Just the idea that a human life can be taken at any moment, the fact that so many inhumane tragedies occur, the complete lack of empathy for territorial gain or to earn a position of power; why is war still a reliable alternative to peace?
I realize that oppressed should have a right to fight his oppressor, but many times in the world we see the bigger power exerting its power over simpler or perceived weaker force.
Are we really then no different from our blood-thirsty ancestor?
Is war just a natural occurrence in humanity? Should i embrace the bleak catastrophe that is modern war? I am interested in its history, but amazed matters can still be settled in this way.
And should history be merely academic, or should we try to learn from it rather then memorize? I'm almost finished with "Enemy at the Gates" and I want to take away a more meaningful message, rather then "the germans ate rats and dogs and the Russian's closed in around the 'kessel' to slaughter them all."
>>506433
Clay.
War drives innovation and fosters new industries.
War is good.
it's not natural at all, but it'll happen until something stops it from being profitable
>>506558
op here, I assume on a tribal level, warring is somewhat natural, but we no longer live in a tribal state and modern war is very political.. I agree, too many people profit, and not the men fighting on the ground.
>>506552
but don't you mean 'war' industries? I can't imagine mass carpet bombings do well for a countries mass output.
>>506570
They definitely don't benefit the victim country, but the planes and the bombs need factories to be build for all their components and assembly, and they need new technologies to be developed to enhance their effectiveness. These technologies almost always find some other purpose outside of war.
Then, the land you carpet bombed is ripe for new construction and farming.
>>506593
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't welcome carpet bombing on yourself on the off chance you'd survive it all just to be using some slightly more impressive micro-chip 25 years later.
But I guess some people really are delusional.
>>506642
Think beyond the individual.
War provides macro-scale benefits in the long term, it improves the lives of very few individuals in the short term.
>>506661
op here again, as i do agree with your points on the good of military technology, and with out trying to come off as to poetic, not thinking on the 'individual scale' is the sort of the issue i'm brining up.
Is it simply enough, or justifiable to sit back and say yes, someone was castrated by an IED or their lower half ripped apart, while they hung on for hours in torment, but we got some sweet advancements out of it. Or, looking at it this way, don't you think these military advancements would of come around eventually, perhaps only if a decade later?
>>506683
A decade advancement in a particular area for the lives of a few thousand or hundred thousand people, is a no-brainer. Their deaths bring the species closer to long term survival.
>>506699
would give your life for a couple years of knowledge for your specific country?
>>506433
>why is war still a reliable alternative to peace?
It isn't. The mere threat of war has often been enough to peacefully resolve issues. War is almost always a pragmatic mistake, a fundamental disconnect between each side of a brewing conflict's evaluation of the other side's willingness to negotiate. In a world where knowledge is unevenly and unreliably distributed these misunderstandings inevitably occur, so it is a natural occurrence.
Are we really then no different from our blood-thirsty ancestor?
We are no different, but our ancestors were probably no more thirsty than we are. Looking back today at the wars have happened may lend an air of inevitability, but war has always been a mess of stumbles, missteps and misinterpretations that cause the parties involved to reach that fundamental difference in perception. Kaiser Wilhelm, the man who helped propel Germany, the nation (justifiably or not) seen as the primary instigator of the First World War, found himself with cold feet on the brink of war and desperately hoped to avoid it by the time war spilled over. In 1938, Hitler and the German Military was prepared to drop their demands for the Sudetenland if France and Britain stood with Czechoslovakia - but British intelligence underestimated the strength of the Czechs, causing the British to hold back the French from assisting Czechoslovakia, convincing Hitler and Stalin of the West' timidity. It was that fundamental misunderstanding of each other's limits that caused Hitler to push into Poland, the final straw that caused the French and British to escalate from the threat of force to real war.
>>506709
Hell no.
I'm a very selfish and hypocritical person, and I know that. I recognize the trends that contribute to the advancement of society, but I don't want to be a victim to them because I'd like to be around to reap the benefits. I know other people might also be unwilling to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the species, but I'm not to inclined to care about them.
>>506726
Op: i'd have to agree, we are more or less the same as are ancient brethren, roman graffiti will tell you that.
And I guess a more grandiose question, can war be stopped? It sounds pretentious, but I feel like if people used reason and understanding, and like you said, gathered all the information they could, what would it take?
Would we have to evolve in culture, and control the world under one ruler, in order to force a sort of 'peace' on the whole?
>>506770
>can war be stopped?
I think it's been stopped before it's started far more times than we give our ancestors credit for. But I assume you mean permanently. If every person had the same set of information and saw it the exact same way, maybe. But each of us has different values and priorities. Some might prioritize their personal wellbeing, familial wellbeing, national identity, religion, a great deal of things such that we might each interpret that same information in different ways. The more people and different cultural/religious/personal/philosophical/practical interpretations there are, the more likely these will lead to differences in interpretations and priorities. So I would say that preventing war becomes more and more difficult as we include more and more people, but I would hesitate to say that it is ultimately impossible.
Kinda sad desu,we have only one life and things like this can happen.I wish we can work together as humans and explore the planets
its always about the money, women or vengeance for the previous two
its not bloodthirst
its greed
the german tribes migrating into roman territory?
they want those lands, the food, the goods
the romans conquering?
they want no competition for their trade and never ending slaves for cheap labour
you can go on till today where americans want to put out business in the middle east and their weapon industry to flourish
>>506433
No "rights" in geopolitics.
>>506433
You are as likely to succeed in asking a crow not to be black.
>>506433
So long as we don't function on a hive mind, war will continue to happen. There is no way for people to truly understand one another as human where there are those willing to strip that idea away. Greed is human nature, and can be used to wrong others. Wronging breeds hate, and hate breeds war.
We should always learn from history. You can take whatever meaning you want from the story, but I personally think it's a testament to both the good and bad of humanity. Despite the terrible situation both parties continue on the fight. That is the good. The bad would be that they don't stop to ask why they are fighting, or to consider something other than fighting as a viable option.
