Let me rephrase my question.

How do you justify your perception of this STUPIDITY and IGNORANCE that you see?

Deadlocks,

Let me throw the question back to YOU.

Is WAR justifiable??

If not, isn't it STUPID and IGNORANCE for LARGE NUMBER of PEOPLE to waste their lives and resource on this effort?? The RULING CLASS has something to gain. But, how do the PEASANTS get of this?? Nothing...

Read chapter 1 of "Art of War" by Sun Tzu

Dreamer

This post has been edited by dreamer101: Jul 15 2009, 08:55 AM

War does not end strife - it sows it. War does not end hatred - it feeds it. For those who argue war is a necessary evil, I say you are half right. War is evil (where strife, there every evil work: Bible, James 3:16). But it is not necessary. War cannot be a necessary evil, because non-violence is a necessary good. The two cannot co-exist.

---

Added on July 15, 2009, 10:39 amWe make war so that we may live in peace.

---

Added on July 15, 2009, 10:45 amNobody is driven in to war by ignorance, and no one who thinks he will gain anything from it is deterred by fear.

This post has been edited by tentenko: Jul 15 2009, 10:45 AM

this have become quite RWIish.

You're asking the wrong question.

You don't ask: "Is WAR justifiable?"

You ask: "How does one CHOOSES war, as a CHOICE, and a RESOLUTION, whether or not his personal justifications are VALID or NOT, and whether he foresees the consequences as GOOD or BAD?"

How dreamer101?

How does one even afford to think of such a CHOICE in life?

You spend extensive time in psycho therapy don't you? You should know better about the human psyche, I presume.

Deadlocks,

People do not CHOOSE WAR. The ruler choose it for them. Then, they use PROPAGANDA to CON them into supporting IT. So, STUPID and IGNORANCE people get CONNED into supporting the WAR. Then, WAR is possible.

Have you EVER really study history of WARS to begin with?? Stop buying into those PROPAGANDA BS that people choose WAR.

So, it was not a PERSONAL choice. A person cannot WAGE WAR. It takes a COUNTRY.

Dreamer

This post has been edited by dreamer101: Jul 15 2009, 07:13 PM

IMO, it would be better if a humanities sub-forum is opened as this discussion is not really science-based but more ethics, moral and philosophy based.

Anti-Matter bombs. Not yet made because we can't mass produce anti-matter yet and we don't have practical means of storing anti-matter.

In the future, I'm very certain that humans will no longer go to war directly. I believe we will go to war using legions of robots ranging from AI robots to robots that are controlled by humans. The most probable transition I can foresee is robots accompanying and aiding humans and eventually battalions of robots going to war with semi-AI capability and controlled by controllers from a distance.

Already we're seeing technologies like Global Hawk, Ripsaw MS1, SWORDS and BigDog. I'm especially impressed with Global Hawk and Ripsaw, they have a great potential in replacing conventional ground troops, but not yet for special ops.


Yup, I agree with this. The threat of a nuclear attack is strong enough to prevent a war, but the danger is that nuclear weapons can be misused by lunatics like Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


Nuclear weapons = fallout = inhospitable/contaminated land = less place to live as fallout can go very far if there's a wind or ground water


how to move away whem airports are closed, no flights in or out, ships blocked borders closed, etc?

anyway, why is this thread going into how bad war is and etc? Isn't this about weapons and tech?

Note the two bolded statements. Contradictory much? How is a ruler's choice, isn't a personal choice? Isn't that, the ruler's personal choice?

Was Hitler's decision to go to war not a PERSONAL CHOICE?

Was Abraham Lincoln's decision to FIGHT in the WAR, not a PERSONAL CHOICE?

Do you know why a phenomenon such as WAR, MUST EXIST? The phenomenon that condones violence?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jul 16 2009, 01:07 AM

Science hasn't done anything to us that wasn't already within us to begin with.

Well maybe not entirely. Technology has enabled humanity to isolate one's own conscience from one's conduct, be it directly or indirectly. We just tend to realize it far too late to be of any practical use.

Killing a person up close and personal with a melee weapon would have, to some people, a different effect from killing the same person from afar, with a rifle perhaps. Not the best of analogies but there is the faint example of how the tool acts as a psychological divide (however slight), distancing the act from the conscientious consequences in the perpetrator's mind. (Of course, given to deeper reflection, the perpetrator may just end up with the exact same feelings of...guilt? Apathy? You decide)

That's why ethics and principles are essential to pretty much anything related to humanistic activities. Albert Speer, Minister of Armaments in National Socialist Germany, remarked on this, as a reflection during his incarceration in Spandau prison.

//
Short of delving into the psychology of politics, sabre-rattling, international diplomatic reputation and whathaveyou, that's my take on the technical aspect of military weapons.

military sciences are there to protect against ourselves. humans are evil.

Deadlocks,

<<Was Hitler's decision to go to war not a PERSONAL CHOICE?>>

If MAJORITY of German people do not support Hitler, is WAR possible??

<<Was Abraham Lincoln's decision to FIGHT in the WAR, not a PERSONAL CHOICE?>>

Ditto, if MAJORITY of the North in USA do not support Abraham Lincoln, is WAR possible??

Isn't this BASIC common sense?? WAR is NOT possible without the support of LARGE number of people.

<<Do you know why a phenomenon such as WAR, MUST EXIST[[size=9]? >>

Who say so?? WAR is ORGANIZED Violence. It is ONLY possible with the ORGANIZATION and SUPPORT of large number of people. Only with the existence of country aka nation state, WAR is possible. In the old day, the largest conflist is ONLY between one tribe / village versus another.

Dreamer

I'm sure some of you have heard of this somewhere before.

"War is a continuation of politics by other means." - Von Clausewitz.

Yes, the purpose of war is to serve a political end, but the true nature of war is to serve itself.

In other words, the soldier who is most likely to win the war is the one most willing to part company with the politicians and ignores everything except the destruction of the enemy.

But in a nuclear war, the true enemy cannot be defeated. Because in my humble opinion, in a nuclear war, the true enemy is war itself.

as long there is human, there will be war..
and "As long as we are human, there will still be work to do". war is a thing to do but politically, war is a master plan by politician to achieve their goal whether bad of good..technology(nuke weapon and all) is just a tool to achieve the goal..

but not all war r promote by human. war such as the crusade, it was a god's command..you dare to defy god command?

This post has been edited by tentenko: Jul 16 2009, 09:40 AM

Did you know Hitler rose to power legitimately and DEMOCRATICALLY?

If he did not have the support of the German people, how do you think the bolded is possible?



This post has been edited by befitozi: Jul 16 2009, 09:59 AM

well, hitler was a high profile person and very charismatic man.. i've watch this ww2 documentaries..the promote of ww2 occurred not rightafter hitler become fuhrer of german nor because of his hatred for the ally and jews(bcoz he's a war veteran of ww1) but his vision for germany to seize living space and resources that lead to ww2..and his speeches are quite religious and also convincing for mere citizen..such like the genocide of Jews are necessary and the invasion of polands..
well, some do oppose him including his own fellow party members..but only realized after the killings of millions civilian..

This post has been edited by tentenko: Jul 16 2009, 10:26 AM

@tentenko,

Using the excuse of god command is one of the most influential reason to gather many people to the cause of war, but that is just not right. It is the manipulation of religion.

yes true, religion itself despise war, sometime people confuse what is written on books and speeches by the corrupted..but war become necessary when defending nation from invasion or exploitation..but i think the crusade is madness..killing civilian for religion, its madness..religion that always protect and become guidance somehow leads people to kill..
hitler really manipulate religion for his vision kaw kaw..thus, driving people to war..but he's not a true catholic at all . he never go to church and despise the taxes collected by church at that time...these kind of ppl bring chaos to the world..

This post has been edited by tentenko: Jul 16 2009, 04:24 PM

Yes, Crimson Tide, Lieutenant Commander Hunter.

Crusades...religion, all religion as we know it on this terrestrial ball, is but humankind's interpretation of what we consider to be a divine firmament/mandate. Why else would there be variations on the concept of a divine being, even a monotheistic one?

//Moderate off-topic

His own party members, if you meant the crowd who initially followed the Socialist line of National Socialism, became uh...district leaders (translation from Gauleiter?), and were soon left to complacent administrative roles. The ones who could directly do anything, didn't care or didn't dare. The ones who tried ended up dead (July 20 1944, White Rose, to name but two).

World War 2 occurred because too few people saw National Socialism as Hitler presented it for what it was. Post-WW1, Germany was in a state of disarray. Not helping was the fact that certain circles of society (the military brass not the least) considered Germany's loss a result of being backstabbed, by Jewry, by the politicians, take your pick: kind of depends on whose story you find credible. The war reparations levied on Germany (Soon to suffer the effects of the Great Depression) by the victors post-WW1 certainly compounded things. All in all...the people in Germany weren't exactly all smiles day in, day out. Primal discontent lurked, and Hitler just so happened to eventually arrive at the helm of what became a provider of various outlets for the populace's discontent.

With regards to one of the esteemed posters above, Hitler's decision to go to war was both a personal decision backed by...political ideologies. Not public opinion, not entirely. Bearing in mind this was prior to the advent of mass-marketed mainstream computers, never mind the Internet, most people relied on official sources of information to form their ideas on what's right and wrong, what's black and white. Given that the Propaganda Ministry/Ministry of Public...Enlightenment (or Entertainment? Can't remember the exact name offhand) was under Nazi control, it would hardly be easy to form a realistic view of the situation. Even if one did...there's always the Gestapo and the SD to 're-educate'.

But where does such a choice comes from in the first place?

Did you read what my questions properly? I asked: "How does one bring about the choice of starting, or fighting a war, in his/her psyche?"

You can keep on saying how people are influenced by propaganda and hence supported the decision of war-mongers.

But what really is going on in the minds of war-mongers that lead to choose such an option that condones violence?

That is the question.

And do you understand why ORGANIZED VIOLENCE is needed? Do you understand why words of logic, common sense, and fact, sometimes DO NOT WORK?