This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

"What the world needs is a war."

Scroll to see replies

IMO I think we do need a WW3, as when there is war there is greater innovation, the advances in healthcare, technology and well weaponery* basically many advances that are good for us come at times of war not at times of peace :biggrin:

also wealth comes from war too and I am very much for wealth :tongue:

(*better weaponery is not really a good thing but hey).

So we can all live in luxury accommodation like the post world war II style social housing?

Reply 41

street.lovin'

Original post by DH-Biker

He is. But it proved a trigger to a fairly interesting debate we held in Class after his comment. The teacher did look at him with a fairly high-raised eye-brow, though. :cool:

I just thought I'd bring the debate onto here. See what you all thought. We reached much the same conclusion as has been suggested here; that its a terrible idea.

He was alone in his dreams for global, multi-nation war. :cool:

He thinks the world needs war? Maybe that's what he would do in the future when he has power...I am a bit worried now XD..I will come back and answer to your question in the evening, I am at school right now and supposed to be doing work.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 42

AmericanPsycho

"the world needs a war, rabble rabble rabble merrrr..."

lol

its easy to be philosophical when you wouldn't be the one getting shot or blown to pieces, isn't it?

Reply 43

street.lovin'

Original post by Bobifier

I agree. I would be fully prepared to sacrifice millions of lives for the sake of improved economic stability.

Original post by tehFrance

also wealth comes from war too and I am very much for wealth :tongue:

(*better weaponery is not really a good thing but hey).

Don't you think value of lives are more important?

What if all the people who will contribute to the innovation e.g. scientists, doctors get killed in a war?

War do not cause economic stability, war actually causes economic and political instability.

Wealth created from war, but poverty also created from war.

Reply 44

bcbg

Look at it this way, do you think your family slowly dying of radiation sickness and you getting locked in a concentration camp and getting raped by the guards is a good thing? Chances are it would even be your own side locking you up, because the sort of person who would suggest a war are the sort of people who wouldn't agree with whatever the government was doing.

The people who are suggesting this are really so unaware it's worrying, probably reading too much Wilbur Smith and wanting to feel powerful.

Reply 45

tehFrance

Original post by street.lovin'

Don't you think value of lives are more important?

Depends... are they chav lives or educated lives? :tongue:

Original post by street.lovin'

What if all the people who will contribute to the innovation e.g. scientists, doctors get killed in a war?

They won't be killed :cool:

Original post by street.lovin'

War do not cause economic stability, war actually causes economic and political instability.

Tell that to the USA after WW2 and to some extent Japan.

Original post by street.lovin'

Wealth created from war, but poverty also created from war.

They don't know how to use war to their advantage then.

Reply 46

Rachel#1

Does the world need a third world war? NO! Does the middle east, apparently YES! I don't know what they're issue is there, but they seem to being moving backwards instead of forwards. Following them will be Asia, Africa and then South America. So if I were the "civilized" nations: US, UK, France, Spain, Germany and so on, I would be afraid, because there is a lot of built anger and tension in these regions toward these countries, and that's bound to come out, if a war ever ensues.

Reply 47

Student2806

Mary Mother of God, no. War is never needed.

Reply 48

jimbo139

Original post by infernalcradle

this is actually similar to something we were discussing in history about how the cold war was actually very beneficial in stopping other wars as you belonged to one side and that side cared about you as it didn't want to lose your support, but ever since it ended, everyone is fighting each other

But there were loads of 'hot' wars during the cold war era: korea, vietnam x 2, afghanistan, israel (several times), india-pakistan, various civil wars, etc etc.

Reply 49

rex5

Well I'm not saying that war is a good thing and that I support it, BUT a war would be beneficial, as much as I personally would be against it I feel that it would combat a number of problems that effect the Human Race as a whole.

For example:
- The human race is over populating the planet and due to our parasite like nature all we are doing is taking from the world and giving very little back, we'd be extremely lucky to avoid any sort of famine, drought or other lack of resource on this planet in the First World within the next half-century. A war would give greater countries the land needed to provide for their population while at the same time stemming the overpopulation of the planet.

- Secondly it would as mentioned before in this thread benefit economies, war benefits the economies of many countries, our world at the moment is ridden with economic strife, I honestly worry how long it will be before we get another great depression. Which lately is just starting to seem more and more likely across the Euro Zone. War will help stimulate the economies of the world and give many countries in trouble a way out of their economic troubles.

- Lastly, war has help us to discover innumerable new technologies and I'm sure war will help us find many more in the future, maybe it cause more money to be pumped into stem cell research (As is was ruled illegal be the EU for people to profit from stem cell research, meaning no-one would invest, horribly stunting the development of stem cell research) so that if soldiers got an arm blown of they could grow it back, meaning after the war disabilities nearly a thing of the past. This is just one example in how war could boost our technologies.

War is like forest fires; you cannot prevent forest fires. forest fires are a natural thing that have taken place for millions of years, like war. Thinking you can prevent war is somewhat ignorant. If not for the development of the atom bomb we'd still be a world blighted by war after war, like the world was before the 20th century. It is in our nature to fight and war against each other for dominance, it is how we're built.

Also it is obvious that war is seeded deep in our instinct and genes. Some even argue that, since we are the dominant species, war has been embedded in us so that nature/evolution could keep us in check. Let us not overpopulate the world like locusts. If no war ever took place in the history of man we would have obviously overpopulated this world long, long ago. There has always been a strange influx of innovation correlated with war. Although yes war is a horrible machine of death, the world would probably be unlivable if it never existed.

Thankyou :smile:

In conclusion I don't believe it is right, but I DO believe it is beneficial. :colondollar:

-Dave

Reply 50

No Man

The best scenario imo would be for the West to get out of the Middle East completely & not get involved with anymore wars there, but also for the Middle East to have a full blown out war amoungst themselves, since there is too much tension in that area & it needs to be released.

Not that that's going to happen.

Reply 51

The_Internet

Original post by garethDT

We are heading towards WW3 yes, but we don't need it. It's being engineered to usher in the one world government.

I seriously don't understand why you make this argument. If there was a "one world government", the poorer countries will be dragging the richer countries down (see Greece, but on a larger scale) there's much less competition and people will always want some form of power.

Say you manage to make a European superstate (Would have been far more likely 2 years or more ago), that has a very slim chance of working, but if you want to make an African superstate, it won't work at all, considering the tensions and corruption already existing in Africa.

Also, do you really think rivalling countries like India/Pakistan would really want to be part of this supposed "one world government"?

The only real place where merging countries together in one big country has actually worked is the USA. Every thing else has been a failure. There are more and more divisions being created in the world, not unification :s-smilie:

Reply 52

The_Internet

Original post by No Man

It's quite obvious what will happen if the ME have a full blown war. China and the US will get involved indirectly. Nice thinking though

Reply 53

HP15

Original post by Bunkd

Me too; but it would make more economic sense to make them work as slaves.

Julius had it right..

Caesar never had nukes.

10+ countries have stockpiles of nuclear weapons and wouldn't wait for the other to initiate a First Strike with them.

Only if I get a gun.

Original post by DH-Biker

Now, first let me just say none of the following represents my own views. Was just something one of the other students in my Gov Pol class brought up, and it got me thinking. And I thought I'd start a discussion on TSR with that topic in mind.

So, his points where that with all the crap going on in Isreal / Palastine, now Egypt, international relations (not my own views) going down the toilet - and generally the world pushing itself into coalitions (not my own views) - we need a war to sort out both ourselves and our political, social and economical aspects. (Especially not my own view).

But what do you think? Would a war help organize the World? Or do you think it would just cause more problems then it would - maybe - solve?

Does the World need a Third-World-War? Discuss.

Hmmm. You'll have to excuse me for a second. I'm going to consult the well known historical text: "Wars which seemed like a good idea at the time, and actually turned out to be so". Do excuse me.

Reply 56

Raiden10

Original post by rex5

For example:
- The human race is over populating the planet and due to our parasite like nature all we are doing is taking from the world and giving very little back, we'd be extremely lucky to avoid any sort of famine, drought or other lack of resource on this planet in the First World within the next half-century. A war would give greater countries the land needed to provide for their population while at the same time stemming the overpopulation of the planet.

Yes. Science and technology and time can solve this problem. But exploring space is expensive, everything's expensive, screw it let's just have a goddamn war. That way everyone pays through their ass and we won't lose our economic toehold. My thoughts exactly. Don't fund space exploration. Fund the third world. Then have a war.

Why solve a problem in 500 years when you can **** it up in 50?