The differentiation is not so much that war is necessary or not; rather that it is in many cases inevitable regardless of the peaceful intentions of one (or maybe even both) parties. In some cases, it's simply not a choice.
(Original post by butter_god)
I know people who always state that war isn't needed ect- so that's why I'm posing the question. I happen to believe it is necessary in some cases- sometimes totally unnecessary. I mean, look at the Iraq war; only done in pre-emptive defence they (US) say: but had they actually done their research, there were no weapons ect.
War is a necessary evil, but only when all other resources have been wiped out.
The Third Reich is an example. We're not talking about a necessary evil here. That was a knock-down, drag-out fight to the death. For many of the parties involved, the only alternative was extermination - and that's not really a choice at all.
No doubt, by today's standards, there will be people who believed that WW2 was entirely avoidable, and we could have easily avoided the deaths of so many innocents. It's been a long time since the Horseman of the Apocalypse has been knocking at the door in this country. Five minutes of living in 1940 would very quickly change the minds of today's Care Bears. We're not talking about American bombs negligently falling on civilians in some far-flung corner of the globe - we were talking about 9/11 - every single day - on your street - in your living room - for months on end. There was no talking, no negotiating, no peace. The Nazis were the ultimate nihilists, bent on the elimination of those of no consequence to them, and those that opposed them.
Was no difference throughout the ages. The Mongols showed up - you fought and died or you became slaves.
humans are not of the same species as monkeys. they descended from them - but are a different species. I accepted Darwin’s theory of evolution because I understood it fully - you on the other hand do not have any real understanding and only chose to accept it because thats what you were spoon-fed...
(Original post by butter_god)
I happen to accept the theory of evolution, hence you could do with a bit of self acceptance too.
Depends where you start. Once hitler kicked off i think its likley that he'd have just carried on expanding until someone stopped him. But ww1 wasnt even remotely based on right and wrong. I't was based on "we're bigger than you". And hitler wouldve never come to power were it not for the anger at us blaming it all on them.
As for the war in the pacific, Japan wanted to be acknowledged as an equal to western nations. Hence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_...Proposal,_1919 << read it
At the time we had something of an empire and the thing about empires is once one country has one everyone else wants one.
So, no I don't think we do need war. But countries don't fall out for no reason. Resentment at unfair treatment doesnt come from nowhere.
The done thing seems to be to decide that a problem started at a point that paints us in the best light, like Hitlers rise, disregarding the preceding events, the unfair treatment, in which we had a part, and thats unfair.
Thats not to say we were the only ones to make mistakes of course. Not by a long shot. But were it not for all those native australians conveniently falling down a hole (must've been a lot of holes just dotted around the places we invaded) rather than some other sort of mishap and our continued benefit from the colonies we then established (not to mention that time one of our boats capsized leaving all that heroin to wash up on the beaches somewhere) people might think that when people bring up such things we'd keep quiet and hope that putting an end to the tyranny of empire (with a little help from our fair minded honorable Indian friends) makes up for our rather significant part in perpetuating it. Its hardly a cause for ideas of moral superiority. A cause for learning lessons and moving on.
When we finally have world peace it will be either because the pacifists have finally won their cause or soldiers have finally won theirs. Unfortunately, it will probably be the latter.
Peace is always the first choice. There were and are people/countries out there that are destined to destroy freedom. Germany in WWI. Germany, Italy, and Japan in WWII. North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and other countries in Africa that have killed innocent people. For countries like these, it takes a strong country and allies to stop them as the world did during WWI, WWII, and Iraq. The world has failed in helping Africa.
War should be the last step taken. Old men must stop wars before young men can start them.
A state will always need the capacity to defend itself if attacked. Is war necessary? No, it isn't but there is not a chance in hell that we will be able to eradicate it. Efforts to avoid war at all costs can lead to a worse situation (appeasement with Nazi Germany) and attempts to use war whenever possible can lead to self destruction (Imperial Japan). It's the classic debate of Realism vs Liberalism in International Politics.
Anyone seen this classic Dilbert cartoon? Do they even have Dilbert in the UK?
Dilbert: What are you thinking about?
Dogbert: I'm thinking how wonderful it would be if everyone renounced violence.
Dilbert: That's a beautiful thought, Dogbert. (leaves)
Dogbert (thinking): If nobody else was violent, I could conquer this whole stinking planet with just a butter knife.
In a word yes, just as there will always be a need for police and a justice system in a national context...
War is part of the human condition. it's just too unPC to mention in common society.
Which human culture has never had conflict?
And WWII occurred due to Hitler's expansionism if anything. In 1939, I doubt the British and the French knew of the Holocaust.
When diplomacy fails, there is only one alternative that allows for survival of the fittest; war.
Unless you're a pacifist then clearly it must be assumed that, to some degree, war is sometimes necessary and just. Pacifism is carelessness masquerading behind morality. I'd say that it's not even an amoral position, but an immoral one. As G.K. Chesterton once brilliantly illustrated, it argues that if you see a man beating a woman in the middle of the street then, whatever you do, you must not hit him. Pacifism simply means that you exclude yourself from the question of who gets killed, often leaving the side with the strongest force and resolve to act unimpeded. Very often this is based on relativistic self-hatred, e.g. anything that is conducted on behalf of the neo-liberal economic system and transnational corporations is bad. It needn't be said that, in my view, you're both a moral coward and an idiot if you think that the international community shouldn't have put stop to genocide in Rwanda or bombed the railway lines to Auschwitz on the grounds that it may have generated a profit for U.S. arms companies.
As much as I hate it, we all have to resort to the last option sometimes as it will prevent further suffering; war on Nazi Germany for example.
Obviously, the world doesn't need war, and no-one wants war either. However, the sad fact of life is that every country needs a military, because sometimes, war is the only way that a country can defend itself, and war is something which cannot be avoided in certain situations.
How exactly do you stop an advancing army controlled by a racist, evil maniac without using violence?
(Original post by butter_god)
I was walking in a park, and saw a Hiroshima memorial; got me thinking: do we need war? (based on the definition of more than 1,000 ppl killed, armed forces)
There's Nazi Germany- we needed the war to stop Hitler- but at the cost of several thousands if not millions of civilians.
So, I pose this question:
Do we need war? or just stick to diplomacy?
Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
Already a member?
Oops, something wasn't right
please check the following:
Not got an account?
Sign up now
© Copyright The Student Room 2016 all rights reserved
The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.
Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22
Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE