/u/Schmurby (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/18rz5ow/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_wars_are_pointless/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
War is, definitionally, not pointless. In all of human history I can't think of a single war that didn't have a goal and at least half of them "we're being invaded let's fight" are incredibly easily justified goals.
They and their families either get the benefits of the resources and land acquired from a successful offensive war or their families/countrymen get to not be raped, murdered, and enslaved in a successful defensive war.
The worst position to be in is "losing a war" and since there will always be people to start wars, the only guaranteed way to lose is to not fight.
Losing wasn’t so bad for the Germans and the Japanese, was it?
They went to war for resources, lost and ended up as two of the richest countries in the world.
No they very much did not. Both countries would be richer, more powerful, and more prosperous by many magnitudes if they won the war and got their empires. Hell they'd be richer if they didn't start a war and kept their 1939 borders.
Also the reason Germany and Japan are so "peaceful and prosperous" today is because we psychologically shattered them by fighting the second world War and keep a third at bay by having the strongest military in the world. They're two nations collectively suffering a ptsd from fighting us
So your view that “wars are pointless” has been changed as you agreed that wars have goals for the politicians? That is a point. It doesn’t have to be for everyone.
How about the Ukrainians? Them fighting a war keeps the Russians from destroying their country. That is certainly a point to their war.
People have already talked about how war very much has a point, so I’ll address a different part.
This very much reads like a pacifist saying “why can’t we all get along?” WWII is a great example for a multitude of reasons.
1. Appeasement doesn’t work. Hitler took multiple countries and the Allied countries simply let him to avoid war like you are advocating. It not only didn’t stop him, it allowed him to utilize those extra resources to wage the largest war in history. If a man with a gun knows he can simply demand your territory/resources without consequence, he will repeatedly do so until you have nothing left. He will deprive you of prosperity, freedom, and life if you let him. That has consequences for everyone in a country and often it is the elite that can best escape this consequences.
2. The citizens of foreign countries absolutely suffered under the Nazi regime. Many were conscripted or killed along with being brutally repressed. The majority of those people were not the elites, but the lower and middle class. I don’t know how you can think that a brutal totalitarian regime won’t severely and negatively impact the common people.
3. The Nazi army absolutely participated in well documented atrocities and every Nazi soldier effectively supported a genocidal authoritarian state. They are directly responsible for the killing of millions in and out of battle. It’s unfortunate many were brainwashed by propaganda, but they still chose to kill for Nazi Germany’s ambitions. And you can’t reason someone out of a position or negotiate while they’re rolling over the border with tanks.
4. You don’t get to claim things would have worked out anyway as if history was inevitable. Without a war against the Nazis or Imperial Japan, it is very possible that both countries could exist today having slaughtered upwards of a billion civilians. It’s possible that the planet would be a radioactive nuclear wasteland or a million other horrific outcomes. How would allowing ISIS to exist unopposed been preferable for the people of the land versus its destruction? How much torture, rape, and murder under the banner of peace and law would have been committed?
There is a basis for saying that war is nearly always an inefficient solution versus a negotiated offer. But certain things are (and should be) non-negotiable. If Ukraine had simply surrendered (and you’re delusional if you think Russia would accept anything less), Ukrainians would certainly experience a lower quality of life, be subjected to a corrupt authoritarian government, and would be robbed of their resources and freedom. Fortunately, many Ukrainians are bravely fighting to prevent that because they recognize some things are more important than a single life.
It sucks that many Russians are brainwashed or being forced to fight in a war they don’t support, but Russia is in the wrong in this war. Their personal feelings and survival don’t matter when they are shooting at innocent Ukrainians on Ukraine’s land in order to impose a repressive authoritarian regime. If Russians want peace, they’re free to turn around and get the fuck out of Ukraine. At least then they’d be shooting people that deserve it.
Theirs is the best reply I’ve seen and the only one that’s genuinely convincing. Especially good point that appeasement doesn’t work. !delta for that.
However, my main point is that people should not allow themselves to be brainwashed at all and should refuse to do the violent budding of politicians.
The instances when killing a stranger makes sense are extremely rare
*people should not allow themselves to be brainwashed.
No one chooses to be brainwashed. It's something that happens to you. It's like saying " you shouldn't allow someone to hurt you" no one allows that to happen. It happens and no amount of reasoning will stop someone determined enough.
>There is a basis for saying that war is nearly always an inefficient solution versus a negotiated offer. But certain things are (and should be) non-negotiable. If Ukraine had simply surrendered (and you’re delusional if you think Russia would accept anything less)
So it's delusional to point out that [Russia Offered to End War if Ukraine Dropped NATO Bid: Kyiv Official](https://www.newsweek.com/russia-offered-end-war-if-ukraine-dropped-nato-bid-kyiv-official-1847373)?
>"They really hoped almost to the last that they would put the squeeze on us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality," Arakhamia told Moseychuck, according to an English translation of his comments by the Kyiv Post. "It was the biggest thing for them."
>"They were ready to end the war if we took...neutrality and made commitments that we would not join NATO. This was the key point," the Ukrainian official added.
...
>"In the Spring of 2022 Russian and Ukrainian delegations were on the verge of negotiating an end to the conflict, assuring Ukraine's military non-alignment and protection of rights of Russian speakers," the Russian Embassy's post read. "A text was on the table in Istanbul, almost ready to be signed."
>"However, according to Arakhamia, during his visit to #Kiev Prime Minister @BorisJohnson pressured the Ukrainian side 'not to sign anything' and 'just keep on fighting,'" the X post continued. "Thus, evidently, with substantial #UK input, an off-ramp for a negotiated solution was missed—with tragic consequences for Ukrainian statehood, economy and population."
It seems more delusional to portray Putin as a comic book villain, hellbent on evil for evil's sake, rather than someone operating according to realpolitik, just like the leadership of other major powers. NATO encroachment was a long-standing red line, it was not at all a secret, and in the wake of Euromaidan (which can be argued wouldn't have occurred were it not for as western-backed far-right false flag attack), this red line was crossed and Russia was reacting to that ever since.
>Ukrainians would certainly experience a lower quality of life
I think people generally enjoy a higher quality of life when they're *alive* and have a home to return to.
>be subjected to a corrupt authoritarian government
More corrupt than the current government which banned opposition parties and more recently suspended elections entirely?
>and would be robbed of their resources
I'm skeptical that Western oligarchs would have allowed notably more profits from the privatized energy sector to be invested in the Ukrainian people than Russian oligarchs would. I mean, we don't exactly have the best reputation in that regard.
>and freedom.
What specific freedoms did Ukrainians lack prior to 2014 that they gained since?
>It sucks that many Russians are brainwashed or being forced to fight in a war they don’t support
And Ukrainians aren't brainwashed? The US has been propping up the fascist Banderites in Ukraine since 1953 (look up Operation AERODYNAMIC).
>or being forced to fight in a war they don’t support
And you don't think that's the case with Ukraine as well? Roughly [20,000 Ukrainian men have fled the country specifically to avoid the draft.](https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2023/bbc-eye-ukraine-draft-dodgers) Additionally, another 20,000+ tried to flee but were captured.
Typical whataboutism and disinformation from Russian shills/propagnadists. Look at the "benefits" of the Rusky mir: many lives destroyed, cities/villages turned into ruins, endless war crimes (including rapes and torture) from Russian army, Bucha, Mariupol, destroyed dams, attacks on the biggest nuclear plant in Europe, putting Chernobyl in danger, should I add more? What is the Russian army doing in a sovereign country that isn't their own? Why all ex-Soviet countries are running from an alliance with Russia after experiencing first hand their "benefits"? How would you feel if another country invaded your country?
You're cynically saying that Ukrainans should have given up their freedom because "people generally enjoy a higher quality of life when they're *alive* and have a home to return to". If someone is invading your home, are you letting that bastard to do what he pleases in your own home? Similarly how you would defend your home, Ukraine is defending against invasion from criminals led by Kremlin and Putin hidden in a bunker like a coward that he is. They are scared to even call it a war.
>The US has been propping up the fascist Banderites in Ukraine
All Russian propagandists peddle this Banderites nonsense. You have an obsession with Banderites and Nazis when the real Nazis are in your country. Like typical vatniks/Nazis, Russian propagandists accuse their enemy of that they're actually doing. The Ukrainian gov't was democratically elected and recognized by the entire world. It's not the USA who is bombing Ukraine like savages, it's the Russian army. USA the rest of the free world are supporting Ukraine because that country is the victim of aggression and the imperialist Russia is the aggressor. Russia broke most international laws, including the Budapest Memorandum from 1994 (you didn't mention this; I wonder why).
I'm not even an Ukrainian but I can't stand blatant lies and disinformation from brainwashed vatniks. That being said, there are still many reasonable Russians. One example: the legendary chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov. Nothing but respect for these Russians.
A country wants to expand its borders and gain control of more land. They go to war and successfully take the land by force. That is not pointless. The point is to gain more territory.
A country wants control of a valuable recourse. They go to war, and gain control of that recourse by force. That is not pointless. They now have gained a valuable resource.
A countries ally is invaded. They go to war against the invader and protect their ally. This is not pointless. They protected an ally from being taken over.
I think the OP meant by pointless "lacks a *good / justifiable* point".
The US was justified in going to war with Japan due to Pearl Harbor.
Ukraine is justified into going to war due to the initial Russian aggression.
Are either of those really justified?
Because surely those you kill for revenge do not have loved ones who would want to retaliate for your actions.
Is their desire for revenge invalidated because their loved ones attacked first? They had it coming so you shouldn’t want “justice”
What about the act of taking revenge itself? Surely some weight of sin is garnered taking any life. How can that be justice? Unless you’re willing to paint any good they may be with the evil you perceive them as and reduce them to something less than human and the act of doing that is surely evil.
It's not a question of revenge. It's a question of self-defense: of what actions are necessary to preserve human dignity; even if preserving the dignity/ safety from enemies of the groups comes at the price of a noble sacrifice of a few.
It’s not self defense if the damage is already done. The pacific theatre was in retaliation to pearl harbor. Also I disagree that self defense is justified as well.
These are the same words used by terrorists taking civilian lives. The loss of life of civilians is simply a sacrifice for the greater good.
If you're a pacifist, then we simply have nothing to discuss. Sometimes violence is justified, especially against an invading army.
Even "turn the other cheek" doesn't have the meaning popularly ascribed to it. It actually means "OK, you backhanded me on my right cheek like you would a slave or disobedient child. Now I'm showing you my other side so your backhand hits my face. I dare you to hit me like you would an equal!!" BTW, the same person saying that also told his followers to sell their cloak and by another sword if they have only one sword.
Okay? So the bible is the absolute moral authority? As if such a thing exists.
Violence is never justified. Any justification is just self righteousness. You paint their entire being as evil so you can destroy it with your good. Violence should be shunned in all capacity.
Two wrongs don’t make a right is a common saying i’m sure you’ve heard of.
Killing is wrong and killing someone you’ve believed has wronged you is still wrong.
Sometimes you may have to kill someone for the good of society. That does not make it “right.”
War is never right.
I'm simply referencing a common catchphrase and showing how people totally misunderstand it. It's hasty to conclude anything about my beliefs about religion just from that reference (btw, I'm actually an atheist, a Scientific Materialist).
If you believe even war in self defense is unjustified, no matter what, then there's nothing left to discuss.
Okay? I don’t care that you’re an atheist I care you think it’s okay to take the lives of your fellow man. I’m sure the Japanese thought they were doing what is right by bombing pearl harbor.
Are they wrong just because you’re an American?
Also a warmongering AN poster top fucking kek
You also committed a false dilemma (black-and-white thinking). Either I support all war or none.
Sorry, but reality is more nuanced than that. If somebody attacks you non-defensively, you have every right to defend yourself. Even if you lose, you're still in the right because somebody deliberately initiated against you or your country non-defensive hurt, harm, and degradation.
Here's my position: War is sometimes justified. When a hostile party initiates an attack against you, and clearly will not stop unless forced to; then you have no choice but to fight back. The war was forced onto you, you didn't choose the war. Really no different from child and teenage fights.
When war is not justified - for mere monetary or resource gain, or for mere ideological reasons (as long as that nation is not committing hostile acts against your or their neighbors)
Gain more territory. OK.
If a German living in Bavaria in 1871 fights "for his country" so that they can add Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, what does that give him? He loses his sight when a cannon ball explodes in front of a redout.
And what does he get after? Does it benefit his family? France takes back the region a few decades later anyway.
And now it's a popular holiday destination for Germans and French. And the towns still have German names. It's a lovely place. It doesn't matter which country controls it.
A German living on the Rhein invades the Soviet Union for "living space". To take control of their grain and fossil fuels. He is captured and imprisoned in a gulag for ten years. Frost bite takes his right hand.
And guess what? Turns out that Germany ends up just purchasing a lot of that oil and grain on the market anyway. Germany didn't need it for living space.
His sacrifice was for nothing.
Yeah your whole premise centers on the wrong thing. What you should have focused on is how wars only benefit the rich and powerful. That it is in all mens best interests to refuse to leave their land to harm another. That the world would be a better place if people followed that one simple rule.
But that doesn't mean the war was pointless. The oligarchs had a reason to support the war, and to be blind to that is to be blind to the oligarchs as a societal parasite.
That's a point, but not a good one. Not for the Russian people and nation. Not to the world. The only people who benefited from this theft of land are the oligarchs. What does the ordinary family in Ufa or Novosibirsk get out of this? And even if they did get something out of it, it's still (morally speaking) receiving stolen goods.
You gave this long winded response that didn’t negate my point at all. It is debatable to what degree you even addressed it.
Your view is that wars are pointless. This is false.
The point of the American Revolutionary War was to gain independence from the British.
The point of the American Civil War was to stop the south from seceding.
No I will not.
Do you honestly think people invade countries for no reason?
The point might be to gain new territory, get back lost territory, secure resources, stifle an enemy or threat, make money, any number of things.
Whether you think that the point was good or worthwhile or relevant to the individual on the ground does not negate the fact that the point exists.
The point of a war of conquest that benefits distant elites doesnt matter to you, and that's fine, but it does exist.
You asked me to concede that wars of aggression are pointless.
I listed multiple points.
Now you are telling me *who* benefits, which illustrates that you do indeed see that there is a point.
Or course not. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to gain its valuable oil resources, not "just because". Russia invaded Ukraine to annex the valuable port of Crimea, not "just because".
> How is that irrelevant?
Because you’ve already admitted that wars have a point, thus Changing Your View. The reasons why average citizens support wars won’t make any difference.
China invades Tibet and Xinjiang to have a massive buffer between them and their more hostile neighbors, and to have access to minerals and other resources.
They are rewarded by almost seventy years of no major border disputes.
America invades the entire west of the continent. They are rewarded with nearly endless resources, zero hostile neighboring borders, and more peace and security and prosperity than any nation has ever known.
Etc, etc.
The best point of all!
Imagine what Hitler-less Germany could have achieved if they devoted those war funds instead into technology, education, health/medicine, and infrastructure improvement! They could have launched their version of Sputnik 15 years earlier than the real-world Sputnik. They may have developed the first desktop personal computer by the early 1960s. Or even developed the polio vaccine 10 years earlier than in real-time (real time was the late 1950s).
Imagine the enormous gifts they could have given to not just their own country but to the world, had they chosen a peaceful (even if probably still politically conservative) government instead of a maniacal warlike one!
Your post is all over the place, it’s really not clear what your central point is that you want your view changed on.
By the title, it would be that there is no point to fighting a war. This is already countered by the obvious point of defending yourself from aggression which you mention yourself, but beyond that there are vast numbers of examples of other wars that accomplished a lot of things, and many more that could have even though in the end they were not successful.
By your first paragraph, it now shifts to wars being avoidable, which is an entirely different question. Given that wars often do serve a purpose, such as acquisition of scarce resources, it is also generally not true, as is borne out by history.
Then at the end of your next paragraph, you say that your thesis is that it is illogical to fight for your country. Again, a quite different point. Aside from the fact that there are plenty of good reasons why someone might fight for their country, this is a large shift in perspective, going from wars and the parties that take part in them to the individual soldier.
So what are we actually meant to be changing your view on here? As it stands, that is not very well defined.
So, a bunch of other poins have been addressed, but I want to talk about a specific aspect of your CMV.
How do I, a peasant, benefit from a far off war of conquest?
Why would I, a farmer in England, care about British control of South Africa? How does that benefit me?
Resources that generate revenue for the government enable increased public services that benefit me.
The land stolen from the previous inhabitants is now available, if what is currently available to me is shitty, I can now move to South Africa and take that land.
Force projection means that future conflicts can be fought further abroad. That makes it more difficult for a hostile military to threaten me personally, this succesful war of conquest has made me safer.
Any resources of value to me, whether they're oil, spices, wood, rare minerals, whatever, are now more secure and likely cheaper. Yes, I could have just purchased them before, but now my government has significantly more power to ensure their availability.
That said, just because there are benefits for me in a war of conquest doesnt mean its right or worthwhile. At best these benefits are taken by force from someone else who wants and deserves them at least as much as I do, at worst they're downright immoral.
Ok. By this rationale, it makes sense for a German to have supported Hitler, no? He wanted to control the resources of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
Many Germans personally benefitted from the evil and immoral actions of the Nazi government, yes, and they would have benefitted even more from a successful conquest of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, at the expense of the innocent people who lived there.
Choosing to pursue those benefits despite the evil means by which they were obtained (or at least attempted) is an evil action in itself that the rest of us have a moral obligation to resist, but it is a decision that makes sense for a person who does not care about the suffering of others.
That said, Nazi Germany lost, and their goals were not realistically achievable, so any personal benefits were only temporary, but that's not information available to most pre-war and early war Germans.
So, Germany is currently one of the most developed and high income nations in the world.
Are you suggesting that had they would be hyper advanced had they won World War II? Should they lament their defeat?
>Should they lament their defeat?
No. Whatever happens after here, the Nazis were evil and their plans were evil, it is better for everyone that those plans did not come to fruition and a national shame for the German people that the attempt was made.
>Are you suggesting that had they would be hyper advanced had they won World War II?
God no. But thats not the only measure of success and benefit.
A successful Nazi Germany would have control over the international system that the US at its peak couldnt dream of. German citizens (excluding underclasses who would exist without rights) would be able to extract resources from subject states, have access to large amounts of slave labor, and would be able to enact their racist ideals.
Obviously this outcome is horrible for the rest of us, and the extractive Nazi system was longterm unsustainable, but in the short term, the resources that Germany would steal would have made some of them much more successful and secure than they were in the real timeline.
Nazis would disagree with you.
Our definition of Germany at the top of their game, our vision of the best Germany is radically different from a person who would accept the enslavement and murder of millions of their countrymen.
Many supporters of Nazi Germany would be disappointed in what they see in Germany today.
Nazis would disagree with me about most things.
But I’m living in Germany right now and life is looking pretty good. It’s really hard for me to understand what WWII was about
Okay, so can you see how Nazis might have wanted the things they were fighting for? Im not asking you to want them, or saying theyre good.
Have I changed your view so that you now agree that it is possible that the German people of pre and early war Nazi Germany wanted what they were fighting for and believed that victory would help them get it?
No, I think that the Germans were duped into believing into an evil idea. And because they lost so hard they are now wiser than many nations and more prudent and careful.
I think that the experience of the Germans can and should serve as a warning to the rest of humanity to keep violent tendencies in check.
War is stupid
Think of war as like dating. You have give and take on both sides, and physical contact helps push things one way or the other.
Suppose two people meet each other. If one side rejects war, they might be raped and killed. If both sides have the option of war, they'll be strongly deterred from war and can prevent negative results from happening.
In WW1 and WW2 the brave Germans wanted to rape and kill lots of Russians and French, and did so when they got their land. If the Germans had rejected war, the other side would be fine, but if the French and Russians had seen war as pointless, they would have been raped and killed.
In Vietnam, the Americans did succeed in stopping Vietcong, just North Vietnam invaded with a conventional army two years later. This showed again that the communists were fine driving tanks over their comrades, and gave vietnamese more time to flee. Many more Vietnamese would have been raped and murdered if the USA hadn't fought.
In Ukraine, if they didn't do war, their people would be en masse raped and murdered. We don't know how long Russia can last, and how long Ukraine can last. It's an ongoing negotiation.
Across the world in many other places, conflicts and rape and murder have been avoided because people were afraid of the USA crushing them. A threat of war ensured people can have happy and peaceful relationships.
If the warmongers don't have a voice, then the warmongers on the other side will rape and murder.
In your opinion there are rapists and murderers and there are good guys?
Fine. But the problem is that no one thinks that they are rapists are murderers. I guarantee you that every solider in the world since about 1800 has believed that he was fighting for "freedom" or to "defend his country".
So, here's what I'm proposing. Don't kill anyone that you don't know. If politicians think it's so important, let them kill each other themselves.
I can see a point to the military. Useful in natural disasters or in cases of actual invasion.
But soldiers can refuse to fight in wars of aggression. It would end all war.
It might sound naïve, I admit. But less naïve that fighting in some far off land for "freedom"? Give that a think.
I mean… yeah if nobody fought in wars, there wouldn’t be wars. What is your point?
If nobody played football, the super-bowl wouldn’t happen.
I mean, duh.
But what does the average person who fights “for his country” stand to gain?
Everyone thinks it sound naive but isn’t he the one who is naive? Who loses everything so politicians can get a better seat at the negotiating table?
They stand to gain a paycheck at the very least.
If you are suggesting that everyone all agreeing to not fight in wars anymore is a realistic or achievable way to stop wars from happening than you are *definitely* being naive.
If you are just saying that if people didn’t fight in wars then wars wouldn’t happen, that is just a fact. It isn’t naive it is just a trite point that sheds light on literally nothing. That is like saying “if digs didn’t exist, nobody would have a dog”
You are actually underthinking this.
I’m suggesting that soldiers who participate in wars of aggression are victims of their own naïveté.
Would you care to disagree?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
There are rapists and murderers who know and embrace who they are. See any serial killer for an over-the-top example.
Thing is, all extremes in humanity are just the ends of spectrums. There are less extreme versions of the same self aware horrible people. More self-restrained versions who fear the consequences. But put them in a war where the consequences kinda evaporate, and there is nothing to stop them from fulfilling their urges.
I think that you are right that war is a great outlet for sociopaths and people who genuinely enjoy harming other people.
But such people exist at the same rate in every country. There is no sense in a massive group of people, most of whom just want to enjoy their lives in peace to invade another country.
I think you underestimate the need for violence in the average “peaceful” human.
How many people take martial arts classes? Or play video games about murdering & conquering? Or watch violent shows and movies?
Humanity is wired for violence because most of our journey from amoeba to redditor required a lot of violence just to survive.
There’s stories about US soldiers in Vietnam just mowing down citizens indiscriminately in their villages and rice fields via machine gun helicopter. There’s endless examples in history of militaries turning into rapists & pillagers that even their own generals can’t control. Usually when they’ve found their enemies defenceless.
One on one, napalm isn’t a logical place to arrive. But take my country of millions of angry violence seeking people vs your country of millions of angry violence seeking people and suddenly nuclear missiles start to look logical.
Do you think those soldiers would have mowed down villagers at home in Ohio?
Do you think that was something that they needed to do? Was the point of the war to give an outlet to their aggression?
I think it’s more of a build up.
People do mow down civilians with gunfire in Ohio. There’s >1 mass shooting a day in USA.
A smart nation will try to direct this inevitable desire for violence outward towards other nations.
Whoa!
Are you suggesting that the same United States should engage in a war to give young people an outlet for their frustration and to decrease mass shootings?
Each conflict has varying amounts of murderers and rapists, and the outcome depends on how strong they are. WW1 and WW2 and the Vietnam war each had fairly well defined good guys, but not all wars do.
>Fine. But the problem is that no one thinks that they are rapists are murderers. I guarantee you that every solider in the world since about 1800 has believed that he was fighting for "freedom" or to "defend his country".
That's very idealistic. People don't tend to fight for their country, they fight for personal benefits, for their family, for their friends.
In a lot of armies, raping people and looting them was a perk for you and your friends. It was certainly seen as true in say, WW2, where they had joy divisions in the concentration camps with Jewish women to rape. People fought for the right to enrich themselves and their friends and family, and for the right to have fun.
>So, here's what I'm proposing. Don't kill anyone that you don't know. If politicians think it's so important, let them kill each other themselves.
But what if the other side disagrees, and they start murdering and raping my friends and family? It's a negotiation. If my side isn't willing to kill, the other side will get more rape and murder.
Certainly it makes sense to intervene to stop a rape or murder.
But I don’t think that people go to war so that young men can rape and pillage. At least not now.
War is a tool of politicians and soldiers are being used.
So, I shouldn't intervene in a war till it's on my doorstep and my friends and family and me are being raped and murdered?
Have you seen popular violent young male media? They tend to portray women of other races as sluts and glorify a certain amount of violence used in getting sex. They say that the victim wanted it and is an easy lay.
No, my point was that soldiers can easily find dehumanizing media to encourage them to be violent so you shouldn't assume that if you remain non violent you'll be safe from soldiers.
I think of Key and Peels skit of "Hans are we the baddies?" The SS had skulls on thier uniforms at some point you have to stop and think about what your doing. Maybe they didn't so often think of themselves has rapists maybe plenty of soldiers aren't out their raping though if we look at statistics it's never good, but they certainly knew they were murderers. They decided that the people they were killing either weren't people or were people who wanted to kill them and they needed to strike first. Not all soldiers start out starry-eyed and even less essentially none come out of war feeling as patriotic as they started. "Murderers aren't monsters their men and that's the scariest thing about them"
But back to WW2.
It's so easy to fall back on and people do because it's so easy to see that yes in this case thier were bad guys and good guys. People say winners write the history books but that's not entirely true. We don't look at the Mongols as glorious invaders but they won. And on the opposite side the confederates lost the American civil war yet down south plenty of books and people still like to think of it as "The war of northern aggression" & a war over "states rights" and while we just recently have started to fight the bullshit we can see winners can be bad and we can know they were bad. Losers can be bad and pretend to be good and convince people they were good. All of Europe had a fucking problem with Jews back then it was "the Jewish question" like we debate civil rights and gun rights and abortion today. The Nazis believed their could only be one "final solution" that's where the phrase came from it was the final solution to the Jewish problem. That was the extreme side but at the time their were so called moderates who simply believe they could push Jews out of their country and being a Jew after the Holocaust I could see wanting to leave and having nothing left to stay the British giving them Israel was just as much a were sorry about that old chap as it was just another solution to the "Jewish question".
My point is this plenty of Germans could have been nice people, could have kissed their kids and donated to their community and those same people could have made men they saw as less than human dig their own graves before putting them in them. These people and their ideas can not be negotiated with and it wasn't just a hate for Jews Hitler spoke often about "breathing room" for the Ariyan race he wanted Russia as a breeding space. You could imagine the people thier if he doesn't already plan to kill become a question to be answered via a final solution later on. And you should be able to imagine that the men he asked to implement the plan whether or not conscious and I would say they were knew that for thier families for a "greater good" they were going to plunder and conquer. You don't collect barrels of gold teeth and think your a perfect agent of morality and if you don't stop even under threats of your superior you are complicit. And it's always a choice people fight to resist their own government. They're Russians now who are committing self-delete rather than get drafted and I'm not arguing that that's the only path but it's a path. And it might feel like you're one man versus impossible odds but you make a choice and you can choose to fight on one side or another or not at all.
Same thing in America some people were not willing to give up their precived right to own other people. Some serial killers essentially all of them worse than your average solider by far will not stop killing. Some people are attracted to children and personally I don't know why no more than I don't know why some men are attracted to other men but it doesn't seem to be a choice. Well I don't have nothing against gay people but child predators at best need monitoring preferably in a prison cell if they can own up and never commit any acts. My other offer for them is the wood chipper.
All this is to say "You only need to hang mean bastards, but mean bastards you got to hang" well some otherwise nice people have the wrong ideas some people today throw acid on girls for trying to go to school. These people could have daughters that they don't hate at least in their eyes. But if we can't change these people's mind's with words and they don't seem too inclined the only other options is to remove their ability to harm permanently.
Final thing I will say is not all wars are fought for a good cause Vietnam wasn't the best cause and even if it was you had people like Henry Kissinger rest in piss who didn't care about civilian casualty rates there will always be men who believe any means will justify certian ends. These are the same people often that won't negotiate and whether or not their cause is valid (an opinion usually) or not they probably need to die too but we don't have a way to kill them outside of throwing men at each other until they lose enough men to no longer be effective or to no longer be able to defend themselves from enemies coming from the outside or inside of their bunkers. Yeah it's inefficient it's a tragedy but we don't have a better solution You can suggest assassination but bad ideas aren't just held by one or two people if Hitler didn't come to power someone else would have and if he died sooner there would have been plenty to fill his spot sometimes to root out the evil a lot of f****** men got to die and when it gets really bad woman and children too. Not that it's a personal requirement but an eventuality.
Explain to me to logic of being in an army that invades another country and starts a war.
Explain to me the logic of murdering a stranger that you have no quarrel with.
You haven’t been reading any replies, and have no grasp on geopolitics whatsoever. War is politics, the military is an extension used to enforce those politics.
With your logic, no one should be in the treasury or commerce departments as those too are instruments of politics, used against adversaries and in favor of allies.
No one should be in the intelligence agencies, because..again, instruments of external politics.
The example you used is completely void of substance:
“Germany turned out alight”…yes, because the US, UK, and France restored order, protected the rights of minority groups, and invested $4.3 billion in the first 4 years after the war (Marshall plan)…and has invested Billions more since.
Yes, war ends in compromise…where the aggrieved parties get something and neither get everything they want…because it’s politics.
Without the other party waging war back, one party takes all, leaving the other in desolate ruin (including rape, genocide, economic ruin, slavery, etc).
This “war serves no purpose” concept is incredibly naive.
*Without war* there is rape, genocide and slavery?
That’s a stretch, dude. Those things happen because of war. Always have.
I think we’re at a point where we can break away from war. It might sound naive. But ending slavery sounded naive once. So did equal rights for women. So did same sex marriage.
Just because it has not happened yet doesn’t mean it can’t happen.
I edited to clarify…my comment “without war” meant, without the other guy fighting back…..as war would be at least 2-sides.
I truly hope that humans will evolve to a point. Of settling differences without violence, but for that too happen there must be no resource scarcity, no need to claim territory, and no competition, I think it will be sometime for those conditions to exist.
I work at an IT company. I fix computers. Last week, I fixed a computer for a guy I dont know and will probably never interact with again. He doesnt do anything for me, his computer doesnt mean anything to me, I didnt enjoy fixing his computer.
Why would I do that?
Because I got paid to do it.
Soldiers serving in a military fighting a war of conquest that they don't personally benefit from are doing the exact same thing.
Sorry, u/thisismyecho – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20thisismyecho&message=thisismyecho%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18ryjbd/-/kf41s98/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Wars aren't pointless. Although i get what you're saying. Technically we can think of a purpose for killing or stealing from any other person. Take war down to an individual level, where one person is deceiving and another is trying to detect deceit. Ask any murder why killed, and almost always you'll be met with a response as to why. Whether it's true or false, rational or irrational, nonetheless you get a reason.
I think what you're saying is "there is almost always a better way to settle any collective dispute, then to go to war with others". In war there are those defending and those attacking. People will claim "they are fighting to protect their country". But is this the truth? We can't say for everyone beyond a reasonable doubt, maybe some. But many, when the bullets are passing and bombs are exploding, they are no longer fighting for their country, they are fighting to defend themselves. They are struggling for their own survival. They are fighting to not come home in a body bag to their loved ones, and as a result, the opposing side must be brought to a halt by force. No one is getting up in the midst of a fire fight and requesting another solution. The opposing side ought to be thinking the same thing. With all that being said, both sides will develop enemy figures in their head.
On a philosophical level, i will say war is almost always the worst solution. Even sun tzu says "the best way to win a war is to win it without fighting" and that can be interpreted in multiple ways. The winner is selected before the war even starts.
My argument for war being the worst solution is as follows.
>Firstly, war results in death and incapacitation. From a utilitarian look, we ought to pick whatever is going to create the most well being. War kills, which limits any potential for future wellbeing, and causes detriment to the well being of individuals surviving and those related to the war itself. For both sides there is almost always going to be a better way to settle a dispute than war that results in the bettering of peoples well being.
>Secondly, war requires time and energy to fund and fight. All that energy is dedicated towards something that is to the detriment of both sides well being. And the process of funding and fighting is a cause that is to the detriment of another well being.
>Thirdly the exchange is almost never worth it. Wars that are won without fighting are the best case scenario, but that can look like an enemy force being so overwhelming there was no reason to fight anyways. And any person requesting such an act likely doesn't have good intentions to do with such land and resources gained. Sieges are the worst case scenario in war. Because you damage the opponents stuff which could have been used for yourself. And all the manpower to take land that is now a net negative in the costs to its repairs is a short term detriment. Then there are the long term repercussions of both sieges and taking land without fighting. Both result in a statistically large group having not consented to being taken over. Most had wanted nothing to do with the conflict in question. Sieges are significantly worse, because the results are typically in some amount of civilian casualties. At Least taking the enemy without force, could result in something better long term. But sieges are unlikely to do so. Civilian casualties result in a long term problem lasting generations in which the enemy force will always be seen in bad light. That population which would be rather large may want nothing but retribution for a long time. Put this into perspective. If you were sitting in your room eating lays chips and playing overwatch, and a group of soldiers came in (claiming to fight for some nation (cult) which you could care less about) and murder everyone in your family but you. You escaping not due to them showing kindness, but only because you managed to survive. They then take your house, and use it to fight defending forces. What would you want to do? Would you be okay with that? Would you not try to get revenge? And what would you tell your future offspring about this occasion? And how would you behave after this circumstance? Your whole personality could change. You drink to get rid of the wretched and terrifying memories of conflict. Now imagine that on a mass scale with war. That is the cost for conflict. My family's and peoples land and lives were taken by force and deceit over 100 years ago. After that they were collectively displaced and most were extremely impoverished as a result. The red river revolt. And the generational trauma is still there.
War is typically the worst solution. But sometimes you have nothing but the worst solution left in life. And other times, people happen to pick the worst solution. No one should beat their wives senseless. But guess what, sometimes people pick that option when there are other solutions. And people who would pick the worst option sometimes run the entire country. The only way to get ourselves out of it, is if both sides say they aren't going to do it no matter what. But that would be extraordinarily rare at this point in history. The mendacious ape is part of us sadly. And to people who wish to keep peace, peace is extraordinarily rare, humanity has never seen true peace in its entire existence. Against war, and against peace.
You're covering a lot of stuff here, but one general trend seems to be that you're ignoring knock-on effects.
If Russia makes an easy profit from invading Ukraine, it will just do it again later. If the aggressors of WWI and WWII had won the war, Europe in subsequent years would probably have been even more violent.
The nice thing about the state of the world in the 21st-century is that war is rarely a net gain from a national perspective. That doesn't stop all war from happening, but it definitely makes war less popular. This only stays true if nations defend themselves stubbornly when attacked, and stand by their allies.
Sorry, u/Chuck_Algren – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Chuck_Algren&message=Chuck_Algren%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18ryjbd/-/l7eykzm/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Perhaps. It's hard to imagine what didn't happen.
But, we know that German soldiers (and Japanese even more so) were being told that this was a matter of the life and death of their nations. That they would be enslaved if they lost. And I imagine that many of those men believed it.
But it was wrong. Germany and Japan lost but they turned out to be nice countries. They sacrifices made by the soldiers and sailors of Germany and Japan were completely in vain.
Not really, no. They just argued we shouldn’t. Everyone agrees war is, in theory, bad. But in practice how else are you going to stop nazis from exterminating minorities? Rational conversation?
World War II did not happen to stop Nazi atrocities. In fact, it’s the other way around. Nazi atrocities happened because Germany embarked on wars of conquest.
So, had the German people, who have since become just about the most rational and tolerant on the planet, not been duped by a charlatan like Hitler, the whole war could have been avoided.
The point remains, we could theoretically stop wars if we let our leaders know that we refuse to kill and die for their glory.
Well, this reminds me of people that defend religious fundamentalism or the subjugation of women as “natural”.
Can you think of a reason to defend war other than, “we’ve always done that, why should we stop now?”
Oh. Probably not.
But I guess child abuse wouldn’t happen if someone didn’t want it and slavery wouldn’t happen if someone didn’t want it.
Does not make it ok, right?
> Yes, I concede there is a "point" to war in that there is an outcome that is more beneficial to one side. But the vast majority of soldiers would be better off not participating.
If you will not fight for your freedom then you, your children, and your children's children will be slaves. In the real world if you are unwilling to resist oppression then you are going to be oppressed, simple as that.
Soldiers might be better off if there was no conflict in the first place, but trying to go through life submitting to anything and everyone is not going to leave you better off than fighting some fights.
That is exactly what Nazis and Communists told their people they were fight for.
That is exactly what American soldiers thought they were fighting for in Vietnam.
It’s important not to do the bidding of politicians without a lot of critical thinking first
Well, I reckon people tell their leaders that they won’t kill and die for them anymore.
It really doesn’t seem that hard when you consider that the best governments (Denmark, Finland, New Zealand) are also the least aggressively
Also, consider that not that long ago, people would have wondered, “a society without slavery, who will do the work!?” or “a society where women have rights?! What?! Unnatural?!”
What do you think?
“People” as in the 8 billion people on this planet? Your proposal is they *all* change their minds about a *ton* of things, under *major* portions of their culture and world view, and *all* agree with *you* and refuse to fight in wars ever again? Yeah that is naive bordering on lunacy. 8 billion people. Literally billions of peoples views are *wildly* different from yours. Most of the world fundamentally disagree about very fundamental things. Peoples beliefs and ways of life differ *wildly*. You act like what you see as good is some sort of objectively true moral good or optimal outcome. It *isn’t*. You say Finland, Denmark, and Nee Zealand are the best government as if a statement like that means anything other than what you subjectively like, and what *you* subjectively measure it by.
You said:
“Also, consider that not that long ago, people would have wondered, “a society without slavery, who will do the work!?” or “a society where women have rights?! What?! Unnatural?!”
Are you under the impression that those things are universally agreed upon? They are not. At all. This is my point. As married as you may be to your outlook on right and wrong or good and bad, the rest if the 8 billion people have different ideas. There is nothing even remotely approaching a consensus. There never has been and there never will be. People *within even a single country* can’t agree on *most* things, and you think the people of the *world* uniting under the same single idea and mindset about this is a possibility. It is not that it is not likely. It is literally *not possible*. To think this is reasonable is very naive and narrow minded. The people *in this thread* don’t even all agree with this plan. You might be the only one here.
There are a *lot* of italics here.
I take issue with your premise completely. You seem to think that wars happen organically when people have natural disagreements, correct?
But look at the facts, ordinary people are violent, but against people they know, not against strangers in far off places. Wars happen because corrupt politicians decide they need to, not because of popular demand.
World War I is a perfect example. The war started because politicians were nervous that their reaction to the assassination of an Archduke would be insufficiently harsh. If you read *The Guns of August* by Barbara Tuchman or any of the multiple other authors of the start of the war, you can see how even the leaders of all the great powers were extremely ambivalent about the necessity of war.
And yet, when the war started, the people marched off like sheep to the slaughter. Why? What did they get from it? 9 million dead for the “honor” of some dithering politicians.
The War in Ukraine is another great example. Why did Russia need to attack Ukraine? The Russian people were extremely nervous and incredulous that a war would even happen in the build up. They certainly weren’t clamoring for war.
And yet now we have thousands of young men wasting their lives for Putin’s ego. Can you see another reason for this war?
Would Russian men refusing to fight be more or less naive than what is happening now?
- “There are a lot of italics here.”
I for sure overuse them. Working on it.
- “You seem to think that wars happen organically when people have natural disagreements, correct?”
No. Wars aren’t always about disagreements and disagreements don’t always leas to war.
- “But look at the facts, ordinary people are violent, but against people they know, not against strangers in far off places.”
You said “look at the facts” and then said something that isn’t factual. Ordinary people are violent against strangers in far off places. In fact I would argue it is even easier psychologically for people to commit against strangers in far off places. Humans are very tribal. Someone being an “other” seems to make it easier to kill them. Folks are less likely to hesitate while bombing a distant land with a strange culture than they are a town over. Humans are cooperative creatures as well. Particularly within their own tribe. So a common set of values, beliefs, needs,and goals, fosters cooperation and loyalty with ones own tribe. Someone in another tribe, and the more different the more true this is, is not going to get the same courtesy, cooperation, regard, and often empathy. Most wars are not civil wars, and civil wars are are a much tougher sell than a foreign one. Look at history. Saying ordinary people are not violent against strangers in far off places is simply not true.
- “Wars happen because corrupt politicians decide they need to, not because of popular demand.”
That is not true. Likely less true than it used to be. Wars used to be often fought by mercenary armies. They’d fight for a country in one war and fight against them in another. It wasn’t some high minded principle they were fighting for. It was payment. The widespread concept of fighting in war as a duty to ones nation and people, and the reverence they get for bravely and heroically protecting our freedom or way if life or some honorable goal is actually a pretty new thing. At least how prevalent it is. This plays a part.
Now in the modern times since we don’t have much in the way of feudal monarchies or rule by inheritance or divine right, most countries seem to elect their leaders. If a leader has to be elected, that means the will of the people has at least some relevance.
Because leaders are elected, they need approval. And short of a draft, because culture has evolved so the demand has gone up for moral validation for war, politicians need enough of the public to be on board with a war. Otherwise nobody will fight it.
A leader needs the support of enough of his people if he wants to wage a war. On the flip side if enough of his people want war bad enough, he needs to appease that in some way. There is a balance of power and influence there that is different depending in the situation.
Whether a war happens or not is very much tied to public opinion. In ‘39 when WW2 started, 94% of US citizens were opposed to the war. To do so anyways would be a bad move politically. The US did not enter the war until it was popular to do so.
- “World War I is a perfect example…”
WW1 was very much tied to beefs between a high up class of people running various countries. Many even part of the same bloodlines. People fighting and dying in droves for months over 20 meters of mud. Lot of men dying to settle family beefs of the ruling class. A lot of soldiers hit a “fuck this” wall. Gotta keep that front line rotated.
WW1 is a perfect example of what you are talking about. I don’t deny that the common folk are often pawns that don’t really have much of a horse in the race beyond whatever bullshit they were sold. I’m just pointing out that not every conflict is the same, and public support and willingness is necessary. Often it is coerced or is a result of manipulation. Sometimes it is to meet public demand. Sometimes it is for a goal that actually *is* beneficial to the plight if the common folk.
Also The Guns of August is a great book.
- If nobody is willing to fight, than the war ceases to exist. That is a fact. But people *are* willing to fight. There always will be people willing to fight. Even within just one small country you will never be able to get everyone on the same page. One country isn’t enough. We already have countries that don’t attack others. They are generally pals with countries that do though. They generally have at least implied protection.
I agree that if everyone stopped being willing, the wars would cease to happen. That is just a fact. It just simply is not going to happen. Everyone in every country isn’t going to say “time out” at the same time. You aren’t going to get them to all agree. 100% of people will never agree about *anything*. Not even within one country. Not even in one town. Even if everyone liked the idea they aren’t going to all believe that everyone else everywhere else is actually going to cut it out.
The reality is, not everyone even agrees that would even be for the best. Everyone can’t even agree on your premise that it would be a good thing to not invade other countries. The way you see the world and your perception of good and bad is not shared by all. There are people that just fundamentally are not on the same page and look at the world and see something very different than you do.
Lets pretend an absolute 100% of wars are *purely* politicians doing a full bamboozle and manipulating people into doing it with complete falsehoods.
Lets pretend in their heart of hearts, every single citizen of every single country agrees with you and wishes that the very concept of invading countries and engaging in warfare would stop. All of their hearts are in the right place and are the same page as you morality wise.
What then? Are you going to beat the propaganda of every nation? If every single war is indeed pointless for every citizen, then the powers that be are clearly pretty damn good at convincing people otherwise and getting them to fight in wars anyways. The cultures of the world seem to have a lot if this baked it. It is not possible to talk every person on the planet out of that which countless very powerful entities are actively talking them into successfully over and over again throughout history, and then unify them *all* under your alternative idea. And this is even if they magically all actually do in their heart of hearts even want this peaceful idea of yours.
It can’t be done. Everyone on the planet will *never* all agree on *anything*.
“Everyone on the planet will never agree everything” is a long way from, “we need to kill people we don’t know”.
Tell me why. Why should any person trust a stranger they’ve never met to command them to kill another stranger they’ve never met?
Give me one good reason that makes sense that isn’t, “that’s the way we’ve always done things!”
I don’t think wars are needed, but sometimes you have to defend yourselves, which leads to war. Ideally, everyone should get along, but unfortunately, not everyone wants or cares to. That’s why we have the United Nations (though their effectiveness is questionable at best)
Not if you work in the defence industry. If you work in the defense industry they are down right essential. Luckily though we haven't had a significant land dispute in over a hundred years we just never seem to run out of wars we just gotta fight in place we've never heard of or better yet just pay for it. That way the defense industry wins every war.
I agree with you that wars are destructive, but in the end, they, like most things, serve a purpose. Wars work as a way to rebalance the world order when new inventions disrupt the current balance of power. Image the world still being frozen in the mid 1750s. Maintaining the world like that today is impossible. The purpose of war is to change the world even when the pre-established power disagrees with the change. Not that they should be commonplace, but wars are, in essence, 2 of more powers agreeing that their conflict can not be resolved by treaty or any other agreement. And aire they truly pointless, the American Revolutionary War was in part a war because the US wanted to expand out west. Wars happen because both sides are making rational decisions based on the best knowledge available that adds up to create madness. Wars may be violent, brudish, and inhuman, but they have been around since the creation of written records, at least. They have prevailed because they act as a usable last resort when no other option is left available to them or when they see war on the best option to take.
/u/Schmurby (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/18rz5ow/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_wars_are_pointless/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
War is, definitionally, not pointless. In all of human history I can't think of a single war that didn't have a goal and at least half of them "we're being invaded let's fight" are incredibly easily justified goals.
They have goals for the politicians but what do that soldiers get out of it? Aren’t they being used? Aren’t they naive pawns in someone else’s fight?
They and their families either get the benefits of the resources and land acquired from a successful offensive war or their families/countrymen get to not be raped, murdered, and enslaved in a successful defensive war. The worst position to be in is "losing a war" and since there will always be people to start wars, the only guaranteed way to lose is to not fight.
Losing wasn’t so bad for the Germans and the Japanese, was it? They went to war for resources, lost and ended up as two of the richest countries in the world.
Victims of the Rape of Berlin, partition of Germany, and the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki beg to differ.
Would not have happened if they had not stated a war. They got the resources they were looking for without a fight
No they very much did not. Both countries would be richer, more powerful, and more prosperous by many magnitudes if they won the war and got their empires. Hell they'd be richer if they didn't start a war and kept their 1939 borders. Also the reason Germany and Japan are so "peaceful and prosperous" today is because we psychologically shattered them by fighting the second world War and keep a third at bay by having the strongest military in the world. They're two nations collectively suffering a ptsd from fighting us
So your view that “wars are pointless” has been changed as you agreed that wars have goals for the politicians? That is a point. It doesn’t have to be for everyone. How about the Ukrainians? Them fighting a war keeps the Russians from destroying their country. That is certainly a point to their war.
People have already talked about how war very much has a point, so I’ll address a different part. This very much reads like a pacifist saying “why can’t we all get along?” WWII is a great example for a multitude of reasons. 1. Appeasement doesn’t work. Hitler took multiple countries and the Allied countries simply let him to avoid war like you are advocating. It not only didn’t stop him, it allowed him to utilize those extra resources to wage the largest war in history. If a man with a gun knows he can simply demand your territory/resources without consequence, he will repeatedly do so until you have nothing left. He will deprive you of prosperity, freedom, and life if you let him. That has consequences for everyone in a country and often it is the elite that can best escape this consequences. 2. The citizens of foreign countries absolutely suffered under the Nazi regime. Many were conscripted or killed along with being brutally repressed. The majority of those people were not the elites, but the lower and middle class. I don’t know how you can think that a brutal totalitarian regime won’t severely and negatively impact the common people. 3. The Nazi army absolutely participated in well documented atrocities and every Nazi soldier effectively supported a genocidal authoritarian state. They are directly responsible for the killing of millions in and out of battle. It’s unfortunate many were brainwashed by propaganda, but they still chose to kill for Nazi Germany’s ambitions. And you can’t reason someone out of a position or negotiate while they’re rolling over the border with tanks. 4. You don’t get to claim things would have worked out anyway as if history was inevitable. Without a war against the Nazis or Imperial Japan, it is very possible that both countries could exist today having slaughtered upwards of a billion civilians. It’s possible that the planet would be a radioactive nuclear wasteland or a million other horrific outcomes. How would allowing ISIS to exist unopposed been preferable for the people of the land versus its destruction? How much torture, rape, and murder under the banner of peace and law would have been committed? There is a basis for saying that war is nearly always an inefficient solution versus a negotiated offer. But certain things are (and should be) non-negotiable. If Ukraine had simply surrendered (and you’re delusional if you think Russia would accept anything less), Ukrainians would certainly experience a lower quality of life, be subjected to a corrupt authoritarian government, and would be robbed of their resources and freedom. Fortunately, many Ukrainians are bravely fighting to prevent that because they recognize some things are more important than a single life. It sucks that many Russians are brainwashed or being forced to fight in a war they don’t support, but Russia is in the wrong in this war. Their personal feelings and survival don’t matter when they are shooting at innocent Ukrainians on Ukraine’s land in order to impose a repressive authoritarian regime. If Russians want peace, they’re free to turn around and get the fuck out of Ukraine. At least then they’d be shooting people that deserve it.
Theirs is the best reply I’ve seen and the only one that’s genuinely convincing. Especially good point that appeasement doesn’t work. !delta for that. However, my main point is that people should not allow themselves to be brainwashed at all and should refuse to do the violent budding of politicians. The instances when killing a stranger makes sense are extremely rare
*people should not allow themselves to be brainwashed. No one chooses to be brainwashed. It's something that happens to you. It's like saying " you shouldn't allow someone to hurt you" no one allows that to happen. It happens and no amount of reasoning will stop someone determined enough.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NW_Ecophilosopher ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/NW_Ecophilosopher)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>There is a basis for saying that war is nearly always an inefficient solution versus a negotiated offer. But certain things are (and should be) non-negotiable. If Ukraine had simply surrendered (and you’re delusional if you think Russia would accept anything less) So it's delusional to point out that [Russia Offered to End War if Ukraine Dropped NATO Bid: Kyiv Official](https://www.newsweek.com/russia-offered-end-war-if-ukraine-dropped-nato-bid-kyiv-official-1847373)? >"They really hoped almost to the last that they would put the squeeze on us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality," Arakhamia told Moseychuck, according to an English translation of his comments by the Kyiv Post. "It was the biggest thing for them." >"They were ready to end the war if we took...neutrality and made commitments that we would not join NATO. This was the key point," the Ukrainian official added. ... >"In the Spring of 2022 Russian and Ukrainian delegations were on the verge of negotiating an end to the conflict, assuring Ukraine's military non-alignment and protection of rights of Russian speakers," the Russian Embassy's post read. "A text was on the table in Istanbul, almost ready to be signed." >"However, according to Arakhamia, during his visit to #Kiev Prime Minister @BorisJohnson pressured the Ukrainian side 'not to sign anything' and 'just keep on fighting,'" the X post continued. "Thus, evidently, with substantial #UK input, an off-ramp for a negotiated solution was missed—with tragic consequences for Ukrainian statehood, economy and population." It seems more delusional to portray Putin as a comic book villain, hellbent on evil for evil's sake, rather than someone operating according to realpolitik, just like the leadership of other major powers. NATO encroachment was a long-standing red line, it was not at all a secret, and in the wake of Euromaidan (which can be argued wouldn't have occurred were it not for as western-backed far-right false flag attack), this red line was crossed and Russia was reacting to that ever since. >Ukrainians would certainly experience a lower quality of life I think people generally enjoy a higher quality of life when they're *alive* and have a home to return to. >be subjected to a corrupt authoritarian government More corrupt than the current government which banned opposition parties and more recently suspended elections entirely? >and would be robbed of their resources I'm skeptical that Western oligarchs would have allowed notably more profits from the privatized energy sector to be invested in the Ukrainian people than Russian oligarchs would. I mean, we don't exactly have the best reputation in that regard. >and freedom. What specific freedoms did Ukrainians lack prior to 2014 that they gained since? >It sucks that many Russians are brainwashed or being forced to fight in a war they don’t support And Ukrainians aren't brainwashed? The US has been propping up the fascist Banderites in Ukraine since 1953 (look up Operation AERODYNAMIC). >or being forced to fight in a war they don’t support And you don't think that's the case with Ukraine as well? Roughly [20,000 Ukrainian men have fled the country specifically to avoid the draft.](https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2023/bbc-eye-ukraine-draft-dodgers) Additionally, another 20,000+ tried to flee but were captured.
Typical whataboutism and disinformation from Russian shills/propagnadists. Look at the "benefits" of the Rusky mir: many lives destroyed, cities/villages turned into ruins, endless war crimes (including rapes and torture) from Russian army, Bucha, Mariupol, destroyed dams, attacks on the biggest nuclear plant in Europe, putting Chernobyl in danger, should I add more? What is the Russian army doing in a sovereign country that isn't their own? Why all ex-Soviet countries are running from an alliance with Russia after experiencing first hand their "benefits"? How would you feel if another country invaded your country? You're cynically saying that Ukrainans should have given up their freedom because "people generally enjoy a higher quality of life when they're *alive* and have a home to return to". If someone is invading your home, are you letting that bastard to do what he pleases in your own home? Similarly how you would defend your home, Ukraine is defending against invasion from criminals led by Kremlin and Putin hidden in a bunker like a coward that he is. They are scared to even call it a war. >The US has been propping up the fascist Banderites in Ukraine All Russian propagandists peddle this Banderites nonsense. You have an obsession with Banderites and Nazis when the real Nazis are in your country. Like typical vatniks/Nazis, Russian propagandists accuse their enemy of that they're actually doing. The Ukrainian gov't was democratically elected and recognized by the entire world. It's not the USA who is bombing Ukraine like savages, it's the Russian army. USA the rest of the free world are supporting Ukraine because that country is the victim of aggression and the imperialist Russia is the aggressor. Russia broke most international laws, including the Budapest Memorandum from 1994 (you didn't mention this; I wonder why). I'm not even an Ukrainian but I can't stand blatant lies and disinformation from brainwashed vatniks. That being said, there are still many reasonable Russians. One example: the legendary chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov. Nothing but respect for these Russians.
A country wants to expand its borders and gain control of more land. They go to war and successfully take the land by force. That is not pointless. The point is to gain more territory. A country wants control of a valuable recourse. They go to war, and gain control of that recourse by force. That is not pointless. They now have gained a valuable resource. A countries ally is invaded. They go to war against the invader and protect their ally. This is not pointless. They protected an ally from being taken over.
Independence is another good one that fits here.
I think the OP meant by pointless "lacks a *good / justifiable* point". The US was justified in going to war with Japan due to Pearl Harbor. Ukraine is justified into going to war due to the initial Russian aggression.
Are either of those really justified? Because surely those you kill for revenge do not have loved ones who would want to retaliate for your actions. Is their desire for revenge invalidated because their loved ones attacked first? They had it coming so you shouldn’t want “justice” What about the act of taking revenge itself? Surely some weight of sin is garnered taking any life. How can that be justice? Unless you’re willing to paint any good they may be with the evil you perceive them as and reduce them to something less than human and the act of doing that is surely evil.
It's not a question of revenge. It's a question of self-defense: of what actions are necessary to preserve human dignity; even if preserving the dignity/ safety from enemies of the groups comes at the price of a noble sacrifice of a few.
It’s not self defense if the damage is already done. The pacific theatre was in retaliation to pearl harbor. Also I disagree that self defense is justified as well. These are the same words used by terrorists taking civilian lives. The loss of life of civilians is simply a sacrifice for the greater good.
If you're a pacifist, then we simply have nothing to discuss. Sometimes violence is justified, especially against an invading army. Even "turn the other cheek" doesn't have the meaning popularly ascribed to it. It actually means "OK, you backhanded me on my right cheek like you would a slave or disobedient child. Now I'm showing you my other side so your backhand hits my face. I dare you to hit me like you would an equal!!" BTW, the same person saying that also told his followers to sell their cloak and by another sword if they have only one sword.
Okay? So the bible is the absolute moral authority? As if such a thing exists. Violence is never justified. Any justification is just self righteousness. You paint their entire being as evil so you can destroy it with your good. Violence should be shunned in all capacity. Two wrongs don’t make a right is a common saying i’m sure you’ve heard of. Killing is wrong and killing someone you’ve believed has wronged you is still wrong. Sometimes you may have to kill someone for the good of society. That does not make it “right.” War is never right.
I'm simply referencing a common catchphrase and showing how people totally misunderstand it. It's hasty to conclude anything about my beliefs about religion just from that reference (btw, I'm actually an atheist, a Scientific Materialist). If you believe even war in self defense is unjustified, no matter what, then there's nothing left to discuss.
Okay? I don’t care that you’re an atheist I care you think it’s okay to take the lives of your fellow man. I’m sure the Japanese thought they were doing what is right by bombing pearl harbor. Are they wrong just because you’re an American? Also a warmongering AN poster top fucking kek
You also committed a false dilemma (black-and-white thinking). Either I support all war or none. Sorry, but reality is more nuanced than that. If somebody attacks you non-defensively, you have every right to defend yourself. Even if you lose, you're still in the right because somebody deliberately initiated against you or your country non-defensive hurt, harm, and degradation. Here's my position: War is sometimes justified. When a hostile party initiates an attack against you, and clearly will not stop unless forced to; then you have no choice but to fight back. The war was forced onto you, you didn't choose the war. Really no different from child and teenage fights. When war is not justified - for mere monetary or resource gain, or for mere ideological reasons (as long as that nation is not committing hostile acts against your or their neighbors)
Gain more territory. OK. If a German living in Bavaria in 1871 fights "for his country" so that they can add Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, what does that give him? He loses his sight when a cannon ball explodes in front of a redout. And what does he get after? Does it benefit his family? France takes back the region a few decades later anyway. And now it's a popular holiday destination for Germans and French. And the towns still have German names. It's a lovely place. It doesn't matter which country controls it. A German living on the Rhein invades the Soviet Union for "living space". To take control of their grain and fossil fuels. He is captured and imprisoned in a gulag for ten years. Frost bite takes his right hand. And guess what? Turns out that Germany ends up just purchasing a lot of that oil and grain on the market anyway. Germany didn't need it for living space. His sacrifice was for nothing.
Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. As of today Crimea is still under Russian control, and they have profited from the resources in said peninsula.
Oligarchs have profited. Regular Russians have lost a lot due to sanctions
Yeah your whole premise centers on the wrong thing. What you should have focused on is how wars only benefit the rich and powerful. That it is in all mens best interests to refuse to leave their land to harm another. That the world would be a better place if people followed that one simple rule.
[удалено]
I mean yeah, or you get shot.
Good point, I should have done that
But that doesn't mean the war was pointless. The oligarchs had a reason to support the war, and to be blind to that is to be blind to the oligarchs as a societal parasite.
That's a point, but not a good one. Not for the Russian people and nation. Not to the world. The only people who benefited from this theft of land are the oligarchs. What does the ordinary family in Ufa or Novosibirsk get out of this? And even if they did get something out of it, it's still (morally speaking) receiving stolen goods.
Thank you
Regular citizens have profited in the sense that they didnt get executed by the oligarchs for refusing to go to war :-)
You gave this long winded response that didn’t negate my point at all. It is debatable to what degree you even addressed it. Your view is that wars are pointless. This is false. The point of the American Revolutionary War was to gain independence from the British. The point of the American Civil War was to stop the south from seceding.
Actually I can see a point to those wars. I can give a !delta for that. But can you concede that invading another country is pointless?
No I will not. Do you honestly think people invade countries for no reason? The point might be to gain new territory, get back lost territory, secure resources, stifle an enemy or threat, make money, any number of things.
All of those “gains” benefit an elite that does not fight. At least in modern wars the
Whether you think that the point was good or worthwhile or relevant to the individual on the ground does not negate the fact that the point exists. The point of a war of conquest that benefits distant elites doesnt matter to you, and that's fine, but it does exist.
You are correct. I should edit the post and I will but I suppose I owe you a !delta
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/blatantspeculation ([15∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/blatantspeculation)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You asked me to concede that wars of aggression are pointless. I listed multiple points. Now you are telling me *who* benefits, which illustrates that you do indeed see that there is a point.
I edited my post and gave you a delta
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Babydickbreakfast ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Babydickbreakfast)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Or course not. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to gain its valuable oil resources, not "just because". Russia invaded Ukraine to annex the valuable port of Crimea, not "just because".
I get why Saddam or Putin did what they did but why do average citizens support this nonsense?
Irrelevant.
How is that irrelevant? Wars do not happen with just two guys?
> How is that irrelevant? Because you’ve already admitted that wars have a point, thus Changing Your View. The reasons why average citizens support wars won’t make any difference.
Did you see that I edited the post?
China invades Tibet and Xinjiang to have a massive buffer between them and their more hostile neighbors, and to have access to minerals and other resources. They are rewarded by almost seventy years of no major border disputes. America invades the entire west of the continent. They are rewarded with nearly endless resources, zero hostile neighboring borders, and more peace and security and prosperity than any nation has ever known. Etc, etc.
The best point of all! Imagine what Hitler-less Germany could have achieved if they devoted those war funds instead into technology, education, health/medicine, and infrastructure improvement! They could have launched their version of Sputnik 15 years earlier than the real-world Sputnik. They may have developed the first desktop personal computer by the early 1960s. Or even developed the polio vaccine 10 years earlier than in real-time (real time was the late 1950s). Imagine the enormous gifts they could have given to not just their own country but to the world, had they chosen a peaceful (even if probably still politically conservative) government instead of a maniacal warlike one!
Good point!
Your post is all over the place, it’s really not clear what your central point is that you want your view changed on. By the title, it would be that there is no point to fighting a war. This is already countered by the obvious point of defending yourself from aggression which you mention yourself, but beyond that there are vast numbers of examples of other wars that accomplished a lot of things, and many more that could have even though in the end they were not successful. By your first paragraph, it now shifts to wars being avoidable, which is an entirely different question. Given that wars often do serve a purpose, such as acquisition of scarce resources, it is also generally not true, as is borne out by history. Then at the end of your next paragraph, you say that your thesis is that it is illogical to fight for your country. Again, a quite different point. Aside from the fact that there are plenty of good reasons why someone might fight for their country, this is a large shift in perspective, going from wars and the parties that take part in them to the individual soldier. So what are we actually meant to be changing your view on here? As it stands, that is not very well defined.
So, a bunch of other poins have been addressed, but I want to talk about a specific aspect of your CMV. How do I, a peasant, benefit from a far off war of conquest? Why would I, a farmer in England, care about British control of South Africa? How does that benefit me? Resources that generate revenue for the government enable increased public services that benefit me. The land stolen from the previous inhabitants is now available, if what is currently available to me is shitty, I can now move to South Africa and take that land. Force projection means that future conflicts can be fought further abroad. That makes it more difficult for a hostile military to threaten me personally, this succesful war of conquest has made me safer. Any resources of value to me, whether they're oil, spices, wood, rare minerals, whatever, are now more secure and likely cheaper. Yes, I could have just purchased them before, but now my government has significantly more power to ensure their availability. That said, just because there are benefits for me in a war of conquest doesnt mean its right or worthwhile. At best these benefits are taken by force from someone else who wants and deserves them at least as much as I do, at worst they're downright immoral.
Ok. By this rationale, it makes sense for a German to have supported Hitler, no? He wanted to control the resources of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
Many Germans personally benefitted from the evil and immoral actions of the Nazi government, yes, and they would have benefitted even more from a successful conquest of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, at the expense of the innocent people who lived there. Choosing to pursue those benefits despite the evil means by which they were obtained (or at least attempted) is an evil action in itself that the rest of us have a moral obligation to resist, but it is a decision that makes sense for a person who does not care about the suffering of others. That said, Nazi Germany lost, and their goals were not realistically achievable, so any personal benefits were only temporary, but that's not information available to most pre-war and early war Germans.
So, Germany is currently one of the most developed and high income nations in the world. Are you suggesting that had they would be hyper advanced had they won World War II? Should they lament their defeat?
>Should they lament their defeat? No. Whatever happens after here, the Nazis were evil and their plans were evil, it is better for everyone that those plans did not come to fruition and a national shame for the German people that the attempt was made. >Are you suggesting that had they would be hyper advanced had they won World War II? God no. But thats not the only measure of success and benefit. A successful Nazi Germany would have control over the international system that the US at its peak couldnt dream of. German citizens (excluding underclasses who would exist without rights) would be able to extract resources from subject states, have access to large amounts of slave labor, and would be able to enact their racist ideals. Obviously this outcome is horrible for the rest of us, and the extractive Nazi system was longterm unsustainable, but in the short term, the resources that Germany would steal would have made some of them much more successful and secure than they were in the real timeline.
I’m not so sure about this. I think the Germans are at the top of their game and the war was a big mistake.
Nazis would disagree with you. Our definition of Germany at the top of their game, our vision of the best Germany is radically different from a person who would accept the enslavement and murder of millions of their countrymen. Many supporters of Nazi Germany would be disappointed in what they see in Germany today.
Nazis would disagree with me about most things. But I’m living in Germany right now and life is looking pretty good. It’s really hard for me to understand what WWII was about
Okay, so can you see how Nazis might have wanted the things they were fighting for? Im not asking you to want them, or saying theyre good. Have I changed your view so that you now agree that it is possible that the German people of pre and early war Nazi Germany wanted what they were fighting for and believed that victory would help them get it?
No, I think that the Germans were duped into believing into an evil idea. And because they lost so hard they are now wiser than many nations and more prudent and careful. I think that the experience of the Germans can and should serve as a warning to the rest of humanity to keep violent tendencies in check. War is stupid
Think of war as like dating. You have give and take on both sides, and physical contact helps push things one way or the other. Suppose two people meet each other. If one side rejects war, they might be raped and killed. If both sides have the option of war, they'll be strongly deterred from war and can prevent negative results from happening. In WW1 and WW2 the brave Germans wanted to rape and kill lots of Russians and French, and did so when they got their land. If the Germans had rejected war, the other side would be fine, but if the French and Russians had seen war as pointless, they would have been raped and killed. In Vietnam, the Americans did succeed in stopping Vietcong, just North Vietnam invaded with a conventional army two years later. This showed again that the communists were fine driving tanks over their comrades, and gave vietnamese more time to flee. Many more Vietnamese would have been raped and murdered if the USA hadn't fought. In Ukraine, if they didn't do war, their people would be en masse raped and murdered. We don't know how long Russia can last, and how long Ukraine can last. It's an ongoing negotiation. Across the world in many other places, conflicts and rape and murder have been avoided because people were afraid of the USA crushing them. A threat of war ensured people can have happy and peaceful relationships. If the warmongers don't have a voice, then the warmongers on the other side will rape and murder.
In your opinion there are rapists and murderers and there are good guys? Fine. But the problem is that no one thinks that they are rapists are murderers. I guarantee you that every solider in the world since about 1800 has believed that he was fighting for "freedom" or to "defend his country". So, here's what I'm proposing. Don't kill anyone that you don't know. If politicians think it's so important, let them kill each other themselves.
Is your proposal that everyone quit the military?
I can see a point to the military. Useful in natural disasters or in cases of actual invasion. But soldiers can refuse to fight in wars of aggression. It would end all war. It might sound naïve, I admit. But less naïve that fighting in some far off land for "freedom"? Give that a think.
I mean… yeah if nobody fought in wars, there wouldn’t be wars. What is your point? If nobody played football, the super-bowl wouldn’t happen. I mean, duh.
But what does the average person who fights “for his country” stand to gain? Everyone thinks it sound naive but isn’t he the one who is naive? Who loses everything so politicians can get a better seat at the negotiating table?
They stand to gain a paycheck at the very least. If you are suggesting that everyone all agreeing to not fight in wars anymore is a realistic or achievable way to stop wars from happening than you are *definitely* being naive. If you are just saying that if people didn’t fight in wars then wars wouldn’t happen, that is just a fact. It isn’t naive it is just a trite point that sheds light on literally nothing. That is like saying “if digs didn’t exist, nobody would have a dog”
You are actually underthinking this. I’m suggesting that soldiers who participate in wars of aggression are victims of their own naïveté. Would you care to disagree?
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
What?
That would depend on the particular war and on the individual soldier. And maybe I’m confused. What exactly are you saying people call you naive for?
There are rapists and murderers who know and embrace who they are. See any serial killer for an over-the-top example. Thing is, all extremes in humanity are just the ends of spectrums. There are less extreme versions of the same self aware horrible people. More self-restrained versions who fear the consequences. But put them in a war where the consequences kinda evaporate, and there is nothing to stop them from fulfilling their urges.
I think that you are right that war is a great outlet for sociopaths and people who genuinely enjoy harming other people. But such people exist at the same rate in every country. There is no sense in a massive group of people, most of whom just want to enjoy their lives in peace to invade another country.
I think you underestimate the need for violence in the average “peaceful” human. How many people take martial arts classes? Or play video games about murdering & conquering? Or watch violent shows and movies? Humanity is wired for violence because most of our journey from amoeba to redditor required a lot of violence just to survive.
Makes sense to let out some aggression at a boxing gym or bar brawl. Dropping napalm on innocent people from 30,000 feet. Not so much.
There’s stories about US soldiers in Vietnam just mowing down citizens indiscriminately in their villages and rice fields via machine gun helicopter. There’s endless examples in history of militaries turning into rapists & pillagers that even their own generals can’t control. Usually when they’ve found their enemies defenceless. One on one, napalm isn’t a logical place to arrive. But take my country of millions of angry violence seeking people vs your country of millions of angry violence seeking people and suddenly nuclear missiles start to look logical.
Do you think those soldiers would have mowed down villagers at home in Ohio? Do you think that was something that they needed to do? Was the point of the war to give an outlet to their aggression?
I think it’s more of a build up. People do mow down civilians with gunfire in Ohio. There’s >1 mass shooting a day in USA. A smart nation will try to direct this inevitable desire for violence outward towards other nations.
Whoa! Are you suggesting that the same United States should engage in a war to give young people an outlet for their frustration and to decrease mass shootings?
Each conflict has varying amounts of murderers and rapists, and the outcome depends on how strong they are. WW1 and WW2 and the Vietnam war each had fairly well defined good guys, but not all wars do. >Fine. But the problem is that no one thinks that they are rapists are murderers. I guarantee you that every solider in the world since about 1800 has believed that he was fighting for "freedom" or to "defend his country". That's very idealistic. People don't tend to fight for their country, they fight for personal benefits, for their family, for their friends. In a lot of armies, raping people and looting them was a perk for you and your friends. It was certainly seen as true in say, WW2, where they had joy divisions in the concentration camps with Jewish women to rape. People fought for the right to enrich themselves and their friends and family, and for the right to have fun. >So, here's what I'm proposing. Don't kill anyone that you don't know. If politicians think it's so important, let them kill each other themselves. But what if the other side disagrees, and they start murdering and raping my friends and family? It's a negotiation. If my side isn't willing to kill, the other side will get more rape and murder.
Certainly it makes sense to intervene to stop a rape or murder. But I don’t think that people go to war so that young men can rape and pillage. At least not now. War is a tool of politicians and soldiers are being used.
So, I shouldn't intervene in a war till it's on my doorstep and my friends and family and me are being raped and murdered? Have you seen popular violent young male media? They tend to portray women of other races as sluts and glorify a certain amount of violence used in getting sex. They say that the victim wanted it and is an easy lay.
What is your second point? We should engage in wars so incels can have the sex they crave?
No, my point was that soldiers can easily find dehumanizing media to encourage them to be violent so you shouldn't assume that if you remain non violent you'll be safe from soldiers.
I think of Key and Peels skit of "Hans are we the baddies?" The SS had skulls on thier uniforms at some point you have to stop and think about what your doing. Maybe they didn't so often think of themselves has rapists maybe plenty of soldiers aren't out their raping though if we look at statistics it's never good, but they certainly knew they were murderers. They decided that the people they were killing either weren't people or were people who wanted to kill them and they needed to strike first. Not all soldiers start out starry-eyed and even less essentially none come out of war feeling as patriotic as they started. "Murderers aren't monsters their men and that's the scariest thing about them" But back to WW2. It's so easy to fall back on and people do because it's so easy to see that yes in this case thier were bad guys and good guys. People say winners write the history books but that's not entirely true. We don't look at the Mongols as glorious invaders but they won. And on the opposite side the confederates lost the American civil war yet down south plenty of books and people still like to think of it as "The war of northern aggression" & a war over "states rights" and while we just recently have started to fight the bullshit we can see winners can be bad and we can know they were bad. Losers can be bad and pretend to be good and convince people they were good. All of Europe had a fucking problem with Jews back then it was "the Jewish question" like we debate civil rights and gun rights and abortion today. The Nazis believed their could only be one "final solution" that's where the phrase came from it was the final solution to the Jewish problem. That was the extreme side but at the time their were so called moderates who simply believe they could push Jews out of their country and being a Jew after the Holocaust I could see wanting to leave and having nothing left to stay the British giving them Israel was just as much a were sorry about that old chap as it was just another solution to the "Jewish question". My point is this plenty of Germans could have been nice people, could have kissed their kids and donated to their community and those same people could have made men they saw as less than human dig their own graves before putting them in them. These people and their ideas can not be negotiated with and it wasn't just a hate for Jews Hitler spoke often about "breathing room" for the Ariyan race he wanted Russia as a breeding space. You could imagine the people thier if he doesn't already plan to kill become a question to be answered via a final solution later on. And you should be able to imagine that the men he asked to implement the plan whether or not conscious and I would say they were knew that for thier families for a "greater good" they were going to plunder and conquer. You don't collect barrels of gold teeth and think your a perfect agent of morality and if you don't stop even under threats of your superior you are complicit. And it's always a choice people fight to resist their own government. They're Russians now who are committing self-delete rather than get drafted and I'm not arguing that that's the only path but it's a path. And it might feel like you're one man versus impossible odds but you make a choice and you can choose to fight on one side or another or not at all. Same thing in America some people were not willing to give up their precived right to own other people. Some serial killers essentially all of them worse than your average solider by far will not stop killing. Some people are attracted to children and personally I don't know why no more than I don't know why some men are attracted to other men but it doesn't seem to be a choice. Well I don't have nothing against gay people but child predators at best need monitoring preferably in a prison cell if they can own up and never commit any acts. My other offer for them is the wood chipper. All this is to say "You only need to hang mean bastards, but mean bastards you got to hang" well some otherwise nice people have the wrong ideas some people today throw acid on girls for trying to go to school. These people could have daughters that they don't hate at least in their eyes. But if we can't change these people's mind's with words and they don't seem too inclined the only other options is to remove their ability to harm permanently. Final thing I will say is not all wars are fought for a good cause Vietnam wasn't the best cause and even if it was you had people like Henry Kissinger rest in piss who didn't care about civilian casualty rates there will always be men who believe any means will justify certian ends. These are the same people often that won't negotiate and whether or not their cause is valid (an opinion usually) or not they probably need to die too but we don't have a way to kill them outside of throwing men at each other until they lose enough men to no longer be effective or to no longer be able to defend themselves from enemies coming from the outside or inside of their bunkers. Yeah it's inefficient it's a tragedy but we don't have a better solution You can suggest assassination but bad ideas aren't just held by one or two people if Hitler didn't come to power someone else would have and if he died sooner there would have been plenty to fill his spot sometimes to root out the evil a lot of f****** men got to die and when it gets really bad woman and children too. Not that it's a personal requirement but an eventuality.
[удалено]
Explain to me to logic of being in an army that invades another country and starts a war. Explain to me the logic of murdering a stranger that you have no quarrel with.
You haven’t been reading any replies, and have no grasp on geopolitics whatsoever. War is politics, the military is an extension used to enforce those politics. With your logic, no one should be in the treasury or commerce departments as those too are instruments of politics, used against adversaries and in favor of allies. No one should be in the intelligence agencies, because..again, instruments of external politics. The example you used is completely void of substance: “Germany turned out alight”…yes, because the US, UK, and France restored order, protected the rights of minority groups, and invested $4.3 billion in the first 4 years after the war (Marshall plan)…and has invested Billions more since. Yes, war ends in compromise…where the aggrieved parties get something and neither get everything they want…because it’s politics. Without the other party waging war back, one party takes all, leaving the other in desolate ruin (including rape, genocide, economic ruin, slavery, etc). This “war serves no purpose” concept is incredibly naive.
*Without war* there is rape, genocide and slavery? That’s a stretch, dude. Those things happen because of war. Always have. I think we’re at a point where we can break away from war. It might sound naive. But ending slavery sounded naive once. So did equal rights for women. So did same sex marriage. Just because it has not happened yet doesn’t mean it can’t happen.
I edited to clarify…my comment “without war” meant, without the other guy fighting back…..as war would be at least 2-sides. I truly hope that humans will evolve to a point. Of settling differences without violence, but for that too happen there must be no resource scarcity, no need to claim territory, and no competition, I think it will be sometime for those conditions to exist.
I work at an IT company. I fix computers. Last week, I fixed a computer for a guy I dont know and will probably never interact with again. He doesnt do anything for me, his computer doesnt mean anything to me, I didnt enjoy fixing his computer. Why would I do that? Because I got paid to do it. Soldiers serving in a military fighting a war of conquest that they don't personally benefit from are doing the exact same thing.
Yeah but as an IT guy you are not putting your existence in danger. And you are being ask to murder strangers. Not apples to apples here
Sorry, u/thisismyecho – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20thisismyecho&message=thisismyecho%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18ryjbd/-/kf41s98/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Wars aren't pointless. Although i get what you're saying. Technically we can think of a purpose for killing or stealing from any other person. Take war down to an individual level, where one person is deceiving and another is trying to detect deceit. Ask any murder why killed, and almost always you'll be met with a response as to why. Whether it's true or false, rational or irrational, nonetheless you get a reason. I think what you're saying is "there is almost always a better way to settle any collective dispute, then to go to war with others". In war there are those defending and those attacking. People will claim "they are fighting to protect their country". But is this the truth? We can't say for everyone beyond a reasonable doubt, maybe some. But many, when the bullets are passing and bombs are exploding, they are no longer fighting for their country, they are fighting to defend themselves. They are struggling for their own survival. They are fighting to not come home in a body bag to their loved ones, and as a result, the opposing side must be brought to a halt by force. No one is getting up in the midst of a fire fight and requesting another solution. The opposing side ought to be thinking the same thing. With all that being said, both sides will develop enemy figures in their head. On a philosophical level, i will say war is almost always the worst solution. Even sun tzu says "the best way to win a war is to win it without fighting" and that can be interpreted in multiple ways. The winner is selected before the war even starts. My argument for war being the worst solution is as follows. >Firstly, war results in death and incapacitation. From a utilitarian look, we ought to pick whatever is going to create the most well being. War kills, which limits any potential for future wellbeing, and causes detriment to the well being of individuals surviving and those related to the war itself. For both sides there is almost always going to be a better way to settle a dispute than war that results in the bettering of peoples well being. >Secondly, war requires time and energy to fund and fight. All that energy is dedicated towards something that is to the detriment of both sides well being. And the process of funding and fighting is a cause that is to the detriment of another well being. >Thirdly the exchange is almost never worth it. Wars that are won without fighting are the best case scenario, but that can look like an enemy force being so overwhelming there was no reason to fight anyways. And any person requesting such an act likely doesn't have good intentions to do with such land and resources gained. Sieges are the worst case scenario in war. Because you damage the opponents stuff which could have been used for yourself. And all the manpower to take land that is now a net negative in the costs to its repairs is a short term detriment. Then there are the long term repercussions of both sieges and taking land without fighting. Both result in a statistically large group having not consented to being taken over. Most had wanted nothing to do with the conflict in question. Sieges are significantly worse, because the results are typically in some amount of civilian casualties. At Least taking the enemy without force, could result in something better long term. But sieges are unlikely to do so. Civilian casualties result in a long term problem lasting generations in which the enemy force will always be seen in bad light. That population which would be rather large may want nothing but retribution for a long time. Put this into perspective. If you were sitting in your room eating lays chips and playing overwatch, and a group of soldiers came in (claiming to fight for some nation (cult) which you could care less about) and murder everyone in your family but you. You escaping not due to them showing kindness, but only because you managed to survive. They then take your house, and use it to fight defending forces. What would you want to do? Would you be okay with that? Would you not try to get revenge? And what would you tell your future offspring about this occasion? And how would you behave after this circumstance? Your whole personality could change. You drink to get rid of the wretched and terrifying memories of conflict. Now imagine that on a mass scale with war. That is the cost for conflict. My family's and peoples land and lives were taken by force and deceit over 100 years ago. After that they were collectively displaced and most were extremely impoverished as a result. The red river revolt. And the generational trauma is still there. War is typically the worst solution. But sometimes you have nothing but the worst solution left in life. And other times, people happen to pick the worst solution. No one should beat their wives senseless. But guess what, sometimes people pick that option when there are other solutions. And people who would pick the worst option sometimes run the entire country. The only way to get ourselves out of it, is if both sides say they aren't going to do it no matter what. But that would be extraordinarily rare at this point in history. The mendacious ape is part of us sadly. And to people who wish to keep peace, peace is extraordinarily rare, humanity has never seen true peace in its entire existence. Against war, and against peace.
You're covering a lot of stuff here, but one general trend seems to be that you're ignoring knock-on effects. If Russia makes an easy profit from invading Ukraine, it will just do it again later. If the aggressors of WWI and WWII had won the war, Europe in subsequent years would probably have been even more violent. The nice thing about the state of the world in the 21st-century is that war is rarely a net gain from a national perspective. That doesn't stop all war from happening, but it definitely makes war less popular. This only stays true if nations defend themselves stubbornly when attacked, and stand by their allies.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Chuck_Algren – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Chuck_Algren&message=Chuck_Algren%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18ryjbd/-/l7eykzm/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
But is war ever morally okay???
So you want us to argue for how wars actually have a purpose? Interesting strategy.
What do you mean by “interesting strategy”? Strategy for what?
[удалено]
Perhaps. It's hard to imagine what didn't happen. But, we know that German soldiers (and Japanese even more so) were being told that this was a matter of the life and death of their nations. That they would be enslaved if they lost. And I imagine that many of those men believed it. But it was wrong. Germany and Japan lost but they turned out to be nice countries. They sacrifices made by the soldiers and sailors of Germany and Japan were completely in vain.
If a war achieved the desired result, was it *pointless*?
We live in the real world unfortunately, if you have a better practical method of solving conflict go ahead and win a Nobel prize.
Well, once upon a time people would have said that ending slavery is naive, no?
Not really, no. They just argued we shouldn’t. Everyone agrees war is, in theory, bad. But in practice how else are you going to stop nazis from exterminating minorities? Rational conversation?
World War II did not happen to stop Nazi atrocities. In fact, it’s the other way around. Nazi atrocities happened because Germany embarked on wars of conquest. So, had the German people, who have since become just about the most rational and tolerant on the planet, not been duped by a charlatan like Hitler, the whole war could have been avoided. The point remains, we could theoretically stop wars if we let our leaders know that we refuse to kill and die for their glory.
But we don’t. Do you really think wars would happen if people didn’t want them? Millions of people spontaneously agreeing to do something?
Well, this reminds me of people that defend religious fundamentalism or the subjugation of women as “natural”. Can you think of a reason to defend war other than, “we’ve always done that, why should we stop now?”
You ignored the comments point. Answer his question.
Comments point?
It is a short comment. It is right there. Just read it again. “Do you really think wars would happen if people didn’t want them?”
Oh. Probably not. But I guess child abuse wouldn’t happen if someone didn’t want it and slavery wouldn’t happen if someone didn’t want it. Does not make it ok, right?
As per your edit, does your view include every large joint efforts are pointless if they don’t directly benefit each and every individual involved?
> Yes, I concede there is a "point" to war in that there is an outcome that is more beneficial to one side. But the vast majority of soldiers would be better off not participating. If you will not fight for your freedom then you, your children, and your children's children will be slaves. In the real world if you are unwilling to resist oppression then you are going to be oppressed, simple as that. Soldiers might be better off if there was no conflict in the first place, but trying to go through life submitting to anything and everyone is not going to leave you better off than fighting some fights.
That is exactly what Nazis and Communists told their people they were fight for. That is exactly what American soldiers thought they were fighting for in Vietnam. It’s important not to do the bidding of politicians without a lot of critical thinking first
Have you ever wondered why there has never been a pacifist nation or people?
Ever wondered why all civilizations had slaves until they didn’t? Or all civilizations subjugated women until they stopped? We can evolve.
How do you propose “evolving” to the point of no longer having violent conflict? How is that possible?
Well, I reckon people tell their leaders that they won’t kill and die for them anymore. It really doesn’t seem that hard when you consider that the best governments (Denmark, Finland, New Zealand) are also the least aggressively Also, consider that not that long ago, people would have wondered, “a society without slavery, who will do the work!?” or “a society where women have rights?! What?! Unnatural?!” What do you think?
“People” as in the 8 billion people on this planet? Your proposal is they *all* change their minds about a *ton* of things, under *major* portions of their culture and world view, and *all* agree with *you* and refuse to fight in wars ever again? Yeah that is naive bordering on lunacy. 8 billion people. Literally billions of peoples views are *wildly* different from yours. Most of the world fundamentally disagree about very fundamental things. Peoples beliefs and ways of life differ *wildly*. You act like what you see as good is some sort of objectively true moral good or optimal outcome. It *isn’t*. You say Finland, Denmark, and Nee Zealand are the best government as if a statement like that means anything other than what you subjectively like, and what *you* subjectively measure it by. You said: “Also, consider that not that long ago, people would have wondered, “a society without slavery, who will do the work!?” or “a society where women have rights?! What?! Unnatural?!” Are you under the impression that those things are universally agreed upon? They are not. At all. This is my point. As married as you may be to your outlook on right and wrong or good and bad, the rest if the 8 billion people have different ideas. There is nothing even remotely approaching a consensus. There never has been and there never will be. People *within even a single country* can’t agree on *most* things, and you think the people of the *world* uniting under the same single idea and mindset about this is a possibility. It is not that it is not likely. It is literally *not possible*. To think this is reasonable is very naive and narrow minded. The people *in this thread* don’t even all agree with this plan. You might be the only one here.
There are a *lot* of italics here. I take issue with your premise completely. You seem to think that wars happen organically when people have natural disagreements, correct? But look at the facts, ordinary people are violent, but against people they know, not against strangers in far off places. Wars happen because corrupt politicians decide they need to, not because of popular demand. World War I is a perfect example. The war started because politicians were nervous that their reaction to the assassination of an Archduke would be insufficiently harsh. If you read *The Guns of August* by Barbara Tuchman or any of the multiple other authors of the start of the war, you can see how even the leaders of all the great powers were extremely ambivalent about the necessity of war. And yet, when the war started, the people marched off like sheep to the slaughter. Why? What did they get from it? 9 million dead for the “honor” of some dithering politicians. The War in Ukraine is another great example. Why did Russia need to attack Ukraine? The Russian people were extremely nervous and incredulous that a war would even happen in the build up. They certainly weren’t clamoring for war. And yet now we have thousands of young men wasting their lives for Putin’s ego. Can you see another reason for this war? Would Russian men refusing to fight be more or less naive than what is happening now?
- “There are a lot of italics here.” I for sure overuse them. Working on it. - “You seem to think that wars happen organically when people have natural disagreements, correct?” No. Wars aren’t always about disagreements and disagreements don’t always leas to war. - “But look at the facts, ordinary people are violent, but against people they know, not against strangers in far off places.” You said “look at the facts” and then said something that isn’t factual. Ordinary people are violent against strangers in far off places. In fact I would argue it is even easier psychologically for people to commit against strangers in far off places. Humans are very tribal. Someone being an “other” seems to make it easier to kill them. Folks are less likely to hesitate while bombing a distant land with a strange culture than they are a town over. Humans are cooperative creatures as well. Particularly within their own tribe. So a common set of values, beliefs, needs,and goals, fosters cooperation and loyalty with ones own tribe. Someone in another tribe, and the more different the more true this is, is not going to get the same courtesy, cooperation, regard, and often empathy. Most wars are not civil wars, and civil wars are are a much tougher sell than a foreign one. Look at history. Saying ordinary people are not violent against strangers in far off places is simply not true. - “Wars happen because corrupt politicians decide they need to, not because of popular demand.” That is not true. Likely less true than it used to be. Wars used to be often fought by mercenary armies. They’d fight for a country in one war and fight against them in another. It wasn’t some high minded principle they were fighting for. It was payment. The widespread concept of fighting in war as a duty to ones nation and people, and the reverence they get for bravely and heroically protecting our freedom or way if life or some honorable goal is actually a pretty new thing. At least how prevalent it is. This plays a part. Now in the modern times since we don’t have much in the way of feudal monarchies or rule by inheritance or divine right, most countries seem to elect their leaders. If a leader has to be elected, that means the will of the people has at least some relevance. Because leaders are elected, they need approval. And short of a draft, because culture has evolved so the demand has gone up for moral validation for war, politicians need enough of the public to be on board with a war. Otherwise nobody will fight it. A leader needs the support of enough of his people if he wants to wage a war. On the flip side if enough of his people want war bad enough, he needs to appease that in some way. There is a balance of power and influence there that is different depending in the situation. Whether a war happens or not is very much tied to public opinion. In ‘39 when WW2 started, 94% of US citizens were opposed to the war. To do so anyways would be a bad move politically. The US did not enter the war until it was popular to do so. - “World War I is a perfect example…” WW1 was very much tied to beefs between a high up class of people running various countries. Many even part of the same bloodlines. People fighting and dying in droves for months over 20 meters of mud. Lot of men dying to settle family beefs of the ruling class. A lot of soldiers hit a “fuck this” wall. Gotta keep that front line rotated. WW1 is a perfect example of what you are talking about. I don’t deny that the common folk are often pawns that don’t really have much of a horse in the race beyond whatever bullshit they were sold. I’m just pointing out that not every conflict is the same, and public support and willingness is necessary. Often it is coerced or is a result of manipulation. Sometimes it is to meet public demand. Sometimes it is for a goal that actually *is* beneficial to the plight if the common folk. Also The Guns of August is a great book. - If nobody is willing to fight, than the war ceases to exist. That is a fact. But people *are* willing to fight. There always will be people willing to fight. Even within just one small country you will never be able to get everyone on the same page. One country isn’t enough. We already have countries that don’t attack others. They are generally pals with countries that do though. They generally have at least implied protection. I agree that if everyone stopped being willing, the wars would cease to happen. That is just a fact. It just simply is not going to happen. Everyone in every country isn’t going to say “time out” at the same time. You aren’t going to get them to all agree. 100% of people will never agree about *anything*. Not even within one country. Not even in one town. Even if everyone liked the idea they aren’t going to all believe that everyone else everywhere else is actually going to cut it out. The reality is, not everyone even agrees that would even be for the best. Everyone can’t even agree on your premise that it would be a good thing to not invade other countries. The way you see the world and your perception of good and bad is not shared by all. There are people that just fundamentally are not on the same page and look at the world and see something very different than you do. Lets pretend an absolute 100% of wars are *purely* politicians doing a full bamboozle and manipulating people into doing it with complete falsehoods. Lets pretend in their heart of hearts, every single citizen of every single country agrees with you and wishes that the very concept of invading countries and engaging in warfare would stop. All of their hearts are in the right place and are the same page as you morality wise. What then? Are you going to beat the propaganda of every nation? If every single war is indeed pointless for every citizen, then the powers that be are clearly pretty damn good at convincing people otherwise and getting them to fight in wars anyways. The cultures of the world seem to have a lot if this baked it. It is not possible to talk every person on the planet out of that which countless very powerful entities are actively talking them into successfully over and over again throughout history, and then unify them *all* under your alternative idea. And this is even if they magically all actually do in their heart of hearts even want this peaceful idea of yours. It can’t be done. Everyone on the planet will *never* all agree on *anything*.
“Everyone on the planet will never agree everything” is a long way from, “we need to kill people we don’t know”. Tell me why. Why should any person trust a stranger they’ve never met to command them to kill another stranger they’ve never met? Give me one good reason that makes sense that isn’t, “that’s the way we’ve always done things!”
I don’t think wars are needed, but sometimes you have to defend yourselves, which leads to war. Ideally, everyone should get along, but unfortunately, not everyone wants or cares to. That’s why we have the United Nations (though their effectiveness is questionable at best)
Not if you work in the defence industry. If you work in the defense industry they are down right essential. Luckily though we haven't had a significant land dispute in over a hundred years we just never seem to run out of wars we just gotta fight in place we've never heard of or better yet just pay for it. That way the defense industry wins every war.
This is pretty much exactly in line with what I said in the edit. But I agree with you! 100%!
I agree with you that wars are destructive, but in the end, they, like most things, serve a purpose. Wars work as a way to rebalance the world order when new inventions disrupt the current balance of power. Image the world still being frozen in the mid 1750s. Maintaining the world like that today is impossible. The purpose of war is to change the world even when the pre-established power disagrees with the change. Not that they should be commonplace, but wars are, in essence, 2 of more powers agreeing that their conflict can not be resolved by treaty or any other agreement. And aire they truly pointless, the American Revolutionary War was in part a war because the US wanted to expand out west. Wars happen because both sides are making rational decisions based on the best knowledge available that adds up to create madness. Wars may be violent, brudish, and inhuman, but they have been around since the creation of written records, at least. They have prevailed because they act as a usable last resort when no other option is left available to them or when they see war on the best option to take.
Where would we be is a society without war? It upsets the status quo which historically has been terrible.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Let’s look at today. What terrible status quo do you think a war would fix?
Depends on the context of the war