What is the point of war? Does it create peace?

[chewyman]

That's not a cause, it's just a reality of modern warfare.

[The Weird One]

but if it weren't true then would there be as much warfare???

[Jehan]

seems like war always happens as a result of a struggle for dominance, which is a pretty crap reason but true, eg punic wars, wars between the seleucids and the ptolemies, actually pretty much every war is started cos someone wants control over someting or other people or both.
On a side note, i think nuclear weapons actually prevented a war between the West and the Warsaw Pact during the cold war which would have arguably been just as bad or worse than WWII, so nukes so far seem to be on the positive side of the ledger, for now.

[Nobunaga]

And even if humanity manages to survive those hurdles, we're all screwed from the heat death.

Have a nice day

... Heat death is no longer what it used to be, Neutrino, as a theory, I mean:

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/ ... b_main.asp

...

[Skittles!]

seems like war always happens as a result of a struggle for dominance, which is a pretty crap reason but true, eg punic wars, wars between the seleucids and the ptolemies, actually pretty much every war is started cos someone wants control over someting or other people or both.
On a side note, i think nuclear weapons actually prevented a war between the West and the Warsaw Pact during the cold war which would have arguably been just as bad or worse than WWII, so nukes so far seem to be on the positive side of the ledger, for now.

Are you saying that the Punic Wars were wars between the Selucids and Ptolemies? Or are you just using them as another example?

[Jenos Ridan]

Let's not turn this into another atheists vs. theists thread.

Agreed. Guiscard, stand down and back off. No need for you to get all militant on the Jesus Freaks here, I know how you feel on the subject and, frankly, I don't care. And I'm leaving it at that.

As for the topic of the thread, my brother (dnucci) and I have discussed this subject a bit. I agree wholeheartedly with the earlier posts stating that man is in no way the only species that wages war. In fact, I would argue that war is a necessary part of the natural order. The natural order for organisms is a struggle to survive, and survival of one cannot occur but at the expense of another's survival. So, I would say that war is a necessary part of the natural cycle for most, probably all, species.

If we accept that war is inevitable, then the question my brother and I came to in our discussions is whether man, due to his ability to reason, bears a different responsibility with regard to war than other species. Ants, meerkats, bees, mold, stands of trees, etc. engage in constant battles for dominance against other species that would seek to steal their resources, but they do so without remorse or apology. Man is different because we have this thing we call conscience. So, the question we've been pondering is this: to what degree does our ability as humans to evaluate rightness or wrongness of action change the way we should or should not go about war?

After all, for every species, war is ultimately about resources and the battle for dominance. So, why do we as humans see no moral wrongness in one colony of ants obliterating another, but we blanch at the idea of genocide? This is a very difficult question, I think. Another apropos question in the context of the first post is: What is peace? Really, how would you, ritz, (or anyone else) define 'peace'?

Peace, as man has known it in the tangable, is that brief interlude between wars. Other definitions include heaven, nirvana (not the band) and other such metaphyscial, transcendental thoughts. Not that most of us here are interested in the untangable in the slightest....

[Jenos Ridan]

to quote MIB, 'A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.'

Good point, nobunga, and I agree that this point has important bearing on the issue.

I wanted to add that quote. It's so true. I would like to add, however, that war is sort of the classic argument against the innate goodness of man, for whatever that's worth.

Better still, Nate. It is the classic argument againt any innate goodness to be found in the flesh/sin-nature of mankind. There is good only in the the soul (or more pointedly, the saved soul) and in God.

And to the athiests out there, if you don't want to read about this, then ignore it. Honestly, it's like the mere mention of anything remotely religious puts sand in your pants. Chillax, dudes .

[Guiscard]

It was John F. Kennedy who once said, “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind”, but is this even possible? Are we destined to fight until our untimely demise?

In a word, no. In many words; not anytime soon. If the Bible is right, there will be one last battle, then peace forever. If not, then mankind will fight and fight until the strain of our presence here on the earth forces segments of humanity to take flight and flee to the stars. And even then, I'm postulating a hopeful senario. But, then, given that the logical worst-case senario is the extinction of man, wouldn't hope for the best? War, saddly, is very much a part of man. As are the causes of war.

Atheists believe that as well... Its just that your peace forever is our nuclear holocaust...

The post above was meant as a humerous observation about the ultimate and unavoidable pessimism of Atheism. It was in no way meant as Christian Bashing, Theistic Debate or any other of the many and varied crimes of which I have been so callously accused. Slander! Slander!

[Jmey]

A shark is pregnant with aproximately 20 sharks within her womb...
but only one is born... what happens during the time they are in her womb?

well i heard this a while ago and i might be wrong so please corect me if so... over the course of time... as they develop, the sharks within the womb wage war with each other and fight until only one is left... to survive so long, they must eat their dead victims carcases... so iv heard...

basically what im trying to say is the strongest and fittest survive where as the weaklings are picked off one at a time and consumed
which leads to war now adays... like over oil and such

plus that it is natural for living organisms to fight and wage war... then again to ave peace war must exist... its complicated...

the mear(however its spelt) cats for example, live in groups (called families) and they co-exist and help each other, but only within the family... when they want to move to a better or must move to a better territory they must atack another herd of mear cats and who evers family is the strongest wins... proving me right

Jmey
P.S
by consumed it doesnt just mean eaten, it can mean consume the resources like a better environment or in our case... fossil fuels

[Colossus]

Jenos, I wasn't accusing Guiscard of anything in saying lets keep the religious debate out of this one....I was more responding to your citing of the Bible as a source. And as for definition of 'peace', I can certainly come up with definitions as well as you or anyone else can, but if ritz is going to address this issue of the merits/detriments/inevitability of war and to ask the question, does war lead to peace?, then he should, I think, also be prepared to address what 'peace' means in his essay. I think that every culture has a different view of peace, and that likely each culture sees itself at or near the top of the proverbial heap in said peace. Thus the inevitability of war. That's what I was getting at. As for the sand in the pants, I think that addressing this sort of issue by citing Biblical passages or by discussing innate sin is in some ways counterproductive (threadjacking?), but your point about 'sin-nature' goes to the question I mentioned earlier: why is it that man sees no moral issues (i.e. sinfulness) in one ant colony eradicating another, but it's 'sinful' for human populations to do so? Nature doesn't apologize, so why do we?


(And I'm not saying that a survival of the fittest, let's-all-kill-each-other-and-the-strongest-can-live-in-happiness world is the way to go, I'm simply asking the philosophical question.

[heavycola]

why is it that man sees no moral issues (i.e. sinfulness) in one ant colony eradicating another, but it's 'sinful' for human populations to do so? Nature doesn't apologize, so why do we?

Well here's an evolutionary argument: when the human neocortex evolved we developed foresight, which was an amazing tool - evading predators, tracking prey, planning for the future... but it also cursed us with foreknowledge of our deaths. IMHO it is the reason (most) people value human life above anything else, because we feel how precious it is and because we can empathise with others' foresight. I believe this is where morality utlimately comes from - it is also why we don't ascribe morality to any other animal. Ants do what ants do, but we are better than that. Nature red in tooth and claw... not us though, until the right situation comes along. 'War' is natural and was a driving force behind natural selection (as competition for scarce resources), but we are supposed to be able to rise above our baser instincts. I think war gives people a chance to indulge those same instincts.

[Jmey]

wow, makes me think.. but im still sticking by the fact that peace can never last and only last for a short while... like i mentioned in nature... it was only examples

so i basically think that in order to have peace we must have war... and by survival of the fittest i didnt mean only one race to be dominant and/or only one surivor in the end (which i kinda did) i meant it in a way of at first we have peace and harmony and then when we have lived out our own resources, we then must look elsewhere in order to survive and thrive as a community. we take from others and when we are through with them... then we have peace.... that is untill it is repeated

sorry to bring this up but... what happens when Earths resourses are all taken up? what then? we move to another planet and hope to find some there... but that also bring up the fact life must be on other planets...

sorry if this is a bit off topic but its good to broaden this outlook on war...

~ Jmey
P.S
You never mentioned that i couldnt mention aliens!!

[Colossus]

actually, Jmey, I think that your point about resources is dead-on-topic. the major push these days is for 'sustainability', right? well, think about the war in Iraq for a second... we all know that the reason the world is so intent on what happens in the middle east is because of the oil there. oil is a resource that has become the foundation for modern culture by providing transport and electricity. if we transformed all of modern culture over to solar power (for example), why would anyone make war over resources anymore? what resources would the war be over then? wood? metal? knowledge? In my opinion, the only way that 'peace' will ever be achieved is if each culture has the technology to live comfortably and prosper on the resources already available to them. Should that happen, there would be peace....for a while, I think, until non-renewable resources like land become the issue.

heavycola, interesting points, as usual. I hear your argument about how man is supposed to be 'better than that'. We all feel that, don't we? That damn conscience. But I can't help but wonder where that really comes from and whether it really is indicative of better or worse. A detailed discussion of that is surely off-topic, so I won't pursue it, but maybe another thread? As for rising above our baser instincts, how, in a practical sense so as to eliminate war, could that really happen, though?

[Balsiefen]

Let's not turn this into another atheists vs. theists thread.

Agreed. Guiscard, stand down and back off. No need for you to get all militant on the Jesus Freaks here, I know how you feel on the subject and, frankly, I don't care. And I'm leaving it at that.

umm, as far as i can tell he made a joke, which while true did not bash any relgion in any way. Why does he need to stand down and back off for making a joke? If you dont care about his opinion thats fine buthe made quite a good observation.

[Jmey]

thanks for the nice comment

i agree... eventually war is bound to brake out over things like land... its only a matter of time, the population of the human race is steadily increasing... what does this mean? more meat for the grinding war machine?

hmmm. peace, its sounds like a nice thing but when you think about it... does it really ever last for more than.. lets say a decade? and war... what is classed as war? when two masses of armies battle or can it be between two people? (or animals)... which nicely brings me back to peace... peace and harmony is a wonderful thing and is enjoyable... for a short while... but then war breaks out again, this could be because of the fact that people would be bored of peace and would love battle... its just in some peoples blood...

if it wasnt for war we wouldt have the technology we have today aswell... like mobile phones for example... and space travel... even though compared to some sci-fi movies we look pathetic lol
oh and if another world war was to brake out... what would it be over? whos the most supirior, race, land, religion (doubt this one) or could it be shear confusion and anger?

its all in our blood men!:P

~Jmey
P.S
i mentioned space travel because, i was wondering do you think after a war over land... we would just devise a way of living on other planets and creating habitats? or would we just do this automatically? without war...

[Anarchist]

War will not create peace. Violence is inevitable,War is a choice.

actually, Jmey, I think that your point about resources is dead-on-topic. the major push these days is for 'sustainability', right? well, think about the war in Iraq for a second... we all know that the reason the world is so intent on what happens in the middle east is because of the oil there. oil is a resource that has become the foundation for modern culture by providing transport and electricity. if we transformed all of modern culture over to solar power (for example), why would anyone make war over resources anymore? what resources would the war be over then? wood? metal? knowledge? In my opinion, the only way that 'peace' will ever be achieved is if each culture has the technology to live comfortably and prosper on the resources already available to them. Should that happen, there would be peace....for a while, I think, until non-renewable resources like land become the issue.

I agree with this statement 100% However there are alternative solutions to land problems such as land reclamation. Better housing methods, currently everyone wants their own castle,while it would be smarter for everyone to live in many castles(see pyramids,temples,domes)
Overpopulation is a problem easily solved, if every family had only one child the population would decrease over time.(educating on the subject must be done)

As for our advancements and space, technology is lost through war. Cooperation would allow for us to advance far more rapidly. We will inhabit the planets far faster if we worked together. Somehow I feel that if we do not live in harmony(together and with nature) we will never be able to reach for the stars(nor should we.)

(Go Eagles!)

[Jenos Ridan]

War will not create peace. Violence is inevitable,War is a choice.

That remindes me.....

"Fighting for peace is like F*ing for virginity"

Think about it, how true is that?

Also.....

"War is hell"- from the guy who burned Atlanta, George USA to the ground in the 1860's.

Men will always find a reason to war with his brethren. If my beliefs are correct, then we need not worry (unless you qualify as a sinner or un-saved soul) for peace is coming soon after the most terrible of wars (might even be part nuclear). If not, then it will go on and on like the nations tend to do; rise, fight, lose, fight, win, wither, get replaced, repeat. All until it drives some of us away from the cradle and into the cosmos. Will their be peace out there? For a while, 'til one day one of our colony groups comes upon a primitive world and takes over. Wouldn't be to hard, a few divisions worth of paratroopers dropped at extremely high-altitude with the LZs being any major centers of population. Such a sudden and semultanious assault would likely overwhelm all but the most sophisticated defences. I doubt we'd have the ablity to defend the earth from such an assault.

[Anarchist]

As a sinner and not a Christian.
I hope for Jesus to come back! However I feel waiting for it isnt reason enough to allow the world to descend into chaos.

its the arguement of utopia is impossible. That doesnt mean we shouldnt strive to make the world a better place.

Ive often wondered if aliens would be more mature then we are, would they live like us and consume every natural resource and move on, or would they understand that conservation is important? If this is true, it will be us that makes the fatal mistake, if not then were screwed.

[Jehan]

seems like war always happens as a result of a struggle for dominance, which is a pretty crap reason but true, eg punic wars, wars between the seleucids and the ptolemies, actually pretty much every war is started cos someone wants control over someting or other people or both.
On a side note, i think nuclear weapons actually prevented a war between the West and the Warsaw Pact during the cold war which would have arguably been just as bad or worse than WWII, so nukes so far seem to be on the positive side of the ledger, for now.

Are you saying that the Punic Wars were wars between the Selucids and Ptolemies? Or are you just using them as another example?

second example, clearly the punic wars were not fought between the successors of alexander the greats empire. I was just reading up on them and they seemed a decent example of what i was saying, fueled entirely by power.

[Titanic]

War can create peace. Look at Europe. Since WWII, its probably the longest period of continual peace since the height of the Roman Empire or before.

The only real thing that brings peace is economic prosperity. Nuclear weapons do not bring peace, they just stop war.

[chewyman]

War can create peace. Look at Europe. Since WWII, its probably the longest period of continual peace since the height of the Roman Empire or before.

The only real thing that brings peace is economic prosperity. Nuclear weapons do not bring peace, they just stop war.

Very good post. I completely agree.

[DirtyDishSoap]

As we look back at humanity through the years, there are simple constants that can be observed, one of these is war. War has been accepted as a common practice of the human race, never appearing in any other earthbound species. So with this in mind, we must ask ourselves, why war? What good becomes of it? Does peace accompany it? America specifically has been an active participator in wars, and whether they are originally justified or not, does the end result legitimize the intentions of the war? I do not aim at completely stopping war, as I accept its inevitability, I only hope that we can reflect upon and possibly learn from our past experiences.
War has brought an end to countless lives, and in the nuclear age, it threatens to bring an end to human beings. It was John F. Kennedy who once said, “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind”, but is this even possible? Are we destined to fight until our untimely demise? To look at our future, I feel it is most important to look back at our past and ask: is peace created from these wars?

This is my thesis for my english final, I thought it would be interesting to hear what you guys have to say about the matter.

Its human nature that we destroy one another...History is proof

[Black Warior]

"The real meaning of peace, is only if you've been threw a war!" KOSLOVAR

[Minister Masket]

I like to think of humans as the perfect warlike race. Think about it...
3 things humans are very good at doing:
1) Fighting
2) Surviving
3) Reproducing
Point 1 is pretty obvious, just look how much violence our history contains.
Point 2 comes from the quote "Human beings will do anything to survive", which they do.
And point 3 pretty much explains itself, how else did we get a population of 6.7 billion?
I hate it when movies show aliens attacking us. Just not practical. I'd like to see a movie about us attacking them; much more plausible, plus we'd probably win with a huge numerical advantage.
Any opinions on this?

[Anarchist]

not exactly what you meant.

Babylon 5(the begining) has a first encounter situation where the Minbari race approaches with gun ports open(approach open handed-sign of respect)
The terrans confuse this for an act of aggression, open fire. Killing their highest leader. This is followed by a "holy war" where the advanced race
kicks our ass all the way back to Earth. Ending their attack before completely wiping us out. Leading to the babylon 5 project dedicated to peace.Funny, it takes our near extinction to dedicate us to peace