War! What is it good for?

[Blake]

Being a philosophy and history major, I often find myself thinking about war. Despite the fact that it's such a complex topic, society likes to simplify war, dividing people into two distinct groups: pro-war advocates and absolute pacifists. However, doing this leaves no room for deep analysis of the subject.

I've come to the conclusion that the best philosophy when it comes to war is relative political pacifism, as espoused by writer Bertrand Russell. It basically asserts that most wars are not worth fighting; however, there may be rare occasions where it is warranted. HERE is a lengthy paper I wrote concerning the morality of war, focusing especially on Russell's ideas and the just war theory - it further develops my views on the topic.

Anyway, what are your thoughts about war in general?

[Kirby]

Sometimes war just needs to happen bro. Let 2 sides duke it out to prove which morals are supposably better.

[Pants]

it gives incentive to increase economic activity, it can build relations between nations, its inspiration for entertainment, it gives jobs to millions, and it helps keep life interesting.

[Kirby]

The best war ever was probably the civil war because the north needed a war to drill into the Confedarates thick heads that black people are indead people and not animals. Soemthing had to be donen I mean only it and Spain still allowed slaves in the fucking 1860s.

[Pants]

uhhh... the north had slaves too kirb :x

[Kirby]

No only in the borderline states. Everywhere else is was illegal.

[Pants]

http://www.slavenorth.com/

it was illegal, but not enforced.

plus, diddnt the union army treat their black soldiers like animals?

[Kirby]

Eh stop being picky man it would take 100 years before things where all straightened out. Thats how bad the slavery propaganada was in the 1700s.

[Blake]

As I mentioned in the paper, the American Civil War was sparked by a conflict over states' rights, not slavery. Though slavery would be an underlying issue near the end of the war, the freeing of slaves was really more of an afterthought - almost a way to boost the Union's cause. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation did not even free slaves in the border states.

In the end, however, I do think the American Civil War was a justified war of principle. The only thing is, it may have never had to happen if Lincoln's predecessor, President Buchanan, had actually made a decent attempt to quell the mounting tensions of the time.

[God]

its funny because although most people would think something like 'well, a world without war would be nice, but that just is practical', i would probably think the opposite. in terms of abstract ethics, i have no problem with the use of force to achieve legitimately good ends, but in reality im not sure how justifiable the horrors of war on soldiers and civilians are.

yeah the civil war had very little to do with slavery. mainly the south wanted to secede because of the federal government putting up protective tariffs to favor northern industry, and the union mainly just wanted to keep the nation together. no nation in history has ever fought for abstract ideas like freedom or states rights.

[Kirby]

Germany fought for its right to rules the world and kill all the jews.

[Pants]

kirby, you have just stated the dumbest, most accurate possible explanation for WWII.

you just forgot the part thats like "take ovr all dose lands and pertend thers a mastr race"

good luck next time

[Celery]

IT'S GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY I TELL YA.

[Midnight the dark Espeon]

The aftermath HURTS the economy...

[Kirby]

Only in ass stupid wars that we are only halfway in. Pretty much all wars World War 2 and earlier where good for the economy.

[Pants]

WARS STIMULATE ECONOMIC GROWTH IF 100% OF A NATION FINDS IT NECESSARY TO CONTRIBUTE.

and like, less than 50% care about this war... even if it is hypocritical to say that its wrong to fight for oil when EVERY war is based upon getting something that someone else has.

[Kirby]

World War 2 was probably the last real American war. I am not saying other wars don't have bood shed that should be honored but that after the nukes things just got complicated.

[Pants]

honestly, nukes have done ALOT to prevent war...

i mean, just look at Israel!

its surrounded on all sides by enemies, but they have 1 huge defense: the ownership of nuclear arms.

and how many have actually been dropped as an offense since WWII?

0

[Kirby]

We have had some big ones too. The "Z bomb" that the Russians made in the 70s was 5 times stronger than the nukes we had in world war 2. Also I should note of the most useless weapon ever: the nuculear rifle. Shoots off a nuclear bomb like a granade launcher but not far away enough so that you too are in the blast zone.

[Blake]

These posts about war being beneficial to the economy are from a narrow American perspective. This reasoning often doesn't apply to the losers of war, or in countries where the front of the war takes place. I'm sure that the Southern states after the American Civil War, or the Germans after World War I, or the Vietnamese after the Vietnam War would all beg to differ with the argument that war is economically advantageous.

Also note that any economic benefit gained from a total war policy only lasts as long as the war itself. When the war is over, and the millions of troops return home, where then are the jobs for them? We must also be cautious of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address.

[Pants]

These posts about war being beneficial to the economy are from a narrow American perspective. This reasoning often doesn't apply to the losers of war, or in countries where the front of the war takes place. I'm sure that the Southern states after the American Civil War, or the Germans after World War I, or the Vietnamese after the Vietnam War would all beg to differ with the argument that war is economically advantageous.

Also note that any economic benefit gained from a total war policy only lasts as long as the war itself. When the war is over, and the millions of troops return home, where then are the jobs for them? We must also be cautious of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address.

look at germany after WWII

its just what it needed.

also, after WWII there was an abundance of jobs created for reconstruction in europe. in japan, reconstruction and commercialism began to take over. lets face it: commercialism makes economy stable, when moderately regulated.

[God]

I can't think of any other examples than World War II for war being a huge economic stimulus for both the winners and most of the losers.

[Blake]

look at germany after WWII

its just what it needed.

also, after WWII there was an abundance of jobs created for reconstruction in europe. in japan, reconstruction and commercialism began to take over. lets face it: commercialism makes economy stable, when moderately regulated.

Yes, the reconstruction of nations after the Second World War was incredible; because of it, in fact, I think some of those nations have now surpassed the United States in many economic and social areas. However, it was World War I that caused Germany's decline, which Hitler exploited to seize power. Had the first trivial-based war not occurred, the second one may have never happened - meaning, Germany's economy may have remained stable.

In any case, I don't think destroying a nation in order to create jobs to re-build it is a very logical or even sane choice; trying to obtain a healthy economy shouldn't justify the death of millions.

[Celery]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't WWII the main reason why Japan has a focus on technology?

[Pants]

blake, people will die regardless. war just makes it worth something.