jkls92
Badges: 20
#21
Report 3 years ago
#21
(Original post by trendingNOW)
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)
Civil war against illiberal oppressors that took power illegitimately is right.
1
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#22
Report 3 years ago
#22
Yes, because sometimes there is simply no alternative. World war 2 is the common example, but the response to North Korea's invasion of South Korea, the British effort to retake the Falklands and the coalition effort to force Saddam Hussein's army out of Kuwait were all legitimate military interventions.

Diplomacy doesn't always work, especially not when you have a country invading and annexing another country's territory. Even when diplomacy does work it generally only works because there's a threat of force behind it.
1
reply
kaushikp
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#23
Report 3 years ago
#23
ideally we should try to solve a situation peacefully but there are times when war is necessary as a last resort to prevent greater injustice or atrocity
1
reply
butfirst_coffee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#24
Report 3 years ago
#24
(Original post by Retired_Messiah)
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.
yes it's called 'population control' not 'population demolish' we could spread the plague
0
reply
jkls92
Badges: 20
#25
Report 3 years ago
#25
(Original post by RF_PineMarten)
Yes, because sometimes there is simply no alternative. World war 2 is the common example, but the response to North Korea's invasion of South Korea, the British effort to retake the Falklands and the coalition effort to force Saddam Hussein's army out of Kuwait were all legitimate military interventions.

Diplomacy doesn't always work, especially not when you have a country invading and annexing another country's territory. Even when diplomacy does work it generally only works because there's a threat of force behind it.
They were not all legitimate. You should watch Moore's film on bush.
0
reply
deepdennings
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 3 years ago
#26
(Original post by trendingNOW)
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)
I think you need to study 20th century history again. WWII wasn't fought to protect the Jews at all. Hitler was a global threat, it was that simple.
1
reply
Vikingninja
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 3 years ago
#27
Does going to war save more people in the long run? That's my criteria for whether it's ok or not.

(Original post by trendingNOW)
Economic benefits as in? Selling weapons?
Not saying we should do it for this reason but wars do result in rapid improvements in technology, canning food was due to rationing in WW2 and pressurised aircraft cabins were first used in heavy bombers later in the war.
1
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#28
Report 3 years ago
#28
(Original post by Retired_Messiah)
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.
I've got no strong view one way or the other, so this is just an idle comment, but that seems too simplistic to me. The majority of those deaths were males of an age likely to be having children if circumstances were different, so you'd need to look not just at the number of deaths but also at the effect on birth rates as a result.
1
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 3 years ago
#29
(Original post by CurlyBen)
I've got no strong view one way or the other, so this is just an idle comment, but that seems too simplistic to me. The majority of those deaths were males of an age likely to be having children if circumstances were different, so you'd need to look not just at the number of deaths but also at the effect on birth rates as a result.
I imagine during the war the birth rate will have decreased, but if you spread out the deaths of males over all the countries that participated your overall birth rate in each country isn't affected as much.

In the case of world war 2 there was actually a baby boom straight afterwards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E...r_II_baby_boom
1
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#30
Report 3 years ago
#30
(Original post by Retired_Messiah)
I imagine during the war the birth rate will have decreased, but if you spread out the deaths of males over all the countries that participated your overall birth rate in each country isn't affected as much.

In the case of world war 2 there was actually a baby boom straight afterwards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E...r_II_baby_boom
But how much will the boom have offset the decrease during the war? This is just thinking aloud rather than claiming to know all the answers, I just think that looking solely at numbers of deaths is a little over-simplistic when assessing the affect of WWII on the world's population.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#31
Report 3 years ago
#31
(Original post by usualsuspects)
They were not all legitimate. You should watch Moore's film on bush.
All 3 of them happened because of a country invading another country's territory. So yes they were.

I'm not talking about the Iraq invasion of 2003, I'm referring to the earlier 1991 gulf war when Iraq invaded Kuwait because Saddam wanted their oil.
0
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 3 years ago
#32
(Original post by CurlyBen)
But how much will the boom have offset the decrease during the war? This is just thinking aloud rather than claiming to know all the answers, I just think that looking solely at numbers of deaths is a little over-simplistic when assessing the affect of WWII on the world's population.
Well if we think a bit the population didn't stay stagnant for particularly long given the population in 1950 was apparently 2,556,000,053, so 5 years after the war you've gone up about 0.2 billion, which I think is pretty good? To actually have efficient population control from wars you'd probably need extremely long ones to keep the birth rate down. Thinking anecdotally, a man's gonna be right horny coming back to his wife after years of war.

Yeah maybe I should've thought more initially but upon doing more I'm not convinced I was particularly far off the mark. Thanks for making me think brah learning is cool
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#33
Report 3 years ago
#33
(Original post by 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?
Stats shows that Soviets were dangerous mainly to their own people and largely due to bad economic management and war casualties. When it comes to central Europe, the numbers of German vs. Soviet victims, are millions vs. hundreds of thousands. Soviets were a much better option than the Nazis. Moreover the Soviets never had an aim to exterminate any particular nation. They wanted to get rid of some particular classes of society and their political enemies, but not whole nations.

Moreover, the fact that Soviets decided to join Hitler in 1939 was also a fault of British and French foreign policy. Stalin was not sure at all which route should he choose before the very last weeks before the september 1939.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#34
Report 3 years ago
#34
(Original post by crosssafley)
Of course, look up the opium wars, two of the most morally justifiable military ventures in history.
Morally justified? The British interference with China's internal policy meant that China's attempts to wipe out its internal opium production and use was foiled and it was forced to allow the import of opium from India. This led to enormous degradation, health problems, crime and poverty. The treaty with Britain then led to treaties with the US and France which exacerbated the problem. How is this moral?
0
reply
iSophist
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#35
Report 3 years ago
#35
(Original post by butfirst_coffee)
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
Although war provided the necessary economic stimulation to jump start the US economy in the late 1930s, that doesn't mean war is justifiable on economic grounds alone. I mean, the Eastern European countries invaded by the Nazis didn't exactly benefit economically from the war, and neither did Britain or France.
1
reply
butfirst_coffee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#36
Report 3 years ago
#36
(Original post by iSophist)
Although war provided the necessary economic stimulation to jump start the US economy in the late 1930s, that doesn't mean war is justifiable on economic grounds alone. I mean, the Eastern European countries invaded by the Nazis didn't exactly benefit economically from the war, and neither did Britain or France.
Yes it has its places.
0
reply
iSophist
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#37
Report 3 years ago
#37
(Original post by butfirst_coffee)
Yes it has its places.
I think the only place it has is in stopping an authoritarian regime. In pretty much every other scenario of war, it could've been avoided through government or economic intervention/ negotiations.
0
reply
crosssafley
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#38
Report 3 years ago
#38
(Original post by Good bloke)
Morally justified? The British interference with China's internal policy meant that China's attempts to wipe out its internal opium production and use was foiled and it was forced to allow the import of opium from India. This led to enormous degradation, health problems, crime and poverty. The treaty with Britain then led to treaties with the US and France which exacerbated the problem. How is this moral?
Sarcasm is a language few speak, and even fewer seem to understand.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#39
Report 3 years ago
#39
Right or wrong, we wouldn't have been to the Moon weren't it for last century's technological advancements caused by the wars. Medical research evolved hugely in war scenarios, to the benefit of future generations. So much of what we have now would still be waiting down the line that it becomes impossible to quantify what life would be like these days without the progress in so many fronts opened up by the wars.
1
reply
mali473
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#40
Report 3 years ago
#40
Yes, because nobody's left.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (155)
14.5%
I'm not sure (46)
4.3%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (318)
29.75%
I have already dropped out (30)
2.81%
I'm not a current university student (520)
48.64%

Watched Threads

View All