Necessity of War

[R. U. Sirius]

Hey, everyone-

I wasn't sure whether this should go here or in politics, so I just picked this board at random.

I've run into a lot of people, even those who claim to hate violence, who say that while war may be distasteful, it's still a necessity. The REASONS it's necessary vary from person to person, from the classic examples of "they were oppressing people/committing genocide/had something we need/attacked us first" to the esoteric, like "it's a necessary outlet to humanity's aggressive tendencies." I've even read a book where the author said the increase in violent conflicts is due to population pressures and that the ideal population for the human race would be a maximum of a few hundred million worldwide.

The problem I see with all of these arguments is that I've yet to hear of a single war that couldn't have been avoided if people had just treated each other as fellow sentient beings instead of objects or obstacles.

Thoughts, everyone? Feedback from those who've been in the armed forces is especially appreciated.

[Distind]

I'm not sure I'd call it necessary, but probably inevitable. Though it has become somewhat more difficult with modern media, assuming the media can gain access to the battlefield(unbloody likely after Vietnam and Korea) it's a matter of dehumanizing the opponents and claiming you're doing the just and right thing by dying horribly to kill those monsters that totally aren't people.

Of course, when someone does this to you and starts attacking you'd have to be suicidal not to respond in kind, they are being monsters and killing your people after all.

The real question is why does it happen, which is reasonably simple. People are narrow minded, short sighted, assholes. They can't see the worth in those other people. They can't see the suffering of their own during the war. They don't particularly care so long as no one they know gets hurt. They just see all those jobs opened up(by sending young men to stand in front of bullets and supply bullets for the enemy to stand in front of). They see all the increased industrial output. Increased territory. Increased economic activity of all kinds. Dedicated to wiping out those enemies who happen to live in that place the resources happen to be, or live under that horrible dictator, or follow that damned other god.

Or shorter, people are animals, and yes, there are animals who do much the same thing, they just have shittier weapons.

[RavynousHunter]

Its the same monkey brutality we see in our ape cousins, just with more emotion and such behind it, along with more technologically advanced and organized militaries.  Is it inevitable?  For the time being, yes.  Is it necessary? ...That, is a very good question, and one for which I have no answer.  I do, however, believe that we are capable of, and will eventually achieve, being a species that's moved beyond petty wars, and whose major source of conflict are things like accidentally hitting someone else's cart in the grocery store.  Will there always be conflict?  Of course, humans (and living creatures in general) are so diverse that people, personalities, beliefs, and principles are bound to clash.  Will we be able to minimize it, someday, to the point where it won't lead to organized, wide-spread chaos and destruction of human life?  I don't see any reason why not.  Species and societies advance all the time, people learn, they get better informed, they get better educated.

It'll probably come to a point where the entire species is so war fatigued, that we simply can't bring ourselves to continue these kinds of conflicts.  While that'd be a...suboptimal way of reaching said goal, if that's what's needed to help us evolve beyond that point, then that's what it'll take.  So long as it gets done, I doubt future generations will mind very much, so long as we don't end up royally fucking the planet in the process.

[Old Viking]

[1] We proclaim that we hate war.

[2] Throughout recorded history we have indulged in it with a ferocious enthusiasm that never wanes. 

[3] I conclude that if war is not a necessity, it is most assuredly a highly popular indulgence.

Hate war my ass.

[Witchyjoshy]

I don't know if war is necessary.  As long as we human beings have differences, and no proper outlet to settle them, we will resort to war to get our way.  Sometimes, "our way" is justified, sometimes it isn't, and sometimes it's a matter of perception.

War does seem to provide some form of advancement for humanity.  We go to war, we invent new technology to give us a better edge in combat, the war ends, we find a way to adapt that technology for civilian usage.

[Material Defender]

I think war is necessary when it is in the defense of someone attacked. War in general is a poor way to expand territory, a poor way to communicate ideas, and generally a drain on resources.

I want some of that delicious trade.

[Sigmaleph]

One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said YES?

"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"

WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.

"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?

"But nobody Wants it! Everybody hates it."

OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

At which moment She turned herself into an aspirin commercial and left The Polyfather stranded alone with his species.

But in more serious matters,  let's say for the sake of the argument that it is in fact true that all wars could be avoided if people treated each other as fellow sentients (I don't know if that holds or not, and I don't feel like doing exhaustive research right now).

Assume you are an enlightened human being, who wants to avoid war and think your neighbours are just as human as you and you want peaceful co-existence. Further assume that your neighbour is a standard human being who has not out-grown that tribalistic cognitive fuck-up that makes us liable to assume anyone who stands in our way is The Enemy and must be eradicated. Your neighbour attacks you. What can you do now, except fight back?

Or, to state what I'm getting at more directly, war is necessary at least at this point in human history, because even if some people can treat others as fellow humans and know not to fall into tribalistic mentalities, not everyone does.

That doesn't mean it's necessary as an aspect of the human condition or whatever. It probably isn't intrinsically necessary, only circumstantially so. But these are the circumstances right now.

[Witchyjoshy]

Personally, while I support world peace as an ideal, I'm of the belief that should we ever reach that ideal, we should still keep our weapons and our martial training.

A peaceful utopia only lasts until one person gets the idea to no longer be peaceful.  When attacked, one should know how to fight back, and have the means necessary to.

Imagine, world peace, everyone's weapons are destroyed, no more military... and then one country kept their weapons and military and proceed to invade the rest of the fucking world.

Brilliant fucking plan.

[syaoranvee]

I have been of the idealism for quite some time that world peace is a unobtainable pipedream for one simple reason:

In order to have peace, you have to give up freedom.

You must quell or silence opposing arguements and other ways of thinking, everyone must think the same.  Opposing views are what create wars.

[Auri-El]

I don't agree. People can hold opposing views without resorting to violence. The key is accepting all points of view. Silencing those who disagree, in my opinion, would result in the opposite effect and cause more violence.

[Lt. Fred]

I cannot think of an occasion in history when it was necessary to start a war. But I can think of half a dozen wars where the defenders had no option but to resist, both World Wars being the most obvious.

[largeham]

I'm not sure about necessary, but I would say it inevitable. Competition over scarce resources and the need to expand under class societies make sure war will always exist.

[Distind]

I don't agree. People can hold opposing views without resorting to violence. The key is accepting all points of view. Silencing those who disagree, in my opinion, would result in the opposite effect and cause more violence.

They can, but will they always?

Let's take the bad examples, Nazi Germany, Stalin's Regime, Mao's cultural revolution, these all largely focused the violence internally, attempting to decimate internal dissent. Would that be an acceptbale view, or something worthy of resorting to violence over? Because for most of these the rest of the world found it perfectly acceptable until someone marched over their borders.

[Auri-El]

I think that as humans we have a duty to help each other. If genocide is being committed in one country, I think the rest of the world is obligated to step in. In that case, I guess war would be acceptable, in the same way that it would be acceptable for a person to step in, using violence if necessary, if they see a child being beaten or something.

[rookie]

The problem I see with all of these arguments is that I've yet to hear of a single war that couldn't have been avoided if people had just treated each other as fellow sentient beings instead of objects or obstacles.

This is very true. However it is a sad fact that some people in the world will not view other people as sentient being but will view them as objects or obstacles. And there needs to be something in place to deal with them. No amount of negotiating with Milosevic would get him to see ethnic Albanians as something other than a blight on his fair lands. Or Hussein and the Kurds. Keeping with Hussein for a second, he rolled his Republican Guards into Kuwait back in 1991. That lead Kuwait to ask for help driving him back. The result was the Persian Gulf War.

So the short answer is you're right, but how else would you stop someone who's aim is violence if non military actions won't dissuade zir?