Is WAR ever RIGHT?

Wars have gone on throughout our history,
but are they ever the right thing to do?

During WW2 people accept that the US/UK was right to go into war,
But other wars people are against.

Some people are against all wars, no matter what (are you one of those people?)

Is WAR ever acceptable?
Even if it was to save people? (such as Jewish people during WW2)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

70sGuy

War is over stuff like land. People need to stop being greedy and appreciate what they have and maybe make some understanding to buy land.

War can be used to bring peace.

Peace and Love!

Reply 2

butfirst_coffee

War has economic benefits. So yes it does have a place somewhere.

Reply 3

username3418668

Economic benefits as in? Selling weapons?

Reply 4

butfirst_coffee

Original post by trendingNOW

Economic benefits as in? Selling weapons?

Remember The Great Depression? WW2 is what got US out if it. Through provision of employment to millions who were unemployed. Allowing women to take up workplaces too ! Since the men had to join military. If it wasn't for war, God knows how long US would've had to suffer from that deep slump.

It also encouraged innovation

Reply 5

username3418668

That's right!
But do you think it is necessary in the modern world, would a war today cause more rights, innovation and economic growth?

Reply 6

Retired_Messiah

I'd say full on going to war is only really justified in defending your own nation. But this can be expanded upon a lil bit. Like fighting ISIS is pretty good cause it protects us and our bois, other interference in the middle east are less good cause they just cause issues nobody quite understands in areas full of people that aren't our bois.

Original post by trendingNOW

Even if it was to save people? (such as Jewish people during WW2)

Pretty sure that wasn't why Europe actually went to war with the Axis powers initially, more sort of a good after effect.

Reply 7

CurlyBen

War is never good, but there are times when it's better than the alternative.

Reply 8

Gem Thief

Its never always the correct answer but it can be necessary.

Reply 9

(((degenerate)))

War; killing people for peace. The irony is strong here.

Reply 10

butfirst_coffee

Original post by CurlyBen

War is never good, but there are times when it's better than the alternative.

I'd say this is the best way to put it. A 'necessary evil' if you would.

Reply 11

butfirst_coffee

Also, as harsh as it may sound;

War is a good tool for population control.

As humans, we have failed to do this. Without controlling our polutation, overexploitation of resources can occur pretty quickly. It raises questions about the sustainability of our resources to keep man kind going in the longer term.

thats just one idea

Reply 12

PTMalewski

Original post by butfirst_coffee

Original post by trendingNOW

Is WAR ever acceptable?
Even if it was to save people? (such as Jewish people during WW2)

If the Allies have listened to Piłsudski and agreed to take part in joint anti-Nazi intervention in 1933 there would be no World War II, no Holocaust, and no extermiantion of Slavic nations on the territories occupied by the Reich.
If UK did not decide to continue war against the IIIrd Reich, and US did not join the war, either the Soviets would have lost the war, then the Allies would be unable to defeat the Reich on their own, and today whole Europe would be Nazi.
If the Soviet Union would have won, though the Allies resigned from further fight, it would eventually conquer entire European continent, which would not be a good thing either.

The example shows it clearly: sometimes a war is the best possible solution.

The problem is however, that lots of wars which are supposed to improve situation, are declared on unjust motivations. The intervention in Libya is a couple of years ago is a perfect example. It's not important that it was illegal, according to the UN's resolution. The fact is, that situation in Libya got much worse after Kaddafi was overthrown, and it is still worse than it was.
And I don't actually believe that anyone had good intentions in that. The analysts must had known that overthorowing Kaddafi will result in endless homewar and chaos. They had more than enough information necessary.

Reply 13

butfirst_coffee

Original post by PTMalewski

Same could have been achieved through changing economical policy. A positive influence of wars on economics is an example of the "myth of a broken window".
The economy had a boost, but lots of resources were wasted on production of weapons which do not produce further wealth, and moreover, were destroyed in action in large numbers.

If the Allies have listened to Piłsudski and agreed to take part in joint anti-Nazi intervention in 1933 there would be no World War II, no Holocaust, and no extermiantion of Slavic nations on the territories occupied by the Reich.
If UK did not decide to continue war against the IIIrd Reich, and US did not join the war, either the Soviets would have lost the war, then the Allies would be unable to defeat the Reich on their own, and today whole Europe would be Nazi.
If the Soviet Union would have won, though the Allies resigned from further fight, it would eventually conquer entire European continent, which would not be a good thing either.

The example shows it clearly: sometimes a war is the best possible solution.

The problem is however, that lots of wars which are supposed to improve situation, are declared on unjust motivations. The intervention in Libya is a couple of years ago is a perfect example. It's not important that it was illegal, according to the UN's resolution. The fact is, that situation in Libya got much worse after Kaddafi was overthrown, and it is still worse than it was.
And I don't actually believe that anyone had good intentions in that. The analysts must had known that overthorowing Kaddafi will result in endless homewar and chaos. They had more than enough information necessary.

I agree. In the long term it did them dirty with debt and shortfall in investments. However, in that very short period, it could've been considered a saviour.

Reply 14

Æðelstān

No I think going to war with the Germans was a huge mistake. We said we went because they invaded Poland, but then what about the Soviets who then invaded and were committing terror?

Reply 15

username2053059

Original post by butfirst_coffee

The best way to decrease a population is to develop your country. We see this time and time again. Higher standards of living lead to lower birth rates = less people when the older generation die.

Reply 16

butfirst_coffee

Original post by cbreef

The best way to decrease a population is to develop your country. We see this time and time again. Higher standards of living lead to lower birth rates = less people when the older generation die.

That's a long term method.

War gets right down to business

Reply 17

username2053059

Original post by trendingNOW

Economic benefits as in? Selling weapons?

Stealng resources and decimating other countries' population and infrastructure.

Reply 18

Retired_Messiah

Original post by butfirst_coffee

Also, as harsh as it may sound;

War is a good tool for population control.

No it's not, it's horribly inefficient. World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total deaths ranging from 50 million to 80 million. The population of the world in 1939 was said to be around 2.3 billion.

In other words the biggest war we've ever had only got about 3.47% of the population at the time.