I could argue that war accomplishes nothing but pain and destruction. But I also realize, that a lot of our technological advancements have been driven by the competition brought about through War.
There is also the time-honored tradition of the warrior, facing great hardship and proving their courage to become a True Warrior. This seems ingrained within the Human Psyche.
How do we proceed and advance as a global culture, without the need for destruction and violence? Or is it just an inherent trait of the human animal?
The problem is that humanity has much more deadly toys to play with today. We can’t afford to let questions of honor drive us into conflict, because conflict is too deadly. During the first Cold War I was emphatic that we needed a strong defense. Russia had 45,000 tanks and missiles with 25 megaton warheads aimed at our cities. They were exhibiting the kind of aggression that can’t be reasoned with. It can only be deterred. However, military strategists say the best kinds of weapons are those you don’t have to use. If you demonstrate that you have a cluster bomb that can take out 40 tanks it does a lot to dissuade an adversary.
Fighting a war to defend yourself is necessary. You can try negotiating peace but if some other country attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.
I think it is ingrained in us to fight wars. Wars are fought throughout history for different reasons ranging from wars about territory, religion, race or someone gets really powerful and starts a war…because they can.
With the Israeli’s fighting right now, the problems go way back and they have a bloody history between them and Hamas and the Palestinians. There’s been back and forth bloodshed ever since Israel was formed. Both sides have killed civilians and committed atrocities. It’s too complicated to even discuss on here. And would probably be flagged or locked anyways.
In ancient times, some charismatic king or ruler or general would get popular and get enough people to follow him and start invading other countries. There was no Geneva Conventions or Red Cross or United Nations or anything like that. Brute force just pretty much ruled the day. Whoever had a large population and enough weapons would conquer whoever they wanted to and take whatever they wanted.
You can’t stop human aggression and peoples need for power.
I have no Illusions about the way things are currently. As an exercise purely in idealism, would it be possible for mankind to collectively decide on less destructive ways to settle disputes?
What about a battlefield version of cage match? 100 warriors on each side, armed only with swords and knives and Last Man Standing wins? No Holds Barred, and fully televised from every angle.
I guess ideas like this appeal to me, since there seems more honour and integrity in this form of conflict then in the all-out, dirty pool Warfare we practice today. I have huge respect for the soldier on the ground, but I must question the motives and integrity of the government that put them in motion
It occurs to me as I write this, that the only way to keep peace is through threat of force in a sense. I get it. I guess at the heart of it, is the question, can humankind develop its character to the point that we collectively agree that violence is no longer necessary. A hundred years from now? A thousand years from now?
War, conflict, disagreement or whatever you call this competition is necessary in terms of male dominance over another male which usually involves the leader of both sides. There is a reason why cities, kingdoms and empires have armies or military units to either go on the offence or defence depending on the situation,
Majority of mammals have conflicts whether it be for food, sex, territory etc. Usually its the men who portray these characteristics.
The US Department of Defence has a military budget of over $700 billion dollars USD which covers the next 10 country’s military budgets combined. China is 2nd with just over $200 billion USD. I agree that government expenditure could be utilized in other public funded projects rather than military arms.
One has to accept what you term as dictators. Would Country A overthrow another Country B just because Country A doesn’t agree with how Country B is treating their people? What if country B possesses nuclear weapons?
War bound by honourable respects (warfare only between armed personnel in battle zones) is a money maker and justified action where diplomacy fails iMo.
Colonial attempts like the Ukraine situation or the Jerusalem situation though? That’s not war.
I agree with Freud that aggression is a primal urge, so I do think it’s inherent in human beings (and history seems to bear that out).
In the States we have a military-industrial complex, a symbiotic relationship between the military, defense contractors, jobs and politicians. Here is an example of how it works: 1) navy needs 10 fighter jets 2) defense contractors (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc.) bid on contract 3) Lockheed Martin has the winning bid 4) Lockheed Martin can continue to provide high-paying jobs (Lockheed Martin has more than 110,000 employees) 5) politicians in the districts where the jobs were created get reelected 6) the cycle repeats
That’s the problem. Some leaders of various countries have little interest in peaceful solutions if there’s problems between them and someone else. North Korea is a good example. They’re practically itching to start a war, mostly with the U.S. Their leader would love to over run South Korea.
It takes two countries to both agree to a peaceful solution to differences. All it takes is one of them to not care about peace and you have a conflict. Most people would like to live in peace and get married and raise kids and farm their land or go to their office each morning. It’s the leaders who will get their country into a war. This is all over simplifying a complex subject that many people have tackled before .
