War - A necessary evil?

Post Reply New Topic

In a way if you speak of our history it has been.
Imagine us still living in thousends of tiny tribes all over the world.
There is no way for technological advancement to take place if there are no means to aquire the funds.
Plus for a team of scientists that can properly invent stuff they would likely have to come from many tribes all over the world.

Wars have united people, the wealth from subjegating many peoples is what made advancement possible.
Especialy wars whilst being bad, were the reason for many technological advancements.
These days there are still many wars ocurring over mineral wealth.

Maybe.

But that is a choice for others to make. I should not make that decision for them. If they think life is worth living with bloody hands then they should learn to kill.

I do not think life is so worthwhile that I must kill to preserve it. I would fight but I would not kill. I am not afraid of death so that might explain my rather strange attitude.

No, it just means I really don't want to die.



Practical



That assumes rather a lot. I don't know about you, but I've studied violence, both sides of it. I know how to inflict it, and how to avoid it. Escape and evasion can help, so can body language and verbal deflection, but sometimes it can't be avoided. I don't want violence visited upon me or anyone I care about, so I am prepared to visit violence upon those who would do so, and I don't think that makes me in any way immoral. I don't walk around looking for a fight, I don't seek violence or look to inflict it on someone, but if I have to I know how and I'm prepared both physically and mentally to do it. All that makes me is prepared, nothing more, nothing less.



Why would someone want to kill you? I don't think much of you, but I wouldn't want to hurt you, are you a bad person deserving of harm? I don't think valuing life has anything to do with defending your own, with violence even. Assuming you don't have any mortal enemies plotting your demise, let's go on the premise that someone trying to kill you is doing so to take your money, a common enough reason for stranger murder. Are you saying you wouldn't fight back at all, or that you wouldn't kill? One can become the other easily enough, you'd rather die so that a thief and murderer could live? I would seriously question your judgment there, I think society is better off with a live you than another murderer on the loose.

Some people enjoy killing (psychopaths), some people are paid to do it (soldiers, police, state executioners). Some people are both psychopaths and soldiers. It is possible that I may come across either or both characteristics in a single person and be killed. I do no harm but some may perceive that as harmful.

People are insane. It is insane to think otherwise. Therefore most people are insane and view most other people as sane. It is a perverse system.

Frankly, although I spent time in the army and learned to use weapons I never had to kill anybody so I don't know what I would do but one of the most fundamental motivations in life is to survive and reproduce. To deny this is to devalue yourself and your total worth in the face of a fatal threat. I value myself.

I don't value myself. Not in the sense you suggest. I value others equally. I do value myself but to suggest that my life is inherently more valuable than my hypothetical killer's life is unjustified. My hypothetical killer may be a doctor, a potential or actual parent etc.

In Finland military service is compulsory, what if the person refuses? Is this a crime?

Finland offers alternate services but refusees are generally treated rather badly. I am a veteran of WWII in the US army but I spent my time in technical training schools and the army of occupation in Germany and I never saw action.

Agreed. I don't think anyone can say that they would never kill unless they have been put into a kill or be killed situation. At base level we are an instinctive animal and self preservation of ourselves or offspring will most likely come to the fore.

We are getting way off the original question 'war a necessary evil - Can war be the best cause of action and catalyst for change in some circumstances' IMO no to both. War is far from necessary and change through acts of violence just perpetuates violence. We have better ways to change behaviours than going to war, war did not get rid of apartheid, did not the change the USSR, the Northern Ireland conflict was not solved militarily. War is one way to make change but it is far from the best and is not necessary. Only those with little foresight and imagination would think that it is the only way to make change. The final words I will leave to someone else

"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

Albert Einstein

As much as I admire Einstein (and I admire him a great deal) I also know there are total bastards in the world who I would have no qualms about vigorously opposing. The problem is of course, to know when there is no alternative.

I agree with Einstein. Oppenheimer was an intelligent fool for designing the atom bomb and he knew it.

You can't push the toothpaste back into the tube. No one can say whether there would have been a third world war if both the USA and the USSR did not have atomic weapons. North Korea's atomic weapons seem to have discouraged Bush from an attack and Israel's weapons may have encouraged at least some Arab recalcitrance for an attack. No one knows what might happen once the weapons are actually used and the maniac Bush seems eager to use them but we may get lucky and more careful people may come into control. Individual reaction to violence is quite different from war and violence between nations.

If there was a war going on where a threat like the Nazis existed, I would volunteer as a medical orderly but I would refuse to take part in the fighting or carry a weapon.

Of course all help is appreciated and medics are a vital necessity but you're kidding yourself if you think saving a wounded soldier to go into combat again and fight and kill somebody else absolves you of all guilt. I sympathize with your feelings but you should look the consequences of your actions straight on.

I am only responsible for my actions. The actions of anyone else have nothing to do with me. I can't force people not to fight but I'd rather they lived even if they were going to kill someone else than to let them die because they might kill someone else. I mentioned the Nazis specifically because the are one of the few cases of a side in a war being completely in the wrong. The situation in Vietnam or Iraq was a lot less clear cut.

If everyone agreed to be non-violent, we wouldn't have a problem. Or if we were all non-material creatures, we couldn't kill each other.

Human nature being what is, all forms of argument and confict are inevitable. Is this obvious to anyone else? I mean, I certainly can't explain war. I don't excuse it. I make no apology for it. I can, however explain its causes.

Was WWII a just war? Yes. If the Allies had not stopped Hitler, the Nazis would've surely destroyed the world. But if the Nazi aggressions had not taken place, no one would have had to kill & die in response to them.

Defense against an unprovoked aggressor, IMO, is permissable. But only if the defending force does not use excessive measures or engage in any unlawful activity. An army may great purity of purpose, but when it trickles down to the level of individual fighting men, disputes, enmities and power-plays are the creeping cancer within.

Is it possible to have an army or fighting force with total purity of purpose? Not with human soldiers, I say.

There is no such thing as "human nature". We all have a choice to do violence or not. Human nature is not an excuse for violent behaviour.