NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, everyone keeps whining about how bad war (in general) is. I too think that it is bad, but right now, it is necessary. I don't think that the world is ready to test "world peace". There will always be rebel factions that start wars and if no one can stop them, they will take over the world. Wars are fought, but they are usually for the greater good. WWII saved us from the oppression of Hitler. What would have happened if no one wanted to participate in war?

You know, everyone keeps whining about how bad war (in general) is. I too think that it is bad, but right now, it is necessary. I don't think that the world is ready to test "world peace". There will always be rebel factions that start wars and if no one can stop them, they will take over the world. Wars are fought, but they are usually for the greater good. WWII saved us from the oppression of Hitler. What would have happened if no one wanted to participate in war?

If no-one (i.e. not even Hitler) had wanted to participate in war then there wouldn't have been one.

Advocating world peace =/= pacifism irregardless of the circumstances.

It more usually means not going and attacking anyone.

War is necessary, and will always be necessary. In the modern world though, the need for war has been greatly reduced. War is necessary when your nation is being invaded, or if there is genocide, or if you are just feeling a bit claustrophobic in between your neighbors. just remember to all those who criticize Americas weight problem...."If everyone was fat, there would be no war!"

Damn and I was thinking you were going to be talking about Warhammer Age of Reckoning (WAR).

War is never good and world peace is a wonderful concept. However there is a difference between seeking peace and not being willing to fight when necessary. I feel we must just ensure that war and aggression is the final option when all others have failed, not the first recourse.

Of course it is necessary.

Without wars there would be no need for governments to buy new weapons.

Buying new weapons is a good thing to do with taxpayer money.

Much better than spending it on supporting the disabled.

Hitler taught us that.




Cute. Thread is Godwinning at better than once per every two posts. Keep up the good work, NSG!

War is only necessary when it's obviously necessary, but that only happened once, WWII. I can't see any justification for war over natural resources etc, that's what trade and diplomacy are for.

You know, everyone keeps whining about how bad war (in general) is. I too think that it is bad, but right now, it is necessary. I don't think that the world is ready to test "world peace". There will always be rebel factions that start wars and if no one can stop them, they will take over the world. Wars are fought, but they are usually for the greater good. WWII saved us from the oppression of Hitler. What would have happened if no one wanted to participate in war?This is a lie.

This is a lie.
Agreed.

War is what happens when two or more groups of people have differences that cannot be negotiated. During World War Two, in both Japan and Germany, charismatic leaders lead their people to believe that they were entitled to the land and possessions of their neighbors. Their neighbors disagreed and fought to keep what was theirs, and to avoid death at the hands of their assailants.

As long as ethno-centric cultures exist, and as long as even a single nation considers offensive violence (as opposed to defensive violence) a valid option, war will be necessary. What if they threw a war, and no one came? Why, the war would come to you, of course! If no one wants to fight there is no war to begin with, if only one side wants to fight it will dominate all who oppose it. Peace is only an option when dealing with rational and/or likeminded nations - but in that case there is very little conflict to begin with.

A peaceful, unarmed nation cannot exist in this world. A heavily armed peace is possible, as demonstrated by Switzerland and states in the U.S. An unarmed nation has no option to make war, and can exist only if protected by a benevolent neighbor. A peaceful, unarmed people are an enslaved people.

Qui desiderat pacem,praeparet bellum-Vegetius
(If you want peace, prepare for war)

Just because you think world peace is a goal we should strive for doesn't mean you think it's wrong to defend yourself or other nations when someone else starts a war.

That... is not an easy question to answer, for it seems violence is hewn into the human mind, even though I have no desire to use it.

war should always be the last resort and should be absolutley proved to be neccessary

This is a lie.

Agreed. When Hitler started invading other European nations, was that for the greater good? It was, after all, the start of WWII? Wars are not faught for the greater good. A necessary evil, but not meant to benefit the greater good.

Agreed. When Hitler started invading other European nations, was that for the greater good? It was, after all, the start of WWII? Wars are not faught for the greater good. A necessary evil, but not meant to benefit the greater good.Even if you argue that WWII was for the "Greater Good" using France's and the United Kingdom's declarations of war following the invasion of Poland, there's still plenty of wars around that disprove the silly notion that most are for the greater good.

I wish I could say war is never neccessary, but I can't.

A peaceful, unarmed nation cannot exist in this world. A heavily armed peace is possible, as demonstrated by Switzerland and states in the U.S. An unarmed nation has no option to make war, and can exist only if protected by a benevolent neighbor. A peaceful, unarmed people are an enslaved people.

May I point you in the general direction of Ireland where there is a grand total of 1 fighter plane in the entire country and where a minimal army participates in UN missions only.

Almost every war is unneccessary, even WWII was because if there had been no Treaty of Versailles or even WWI, Stalin and Hitler would have never existed.

Even if you argue that WWII was for the "Greater Good" using France's and the United Kingdom's declarations of war following the invasion of Poland, there's still plenty of wars around that disprove the silly notion that most are for the greater good.

It is a silly notion. I was agreeing with you though.

It is a silly notion. I was agreeing with you though.I know. I was elaborating that under certain circumstances one could argue that WWII was a war for the greater good, with the other option being allowing Hitler's aggression to roam unchecked.

You know, everyone keeps whining about how bad war (in general) is. I too think that it is bad, but right now, it is necessary. I don't think that the world is ready to test "world peace". There will always be rebel factions that start wars and if no one can stop them, they will take over the world. Wars are fought, but they are usually for the greater good. WWII saved us from the oppression of Hitler. What would have happened if no one wanted to participate in war?

In this day and age, I have to sadly say, sometimes it is yes.

War is not necessary, and there would be no war if all nations stopped being so selfish.

Some wars (such as the afghanistan war) are necessary. Others (such as the irasq clusterfuck) aren't.

Taken from an objective rule, war is never necessary. There is always an aggressor who has decided that they can take what they want by force. The fact that we must meet such aggression does and cannot legitimate war itself.

If there were no aggressors, there would be no war.

This is a lie.

Oh come come, everyone knows the greater good (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY)

Some wars (such as the afghanistan war) are necessary. Others (such as the irasq clusterfuck) aren't.

agreed, Afghanistan was provoked, had 9-11 not happened, which we didn't do anything to deserve, we would not be there. as for the "irasq clusterfuck" what cost both the Iraqi+American forces countless lives and over 5 years of the same BS, could have been done with a sniper in about 5 minutes.(wasn't getting Saddam the reason why we went in there in the first place?).

And to those who claim that the assassination of a foreign leader is never the right answer, consider this, he killed millions of his own people(play things if u will) imagine what would have happened if he had nuclear powers and one day decided he didn't like America.

Do we need war?Yes and No

The need of war should depends on certain condition.....and people views...

That question is incomprehensible, it doesn't make any sense. War, in itself is not necessary. It may be necessary in some situations, but that would only answer the question "are there situations where war becomes necessary?", not "is war necessary?". There is a significant difference between the two, even if there doesn't seem to be.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. "-Dwight D. Eisenhower.

War is, sadly, sometimes necessary to defend yourself. That doesn't mean world peace isn't something to work for though, or that war is desirable.

Even if you argue that WWII was for the "Greater Good" using France's and the United Kingdom's declarations of war following the invasion of Poland, there's still plenty of wars around that disprove the silly notion that most are for the greater good.

Vietnam, The Napoleonic Wars, The Iraq War, the Seven Years War, The Thirty Years War, The Hundred Years War....

A peaceful, unarmed nation cannot exist in this world. A heavily armed peace is possible, as demonstrated by Switzerland and states in the U.S. An unarmed nation has no option to make war, and can exist only if protected by a benevolent neighbor. A peaceful, unarmed people are an enslaved people.

Costa Rica is a peaceful nation with no armed forces. I think its gun laws are very strict also. However, it is an ally of the USA. I don't know that they're enslaved, but if they were attacked, they sure would need help.

a war can be necessary, that doesn't mean that war as a concept is necessary to the human condition.

I've certainly been to necessaries that looked like a war had been fought inside them. :p

So, I've been seeing this "WAR is NOT the ANSWER" sign everywhere, obviously asking for world peace. Does anyone think that world peace will ever be a possibility? It is in human nature to be warlike and hostile. I believe that no matter how much someone wants peace, there will always be people who will be violent. And as such, if everyone decided on world peace and non-violence, those people would be able to take over the world with little to no opposition. World peace would mean no weapons of any kind (except maybe police batons), so there would be nothing to defend with. There will also be those nations that stockpile nuclear weapons and guns. World peace is not and can never be attained. War is necessary for such reasons.

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu7r8XZ8bu4)

In my opinion, WAR is probably a necessity, aye.

Even if you argue that WWII was for the "Greater Good" using France's and the United Kingdom's declarations of war following the invasion of Poland, there's still plenty of wars around that disprove the silly notion that most are for the greater good.

but if you ask is something is necessary you only need one incident where it was needed to show that it in fact is necessary

So, I've been seeing this "WAR is NOT the ANSWER" sign everywhere, obviously asking for world peace. Does anyone think that world peace will ever be a possibility? It is in human nature to be warlike and hostile. I believe that no matter how much someone wants peace, there will always be people who will be violent. And as such, if everyone decided on world peace and non-violence, those people would be able to take over the world with little to no opposition. World peace would mean no weapons of any kind (except maybe police batons), so there would be nothing to defend with. There will also be those nations that stockpile nuclear weapons and guns. World peace is not and can never be attained. War is necessary for such reasons.World peace does not equal complete disarmament.

War is not needed, but rather, unavoidable.

Yes, War is not good, but it cannot be eradicated. War will never be a distant memory and it will always be around. So, if it is unavoidable, is it necessary?

Yes, War is not good, but it cannot be eradicated. War will never be a distant memory and it will always be around. So, if it is unavoidable, is it necessary?
Aye, WAR is necessary. It's important to show people that you can genuinely ruin their lives for them to comply from time to time. It's also why JAILS are necessary. And LAWYERS, I suppose.

Starting a war never goes far enough to consider the necessity of it, otherwise there wouldn't be any wars.

Humans are warmongering. War is human nature.

Starting a war never goes far enough to consider the necessity of it, otherwise there wouldn't be any wars.

Humans are warmongering. War is human nature.
hmmm interesting point. but what is a necessary war? what starts it? racism? religion? type of government?
One thing that nobody has brought up is the crusades, does wanting some1 else' city just for the sake of a religion justify a war with the current holders of the city? i shudder at the thought of how many lives were lost in the name of Jesus/Muhammad.

hmmm interesting point. but what is a necessary war? what starts it? racism? religion? type of government?
One thing that nobody has brought up is the crusades, does wanting some1 else' city just for the sake of a religion justify a war with the current holders of the city? i shudder at the thought of how many lives were lost in the name of Jesus/Muhammad.
I see the crusades as the Pope's and the high nobility's way of sending legions of lower nobles and poor knights to the slaughter and improving their image at the same time. No religion involved really, it could've been anything else to go to war for.
And... there is no necessary war, or more like, necessity is irrelevant. The main thing is that the good old homo sapiens will get his war. Even hippies like a good war against the estabilishment. There are no peaceful people.

There will always be rebel factions that start wars and if no one can stop them, they will take over the world. Wars are fought, but they are usually for the greater good. WWII saved us from the oppression of Hitler.

This is untrue. Wars are generally fought for territory/resources/political influence. Greater good is a nice cover, but no one with the resources to fight a war and the brains to keep it would ever start a war for the "greater good."

The case of Hitler is an exception rather than rule. Very rarely in history do you see some schmuck who shows up with an army and enough ambition to conquer the world.

Of course it is. How else would we kill of minorities, steal resources from other nations, keep the sheep in line, and jump start our economy?

Though on a serious note, I do think that being able to defend oneself and one's nation is not necessarily a bad thing.

It becomes an incredibly messy issue though because of the reality of the situation. I think it's safe to say that large militaries, particularly with great influence over the government, are a bad thing (see Third World dictators), and so is large spending on defense (sure it might "help" the economy and it might "foster" innovation, but you can do that by investing in other future-looking industries). On the other hand, those things are all essential in creating a badass killing machine, which is of course bad. But when other people don't agree that such a "war machine" is bad, and build it, then how does one defend themself? At this point you require some great sort of defense against the enemy, which in past times was why a large military was needed for security.

Nowadays though, we have nuclear weapons. You attack us, we eradicate all life occupying the space formerly known as "your country". Essentially, that should solve the problem of defense, but then the question is, how do we deal with people who don't care if they live or die? Well, generally, those people end up dying, but they cause havoc as they go.

The problem is that there really isn't a clear solution to the last case. I mean sure, you could increase security at the expense of privacy and human rights, but many would rather die than live under an authoritarian system of government which could destroy life (see Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, and other powerful central governments, even Oceania in 1984)in the same way that those that don't care about life do. Basically, this drive to secure our own lives could destroy them and the meaning we attach to them if we allow ourselves to fear death too much.

I really don't think there is a short-term solution to this sort of violence, but with proper education by parents and school systems around the world, such things can be minimized.

Without war, how else would we deal with any potential threats to our superior dick sizes?

Without war, how else would we deal with any potential threats to our superior dick sizes?

Says the clown who boasts about his scrotum seeking attack weasels. Or have they gone feral on you?

War is sadly necessary. I could type some long rant about how it's a necessary evil, but I'd just be repeating the same things everyone else has said.

I necessary evil like money and technology, etc. the list goes on of necessary evils...

Anyone who is prowar has usually never fought in one

Of course war necessary. It can bring about freedom for oppressed people, topple corrupt governments, etc. It can also make countries rich, make them powerful, gain necessary resources, unite the people of a country, etc.

Balaenae nobis conservandae sunt!*

*Sorry if that isn't exactly right, I've forgotten most of my Latin lessons. :tongue:

War is always a good thing, dirtbag. It thins out the ranks of the idiot youth.

Says the clown who boasts about his scrotum seeking attack weasels. Or have they gone feral on you?

They are for entertainment purposes only. ;)

They are for entertainment purposes only. ;)

You've got too many of the things to be solely for "entertainment" purposes only. And don't think you can hide that you've been experimenting in air launched, rocket powered variants.

This is a lie.

Also agreed.

Anyone who is prowar has usually never fought in one

With a few exceptions, agreed.

War is one group forcing another group to comply with it's wishes. There is nothing mystical or inevitable about that. As Heinlein said:

War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him...but to make him do what you want to do. Not killing...but controlled and purposeful violence.

Is it necessary? No. However, it will continue to occur until people value human life enough to not consider it an option.

War is one group forcing another group to comply with it's wishes. There is nothing mystical or inevitable about that. As Heinlein said:


Heinlein kind of ignores wars of ethnic cleansing and genocide in that quote.

Heinlein kind of ignores wars of ethnic cleansing and genocide in that quote.

Not really. Even during such a war the soldiers aren't killing just to be killing. Their government's decision was to eradicate a given population. To attempt to put it more clearly, the act of killing isn't the end itself, it's the removal and/or eradication of the targeted population. While the method is indeed killing, it's not necessarily the end in and of itself.

Does that make sense?

Not really. Even during such a war the soldiers aren't killing just to be killing. Their government's decision was to eradicate a given population. To attempt to put it more clearly, the act of killing isn't the end itself, it's the removal and/or eradication of the targeted population. While the method is indeed killing, it's not necessarily the end in and of itself.

Does that make sense?

Uhhh, no. Wars of genocide and ethnic cleansing are specifically about erasing the population from further existence. The objective is not to boot out the population. It's to wipe them from the face of the planet.

Uhhh, no. Wars of genocide and ethnic cleansing are specifically about erasing the population from further existence. The objective is not to boot out the population. It's to wipe them from the face of the planet.

Indeed, but again, the act of killing is not the end goal itself. While sending soldiers off to eradicate the population the only viable method available to achieve the end result (the targeted population ceasing to exist) it's still only a means to achieving a desired end state.

Indeed, but again, the act of killing is not the end goal itself. While sending soldiers off to eradicate the population the only viable method available to achieve the end result (the targeted population ceasing to exist) it's still only a means to achieving a desired end state.

That's a really fine distinction to make, and I'm not even sure if it's really there at all.

That's a really fine distinction to make, and I'm not even sure if it's really there at all.

It certainly is a very fine distinction, and only useful in an academic sense. The distinction being that if there were some other method available to reach the desired end state it would be considered, whereas if the killing were done for killing's sake it wouldn't.

Of course, on the ground there's absolutely no difference at all.

neccessary to what?

only to keeping in power those intrests which have nothing else to offer.