Para Bellum - "Prepare For War."

[Advent]

Dude. Nuclear bombs, well, I could come up with a thread on those babies.

Nuclear bombs are normally only used to end or prevent wars. They have they're own special effect however. A large nuclear arsenal usually deters other nations from the thought of full scale attack. They're actual use though is to take out strategic targets before the enemy can retaliate.

Be very worried people. Observe below: The doomsday clock.


Yes. I believe you're reading that correctly. We have been close to global annihilation 3 times over the years. The closer it is to midnight, the closer we are to a worldwide nuclear winter. We were almost there at 1953.

Currently, we are six minutes away from midnight. Not the best we've been.

Now, I believe that war may be necessary at times. It might have it's benefits. It might make worldwide peace for a few years. But if we have to choose between settling our disputes and putting and end to war, or suffering total nuclear annihilation globally and possible extinction of our species, the first option is the one I'd go for.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Advent

Dude. Nuclear bombs, well, I could come up with a thread on those babies.

Nuclear bombs are normally only used to end or prevent wars. They have they're own special effect however. A large nuclear arsenal usually deters other nations from the thought of full scale attack. They're actual use though is to take out strategic targets before the enemy can retaliate.

Be very worried people. Observe below: The doomsday clock.


Yes. I believe you're reading that correctly. We have been close to global annihilation 3 times over the years. The closer it is to midnight, the closer we are to a worldwide nuclear winter. We were almost there at 1953.

Currently, we are six minutes away from midnight. Not the best we've been.

Now, I believe that war may be necessary at times. It might have it's benefits. It might make worldwide peace for a few years. But if we have to choose between settling our disputes and putting and end to war, or suffering total nuclear annihilation globally and possible extinction of our species, the first option is the one I'd go for.

I'll start working on my nuclear bunker then.

But yeah, your logic is sound. Nuclear weapons are largely just a deterant.

I don't see humanity compromising to such an extent that it stops war altogether. So best we get strapped in for a painful future. May you live in interesting times.

[Advent]

Originally Posted by Spock

I'll start working on my nuclear bunker then.

But yeah, your logic is sound. Nuclear weapons are largely just a deterant.

I don't see humanity compromising to such an extent that it stops war altogether. So best we get strapped in for a painful future. May you live in interesting times.

In fact, nuclear weapons are just being stored away until that dreaded day comes. All they are used for these days is to keep enemies afraid.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Advent

In fact, nuclear weapons are just being stored away until that dreaded day comes. All they are used for these days is to keep enemies afraid.

Well, I hope our society goes beyond that. Remember nuclear war destroyed earth in Star Trek during world war 3. But humanity rose from the ashes more powerful than ever.

[Advent]

Awesome.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Advent

Awesome.

[neytirifanboy]

I am going to make a general point about war rather than discussing whether it is justified or not.

One of the reasons I like reading novels is that occasionally an author can come up with some very interesting concepts which I like to assimilate in my own thinking.

In one recent novel, an idea was expressed that it does not matter who wins or loses a war as war is nothing more than a physical expression of a hormonal impulse. In other words we go to war because our hormones demand it of us as our instinct is to increase our status individually and as a group.

In recent times, there has not been any large wars between major powers and developed nations since WW2. One theory I have is that the spread of spectator sport has surpressed the desire for war for much of the population who are not sibject to violent instincts. I believe that a sporting events allow people to feel the glory and loss of war in a similar way, but with much less cost. Of course, there are always those who want to express themselves with violence. and that is why wars still occur.

The other reason for business is the acculuation of wealth, which is obviously related to status, one of the instinctual reasons for war. War is all about money. Wars cost money in material and people. But the victor almost always expects to obtain an increase in wealth from victory whether than be from land, power, compensation, trading rights.

From a purely moral point of view, war between two civilised peoples is never justified as reasonable people can always come to a compromise.

But given war's reason is hormonal impulse and the reason for war is money, I think it is safe to say that we will always have war unless humanity evolves into a different state.

[Advent]

Which it won't.

Kinda like in Spore. The only way we are going to unify as a species, is if someone steps up and does it for them. BY FORCE.

World domination, if it goes smoothly, could actually be better for our species.

[fkeua vrrtep]

Originally Posted by Spock

This is an organised debate by ZenitYerkes and myself.

We have seen in the past how war can devastate human spirit and nation alike. In so many ways. I ask, is war a necessary evil? Or should it be avoided at all costs. So we must ask ourselves the following questions:

1. Is war necessary or useful?

2. In a global sense -not only from the perspective of the winners-, does the damage war produces justify the benefits obtained?

3.Are there any alternatives to war?

I don't like war, but I am politically minded and I can easily define the benefits, in my opinion. But we must also ask, how do we measure justification? Morality? Religious teachings? The impact on human spirit?

I stand behind "just" wars, that's where I stand. Wars that lead to moral stability. If peace is threatened then a I believe in pre-emptive strike. Where there are those that cause pain, I wish to be there so that they may not continue to do so. In my opinion, that is the definition for a just war.

I don't condone war, I find it abhorent, but I will accept it if it fits within my criteria of "just".

Where do you stand?

1.Neither nor , war is implemented in the way humans work , from a small conflict between 2 individuals to a large scaled war , it lies in our blood to use conflicts to gain power .

2.No and never , maybe you should ask that question to the widow who lost her husband in a senseless war and is left with 2 children .

3.No in the point of view of the modern economy war is necessary (though they would never admit it) , since war is the only way industrial nations can keep up their standards , the US wouldn't be able to keep it's economy on a good level without having wars from time to time .

I'd personally never join in a "war" I do not believe into by myself , I would never join an attack war , but if I see my home threatened or my people I wouldn't hesitate in joining the war , which would be a defensive war in that case .

Still war is a method that should be tried to be avoided at all costs since war is ugly ,bloody and it doesn't show mercy to nobody , war brings to surface what really lies below the skin of the so called civilized man .

[Advent]

If a war is completely necessary, I would join at the first opportunity.

I don't like hurting people, and many know that. But this I've said:

"I don't like hurting people, but if someone attacks a person close to me, I will have NO hesitation in breaking their neck."

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Advent

If a war is completely necessary, I would join at the first opportunity.

I don't like hurting people, and many know that. But this I've said:

"I don't like hurting people, but if someone attacks a person close to me, I will have NO hesitation in breaking their neck."

Logical, yes.

[Fkeu 'Awpo]

Originally Posted by Advent

If a war is completely necessary, I would join at the first opportunity.

Yeah right; you wouldn't last five minutes in a war.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Fkeu 'Awpo

Yeah right; you wouldn't last five minutes in a war.

Irrelevant.

[Fkeu'itan]

Originally Posted by Spock

1. Is war necessary or useful?

2. In a global sense -not only from the perspective of the winners-, does the damage war produces justify the benefits obtained?

3.Are there any alternatives to war?

1. As far as i'm concerned, offensive war is not particularly useful. It serves no purpose other than to redraw imaginary boundaries and shift allegiances (In many cases, it doesn't even achieve this). Whether the power needs shifting is another matter however and is my country were under attack (As fkeua vrrtep said) i'm sure that defence is necessary.

2. There are no 'winners' in a war, you simply lose the least. I also believe that it is incredibly difficult to justify an organised mass-destruction of your own species.

3. I'd like to say yes. That every problem could be solved simply by realising that we all live on this one planet together and that murdering each other over ideals is insanity. That acceptance is the way forward. Unfortunately, I don't believe this could ever happen.

Originally Posted by Spock

I don't like war, but I am politically minded and I can easily define the benefits, in my opinion. But we must also ask, how do we measure justification? Morality? Religious teachings? The impact on human spirit?

As Fkeu 'Awpo said, I personally can't see any sense in starting a war over what are esentially imaginary factors. I can't see the benefits at all. Is power and global recognition for an elitist few and perhaps a slight economic prosperity really worth (in some cases) tens of millions of people's lives, not to mention the horrific effects on the planet and the sheer physical and fiscal cost of a large or long-term war?

Originally Posted by Spock

I stand behind "just" wars, that's where I stand. Wars that lead to moral stability. If peace is threatened then a I believe in pre-emptive strike. Where there are those that cause pain, I wish to be there so that they may not continue to do so. In my opinion, that is the definition for a just war.

I don't condone war, I find it abhorent, but I will accept it if it fits within my criteria of "just".

This is the problem... How to quantify what is a "just" war? "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." As they say. It's all relative to where you see the war and the reasons behind it. There are, of course, numerous examples where a war could indeed be considered "just", (I won't name examples as you can probably conclude those for yourselves) but to many, the cost of these wars were much greater than the beneficial after-effects so where can we draw the line and say "This is just, this is unjust". The fact is, you really can't.

[Advent]

Originally Posted by Fkeu 'Awpo

Yeah right; you wouldn't last five minutes in a war.

Well actually, I've done laser tag. I got a very high score.
That, and I'm strategically minded. I'm an expert when it comes to tactics.

And Fkeu, my I say that Hypocrisy is one of our worst problems.