War - what is it good for?
Discussion
Doesn’t it seem silly and wasteful, in a time when we humans have far more worthwhile things to do - cure disease, end poverty, explore other worlds and so on - that we spend an awful lot of resources either fighting each other or preparing to fight each other?
The West vs Russia - communism is no longer trying to take over, there is no prospect of Russian tanks rolling to France, so what is this all about?
The West vs China - why, why, why is this brewing up?
Religious nutters - irritating, but not a threat to most of us.
Land grabbers - eg Malvinas, Crimea, Spratly Islands etc - Multi billion dollar defence systems don’t seem to stop them.
The fact that we spend so much money on defence must mean that there is a benefit to it, or we wouldn’t do it. So what is the benefit?
Peace, man, far out.
The West vs Russia - communism is no longer trying to take over, there is no prospect of Russian tanks rolling to France, so what is this all about?
The West vs China - why, why, why is this brewing up?
Religious nutters - irritating, but not a threat to most of us.
Land grabbers - eg Malvinas, Crimea, Spratly Islands etc - Multi billion dollar defence systems don’t seem to stop them.
The fact that we spend so much money on defence must mean that there is a benefit to it, or we wouldn’t do it. So what is the benefit?
Peace, man, far out.
War is a good way of stopping genocidal impulses e.g the Rwandan massacres could have been halted using a bit of modern warfare. And, unfortunately, there are countless other examples.
We could get rid of all our armed forces but do you think the Chinese and Russian governments would take that as a sign of strength? It is fairly well known that Russia only sees strength in strength, strongly worded memos wouldn’t do the trick. Therefore, a lot of the preparation for war ( armed forces) is used to prevent war.
I would be comfortable with the UK spending more (and definitely more wisely) on preparing for war in current times.
We could get rid of all our armed forces but do you think the Chinese and Russian governments would take that as a sign of strength? It is fairly well known that Russia only sees strength in strength, strongly worded memos wouldn’t do the trick. Therefore, a lot of the preparation for war ( armed forces) is used to prevent war.
I would be comfortable with the UK spending more (and definitely more wisely) on preparing for war in current times.
bad company said:
Sometimes we have to resort to war, WW2 is a good example.
More often than not... It isnt. The Vietnam war, the Afghanistan war, bay of pigs, the second gulf war.
More often than not war is not only avoidable, but completely unnecessary and only happens to. Please warmongers.
If it weren't for the treaty of Versailles pushing post WW1 Germany into a horrific recession, it's entirely likely that an angry little Austrian would never have gained power... Making WW2 unnecessary... That was Sir Winston's take on it too.
bobbo89 said:
I've often wondered where we'd be technology wise right now without war. What year would we be in technologically?
A good question, but I doubt we'd be far off where we are now. Maybe with a few less unexploded bombs about the place.Necessity is the mother of invention, not necessarily war. A lot of the major inventions in WW2 like Radar, the jet engine, rocektry and atomic sciences were well underway before the war broke out. It might have taken a few more years, but the same goal, if not a better one would have been achieved.
Then we have all the inventions from peace time like the microprocessor.
Also it's only total war (to quote Clausewitz) that accelerates technological progression and I think it's fair to say that the cost of total war sets us back farther than it propels us forward.
captain_cynic said:
More often than not... It isnt.
The Vietnam war, the Afghanistan war, bay of pigs, the second gulf war.
More often than not war is not only avoidable, but completely unnecessary and only happens to. Please warmongers.
If it weren't for the treaty of Versailles pushing post WW1 Germany into a horrific recession, it's entirely likely that an angry little Austrian would never have gained power... Making WW2 unnecessary... That was Sir Winston's take on it too.
That is unknowable. We just dont know the consequences of counter factuals. Maybe when Hari Seldon invents psychohistory we will have a better idea.The Vietnam war, the Afghanistan war, bay of pigs, the second gulf war.
More often than not war is not only avoidable, but completely unnecessary and only happens to. Please warmongers.
If it weren't for the treaty of Versailles pushing post WW1 Germany into a horrific recession, it's entirely likely that an angry little Austrian would never have gained power... Making WW2 unnecessary... That was Sir Winston's take on it too.
captain_cynic said:
More often than not... It isnt.
The Vietnam war, the Afghanistan war, bay of pigs, the second gulf war.
More often than not war is not only avoidable, but completely unnecessary and only happens to. Please warmongers.
If it weren't for the treaty of Versailles pushing post WW1 Germany into a horrific recession, it's entirely likely that an angry little Austrian would never have gained power... Making WW2 unnecessary... That was Sir Winston's take on it too.
It's easy to critice the Vietnam War as being pointless because the Yanks lost, but if it had gone the other way I believe South Vietnam could have been up there with Taiwan and South Korea as examples of freedom (kind of) and prosperity in the far east. After all, in the 50s South Korea was ruled by a tin-pot dictator who was probably worse than Kim Il-Sung, yet look at them now. If that had happened to South Vietnam, no-one would be saying defending it was a pointless failure. It's the same with the Afganistan war. No one can say that the Taliban would have been better than a decent democratic government, it just seems like a waste of life because it didn't turn out as expected.The Vietnam war, the Afghanistan war, bay of pigs, the second gulf war.
More often than not war is not only avoidable, but completely unnecessary and only happens to. Please warmongers.
If it weren't for the treaty of Versailles pushing post WW1 Germany into a horrific recession, it's entirely likely that an angry little Austrian would never have gained power... Making WW2 unnecessary... That was Sir Winston's take on it too.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff