NationStates Jolt Archive

Well Dubya obviously thinks so but what is your opinion? Can peace be obtained through conflict or does the cycle of revenge and fighting just go round until all is destroyed? :mp5:

I think Tacitus sums it up.

"They make a desolation and call it peace"

Can peace be obtained through conflict... ?
Seldom, but survival can be.

Sure!

Launch the missiles.

The earth will be pretty peaceful after that.

I think Tacitus sums it up.

"They make a desolation and call it peace"

Somebody had to jump on that quote sooner or later... beat me to it.

Somebody had to jump on that quote sooner or later... beat me to it.

of course they did. (I'm trying to remember who actually said it, some scottish guy's pre-battle speech)

It's very difficult to say with any degree of certainty. While there could be peace after a war, it could be only temporary. The war, and possibly how it was won, could lead to anger and hatred in one group for another. Which could lead to further conflict. Or a swiftly fought war could lead to an era of world peace. There are far too many variables.

There was peace between Rome and Carthage - after Carthage was destroyed.

There was peace between Napoleonic France and Great Britain - after Napoleon was finally defeated.

There was peace between the US and Japan - after Japan was crushed.

War can lead to peace. But one side or the other must be so crushed, so utterly defeated, that there can be no talk of revenge or restoration. One must be either utterly destroyed, or so shattered that it is no longer what it was.

"The essence of war is brutality. Moderation in war is imbecility."

It worked in WWII and the ACW.

Well Dubya obviously thinks so but what is your opinion? Can peace be obtained through conflict or does the cycle of revenge and fighting just go round until all is destroyed? :mp5:

Well Dubya obviously thinks so but what is your opinion? Can peace be obtained through conflict or does the cycle of revenge and fighting just go round until all is destroyed? :mp5:
War is the quickest and most efficient way to peace.

War stops the other from continuing to disturb peace. The US went to war to prevent Germany and Japan from continuing to disturb the peace of the world, both international and domestic. They sacrificed peace for a short time to bring it about for a longer time in the future. This of course requires changing the mindset of the defeated, but that usually isn't hard if the invader has its hand firmly on the situation, not just a finger or two as the US has in Iraq now.

There was peace between Rome and Carthage - after Carthage was destroyed.

There was peace between Napoleonic France and Great Britain - after Napoleon was finally defeated.

There was peace between the US and Japan - after Japan was crushed.

War can lead to peace. But one side or the other must be so crushed, so utterly defeated, that there can be no talk of revenge or restoration. One must be either utterly destroyed, or so shattered that it is no longer what it was.

"The essence of war is brutality. Moderation in war is imbecility."

Dododecapod is right, I would add to that the wars where victory has not been wholly conclusive, such as WW1, the Wars of the Coalitions (apart from the last one) during the Napoleonic era war of an even greater scale followed.

Therefore you need a conquest of the land of your adversary, or at the very least total control of his resource and trade facilities, that you economically decimate any chance for his army to regroup/reform and challenge.

Seldom, but survival can be.

Well said.

Well Dubya obviously thinks so but what is your opinion? Can peace be obtained through conflict or does the cycle of revenge and fighting just go round until all is destroyed? :mp5:
Yes, war is what stopped Nazism. If you say otherwise you are a moron.

Absolutely it can. It's happened before. Look at how peaceful Japan is now. They don't even have a real military, just a self-defense force.

It worked in WWII and the ACW.

It didn't in WW2. Why do you think that the whole of Germany was divided between the victors with what was pretty much an occupation?

Whats ACW? American Civil War?

If thats what it is referring to, then again as I mentioned in my previous post, the complete supremacy that the North had over the shipping lanes around the south towards the end of the war led to the inability of the south to effectively bring in capital to rebuild its army. Hence in economic terms it was a decisive victory for the north.

Yes, war is what stopped Nazism. If you say otherwise you are a moron.
No it did not. National Socialism was a political ideal. What was killed was one form of it. The ideology itself can resurface at any time, and find new applications.

The same is true of communism - did it die with the USSR and the embrace of globalisation by China? Did it fuck.

Well Dubya obviously thinks so but what is your opinion? Can peace be obtained through conflict or does the cycle of revenge and fighting just go round until all is destroyed? :mp5:

If Dubya thinks it, he doesn't act on it...he sent a Tonka toy to do a tank's job.

War doesn't leave who is right...only who is left. And, usually, those who are left are united in a common cause, and unlikely to fight each other (example, we nuked Japan, 60 years later they still dont have a military (when we set out to end militarism). You've gotta go the whole hog, and crush them, to make it work though.

Shame that the only threat people have faced for the past 10,000 years is other people...

If so many people think that peace can be obtained through war then why are so many people in the forums against the war in Iraq?

Yes, war is what stopped Nazism. If you say otherwise you are a moron.
And you all remember all that peace after World War II, right??

War is the absence of Peace, and peace the absence of war. So although war can bring peace, it's better not to go to war in the first place.

The end of WWII had the great potential for new conflict between the USSR and West The End of WWII was the being of the Cold War but the end result of WWII has been a lasting peace in Europe. (Excluding the former Yugoslavia but that arguably was the last WWII/Coldwar battle but that is another kettle of fish)


It didn't in WW2. Why do you think that the whole of Germany was divided between the victors with what was pretty much an occupation?

Whats ACW? American Civil War?

If thats what it is referring to, then again as I mentioned in my previous post, the complete supremacy that the North had over the shipping lanes around the south towards the end of the war led to the inability of the south to effectively bring in capital to rebuild its army. Hence in economic terms it was a decisive victory for the north.

War is the absence of Peace, and peace the absence of war.

"True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-- Baruch Spinoza

Well Dubya obviously thinks so but what is your opinion? Can peace be obtained through conflict or does the cycle of revenge and fighting just go round until all is destroyed? :mp5:
Yes. A case in point is WWII.

Yup, right after those hogs sprout wings...

Yes. A case in point is WWII.

Yeah, 'cause a cold war is peace.:rolleyes:

Peace can only be made from war if the other side is completely and utterly crushed. Everything, their military, their cities, their land their will to fight, their honor. There will never be peace in Iraq because no matter how hard we try we will never crush the “insurgent’s” spirits. One can see similar dedication in the US’s revolution.

Basically peace is only achievable through war if only one side is left.

Yeah, 'cause a cold war is peace.:rolleyes:

A cold war is peace..

Yeah, 'cause a cold war is peace.
Remember, the US and USSR were allied in WWII. Their Cold War was not a direct result of that war. Western Europe has enjoyed its longest period of peace since probably the Roman Empire thanks to the well-executed defeat of Germany and subsequent rebuilding. Japan is also in much better condition than it was before.

I honestly don't know if peace can be obtained through war. But I know that there is no way peace can be obtained through the absence of war. The years leading up to World War 2 proved that.

doesnt the question need to be can you START a war and make peace?

if war comes to you or you intervene in a war thats already started, its an entirely different problem. the UK (et al) brought peace in ww2 by finishing the war the germans (et al) started. the vietnamese brought peace by outlasting the US.

but can you start a war with an otherwise peaceful-but-troubled nation and have THAT lead to peace?

can someone think of a good example where that happened? preference to those in the modern age.

does the conquest of india count? the partitioning was pretty horrific.

maybe some of the US's adventures in central america? peace through installing a brutal dictatorship? chile only had to go through 10 or 15 years of brutality by pinochet (aided in his overthrow of allende by the US) in order to get off the communist bandwagon and back to the peaceful country it has always been....

I honestly don't know if peace can be obtained through war. But I know that there is no way peace can be obtained through the absence of war. The years leading up to World War 2 proved that.
Not really, the fact that france wanted revenge for german troops marching so close to paris is what cuased WWII

Can war bring peace? Well, maybe, but only an incredibly ironic peace :D

Not really, the fact that france wanted revenge for german troops marching so close to paris is what cuased WWII

Actually, Germany invaded Poland and France, and THAT's what caused WWII.

Germany would never have been able to obtain a force that could topple a country, if europe intervened when Hitler first turned agressive.

Actually, Germany invaded Poland and France, and THAT's what caused WWII.

Germany would never have been able to obtain a force that could topple a country, if europe intervened when Hitler first turned agressive.


Yes, but the reason Hitler Got into power was because after the war France wanted revenge Germany's invasion into that country in WWI. And because France was of the allies they were allowed to give Germany that outrageous war tax.

This gave Hitler his platform for Mien Komph, which increased his popularity, which allowed him to take over the Weimar republic, and so on...

I'm not saying that War can't lead to Peace I'm just saying that, the period of time between WWI and WWII seemed more like a Regroup of the sides than an actual Peace

Remember, the US and USSR were allied in WWII. Their Cold War was not a direct result of that war. Western Europe has enjoyed its longest period of peace since probably the Roman Empire thanks to the well-executed defeat of Germany and subsequent rebuilding. Japan is also in much better condition than it was before.

I'm sorry, but I thought you meant the whole world, not Western Europe. I guess European peace is superior to world peace.

maybe some of the US's adventures in central america? peace through installing a brutal dictatorship?
Or an even better example, peace through installing democracy. See Operations Urgent Fury and Just Cause.

I think saying "peace made through war" is like saying "change is the only constancy."

The "peace" before war refers to a bunch of states playing dirty diplomatic games with each other while secretly building arms. Spying, deliberate misinformation, assassinations and undertable dealings are rife.

The "peace" after war refers to the quiet after a bunch of states have so utterly destroyed the other (or each other) that the few people who remain are just solemnly lighting their cigarettes while waiting to die from their infected leg wounds.

Pick your poison.

War is the quickest and most efficient way to peace.

Short term peace. War almost always sets the seeds for another one. After WWII, how many more conflicts did we see scattered around the globe? Communist insurgencies and popular revolts. Dictators propped by either superpowers. Maybe not as big as a world war, but war all the same.

The only real lasting peace that war will ever bring is that of the grave. So we'd need an end to humanity to make it work...

Short term peace. War almost always sets the seeds for another one. After WWII, how many more conflicts did we see scattered around the globe? Communist insurgencies and popular revolts. Dictators propped by either superpowers. Maybe not as big as a world war, but war all the same.

The only real lasting peace that war will ever bring is that of the grave. So we'd need an end to humanity to make it work...

Enter the furiously fornicating Xislakilinian bunnies! Guaranteed to outbreed humans on any given weekend.

...Mien Komph...
Holy Shit!
Now, I've seen many misspellings of German words - but this takes the cake. Hitler wasn't Vietnamese, you know. :D

As for the original question...if it can, then only because the defeated chooses it. You can't impose peace, unless those upon whom it is imposed accept it.

That's why Germany and Japan are peaceful today. Not because they were defeated in a war, but because the Germans and the Japanese themselves managed to reject the idea that another war would improve their lot.

So is it possible for there to be peace after a war? Obviously.
Can war alone create peace? No.

Holy Shit!
Now, I've seen many misspellings of German words - but this takes the cake. Hitler wasn't Vietnamese, you know. :D

DAH!!!!! The most Ironic thing is that I spell checked twice!! TWICE DAMMIT!!!

"True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-- Baruch Spinoza

"There was never a good war or a bad peace."
--Benjamin Franklin

"I prefer the most unfair peace to the most righteous war."
-- Cicero.

War makes peace if it destroys one of three things:
The enemy (this happens in video games more often than reality)
Example: You destroyed the enemy's base and all his troops. You win.
The enemy's will to fight (this usually happens in reality)
Example: Vietnamese cause sufficient US casualties that the US pulls out. Vietnam wins.
The enemy's ability to fight (this sometimes happens)
Example: Germany runs out of able-bodied troops. Allies win.

Otherwise, peacemakers are needed in addition to warriors.

Otherwise, peacemakers are needed in addition to warriors.

Peacemakers as in the LGM-118 Peacemaker missiles or peacekeepers? Those two have very different results although the former is more likely to result in permanent peace. :p

"There was never a good war or a bad peace."
--Benjamin Franklin

"I prefer the most unfair peace to the most righteous war."
-- Cicero.
Well, Franklin and Cicero were pretty obviously wrong on this point.