooting.
Say some contry got invaded by another contry. The invaded country was burned to the ground and their entire population murdered. It was the invaded country's fault for not being strong enough to repel the invaders. Thus, the invaders were more fit to survive and the human race becomes stronger.
War is inevitable. So there is no point in trying to stop it. The least we can do is allow war to make us stronger.

I think I agree with the middle option. War can solve virtually any issue, but often, it is unneccessary. However, regardless of how often a nation goes to war, or how peaceful a society is, a good, strong military is never a bad thing to have, and it can help in many ways.
Take in the US, for example. The National Guard is often mobilized to help with those affected by natural disasters, and the Air National Guard sometimes supply logistics to damaged communities. The Army Corp of Engineers maintains a system of leevees, dams, and channels throughout the Mississippi-Missouri river system, and whether one likes them or not, they facilitate commerce.
They often play a greater role for third world nations. In Central and South America, they distribute food and aid, and act as a police force for some nations. Even if they aren't fighting wars, they are good at distributing vital supplies while maintaining law and order for a government.

War is not inevitable. Had Hitler been prevented from becoming the "dictator" of Germany, he'd not have had the chance to do what he did.

And he would have been stopped how? Appeasement? Wait...that screwed the Czechs...well what do you know...

In 1936, Poland offered France and the U.K. a plan to invade Germany before she became too powerful. Both refused and the rest is history. The only way available to remove dictators is force, brutal, unlimited force.

I'll welcome the nuclear/biological/chemical weapons that will rid the world of its most dangerous dictator. A ruler who has total power over his country, esp one who has obtained it by force and uses it in a cruel way. A person who insists that people do what he or she wants.

We're getting there, eventually.

Violence never solves anything. Remember the Soviet Union? It fell, not through U.S. military action, but through economic problems. Violence just creates more problems than it solves.

Violence never solves anything. Remember the Soviet Union? It fell, not through U.S. military action, but through economic problems. Violence just creates more problems than it solves.
Remember the Falkland Islands? Still British. Because of violence.

Violence solves a lot. However, it is almost always detrimental to those engaged in it (either state or individual), and thus should only be used as a last resort.

War can be extremely useful, and is sometimes the only method of conflict resolution that will result in a conclusion amiable to your ends. Generally, though, actual military force should be used sparingly. The effect of the threat of such, however, is not to be underrated.

This whole debate/argument or whatever one chooses to call it is based on one simple aspect: we all have our own definitions of war and peace.

What defines war? There are several versions or degrees of war, whether it be hot, cold, or..... lukewarm :wink:

Now as to peace, that I believe is a much simpler thing to define because "war" can be cultural, literal (bang, bang boom!), philosophical, religous (although some may consider that philosophical as well), or diplomatic in nature. I believe that peace is not only the absence of war or the elimination of nuclear weapons... but also the PRESENCE of justice. When dictators run countries with force or coerscion(spelling?) then there is no true peace in that country.

As to the polling, most agree that war is a necessary evil, sometimes you cannot negotiate with a group that seeks to exterminate your way of life and you in particular or assimilate you into their culture (which is very unlikely since WE are the sinful, murdering infidels! muhaha!). Oh, and to you pacifists out there: let no one know that you are a pacifist because if they do, then by your own admission, you wouldn't fight them back with force even if they were attacking you.

In the world today, with technology as good at it is, it is almost damn near impossible to only fight "defensive" wars because by the time yor enemy chooses to strike, you're dead. Yep, it's called a sucker-punch. Bin Laden and his disciples tried it and America didn't fold like the French would, we hit back and look, he's crawling deeper into that cave he was hiding in!!!

Okay, final word (I promise) for this post...
I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty certain that it's true. You linguists out there give me a hand. Is it true that the word "truce" has arabic origins to a word that roughly means "I'll get you later" ? If it's not true, oh well, but that would definately explain why many Middle Easterners see negotiations as a sign of weakness because we're effectively telling them "Ok, we got you but you can try again later." If I find anything about this, I'll be sure to post it...

I'ts not hard to tell if a WW2 bomb is airbust or not I'll have to take another look at it later.

/\

Truce is a word that has been bastardirized by most languages out there. From my latin point of view, truce comes from tri which means three. Back then many people had war as a way of life, countries would even attack each other not for conquest but for mainly display attemtping to avoid final showdowns as much as possible due to costs of lives and resources. Battles would even be decided on a single man to man duel, you can see that in the bible with David and Goliath, movies and even a few historical marks which humanity was lucky enough to observe.
Let's say that Nation A has been in 'war' with Nation 'B' for over 50 years now. Although the conflicts, both nations respect each other very much trying to rival the other in any way possible either by making themselves equal or getting that lucky extra edge on the other which would result in another process of the other party to make things equal. Unlike any other nation of today, both cities trade peacefully and citizens go about their usual business not fearing being being attacked due to the non existance of targetting of civilians.
But then this great army comes out of nowhere and goes about causing chaos killing people, burning farms, plundering and the usual. Leaders from both nations, meet up and decide to take arms together for the new threat and will cease fire until it's dealt with. This is where TRI comes in...

/\

'A' and 'B' have the same goal (same trajectory in the triangle) which would be temporary cease fire for a greater goal. In my language, truce stands for tregua which roughly translated would mean 'truler'. Ruler as the measuring device and not a position of leadership. You can guess the rest from there pretty much. Since I'm not speaking about a set time in history all parties involved could simply be a city, castle, feud or whichever time you identify yourself the most with. This topic is ending up to be pretty sweet... let's keep it alive.

I'm Brazilian and used to live right next to Argentina, it's only a 7-8 hours drive back in homeland to get to the border. Anyways about the falklands, Argentina has been very stuck up since WW1 and in WW2 they were like goldfish taking nibbles at sharks. The government was corrupted to the core, especially since the day news got out an ex-president was PAID to do nothing about a terrorist attack near the capital I believe. Funny thing is that 5 months before the attack Bin Laden was spotted in Brazil near the Argentine border cruising around as a cult leader. He must've been disappointed with the Brazilian populace of muslins, since nearly half of them are fresh one generation immigrants right now. But he got very lucky starting a few cells in Venezuela I believe and there's rumor of his organization secretly funding the Colombian rebels. I've fought in the Amazon jungle protecting our borders for over two years serving under the air force, and no I never got to fly anything despite I wanted to. Brazilians hate Argentina as much as Americans hate France and vice-versa, now that they've gone bankrupt they have embargo'ed Brazil out of shame. What happened at falklands is indeed a subject of great controversy but I'm sure England would relinquish control if the majority of the populace wasn't brittish, as they have done to Hong Kong and other former colonies.At least Argentina got a run for its money being beaten by nothing more than a taskforce and I laughed when I read in class that Argentina actually asked us Brazilians for help when they were in the verge of losing. Argentines blame the irrationality of the subject due to the dictator in control of that time and after I heard a story from one of them about a 17 year old boy sent to war and never even been in any kind of fight before with nothing more than a rifle and bayonette having died at the first sign of combat. I'll have to agree with them.

Violence never solves anything. Remember the Soviet Union? It fell, not through U.S. military action, but through economic problems. Violence just creates more problems than it solves.
But was the Cold War not a state of constant warfare? War is not always faught directly.

People can be selfish, petty, power hungry and cruel, but nothing is ever “evil.” The word “evil” is just a general term that could be implemented in many ways. I could use it to say that anything that I disagreed with is “evil.” Using the word “evil” in this context is very week. Or I could say that anything that is potentially harmful is “evil.” Although using “evil” in that context is slightly stronger it is still not an absolute. Nothing is ever purely positive or purely negative in nature. Although it seems as though people like to view it that way sometimes. War, like anything else, has both positive and negative aspects. Although people often want to ignore the positive and simply label it as being “evil.” But I’m sure that if I really wanted to I could come up with a list of reasons why pacifism is “evil.” But “evil” should become an unword. It doesn’t really exist, except as a construct.