A World Without War?

[Commodore]

This thread is an offshoot of the "IS" thread that I felt was worthy of its own topic.

Here is the relevant part of the discussion:

I do believe that the ultimate responsibility for war lies with the people declaring them rather than the people fighting them - that's a side-effect of having a professional army subordinate to the civil power. You're right that such a moral argument falls apart when you're dealing with conscripts, but all that you can do in such a situation is try to get them out of the way with the minimum amount of damage. At least then you know you did the best you could have done: remember after all that they're shooting at you.

I'm curious how you justify that. Without the Universal Soldier, how could anyone effectively declare war?


Link to video.

Still, maybe this sort of hippy nonsense is long past its sell-by date.

Isn't it strange? This sentiment has persisted in my mind for some reason. Call it a failing, if you like. I have numerous failings of various kinds, anyway.

Yes, if nobody were willing to fight wars - to the point of being prepared to die for their conscience rather than their country - then there could be no wars. However, that's not the case, and it's not likely to be the case as long as either of us are around: if any one person refuses to join the army, it doesn't have a noticeable impact on recruitment, and if anyone started a major anti-war campaign it wouldn't stop people from joining up or going along with it if conscripted. We decide, in a civilised society, that the military doesn't have a mind of its own; it does what it's told by the proper representatives of the people it protects. If you remove that - in other words, if you leave the choice of who to fight and when to the people doing the fighting - then you have the army as an unelected, unaccountable political actor, which is totally undemocratic. Yes, it's the soldier's job not to obey orders which are manifestly illegal and immoral, but that does not extent to the distinctly grey areas of just war in international law. It's not your head on the block if they get it wrong, as it were, so it's not your choice as to whether to carry it out or not.

Well, it literally is your head on the block (though the block is still a figurative one, I suppose), whether the decision is wrong or not.

This is the eternal irony to my mind: the people making the decision, in your terms, don't bear the responsibility for their decisions (or very seldom). The situation is really so heavily skewed against the combatant (on either side), risking his life or grievous injury, that I'm surprised anyone ever considers it as a profession.

And if no one did, what on earth could anyone else do about it? I do agree that this is highly unlikely ever to happen, though. At least, not very soon.

It's like the emperor's new clothes maybe. Once a sufficient number see that there's really no need to settle conflict by violent means, then perhaps the violent means will become out-dated.

Which would leave us with sport as a decent substitute (for those who can't help being competitive). Which is not only a lot safer, it also pays its players much better.

I must disagree with this sentiment. It sounds good and I wish it were possible, but there will always be those out there who are willing to do absolutely anything necessary to achieve their ambitions. So what are we to do when we all abolish our militaries and destroy our stockpiles of weapons and someone comes along with an army of their own and starts wrecking things?

It is just a sad fact of humanity that there will always be people out there who wish to employ violence to gain dominion over their fellow man, and the only real way to guard against those people is to maintain your own force of people willing to employ violence to defend you.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. Once you believe that, you must always believe it.

It just goes to show the force of public opinion.

Is there NO hope for us?

Allow me to take a moment to respond to this last post: Just because we will most likely be fighting wars with each other until the end of time doesn't mean there is no hope for us. Despite all the gloom and doom portrayed by the media and all the small conflicts around the world, we are still living in one of the most peaceful eras in human history. This "rough patch" we seem to be going through right now, is just something I chalk up to the fact that human civilization is at one of those transition points in history where the balance of power in the world is shifting and changing. With this transition there is bound to be some instability and conflict, but it's nothing we can't manage and things will ultimately get better, just like they always do.

Now on to the real question I wanted to ask: If humanity did manage to abolish all war and every nation disarmed and disbanded their militaries, what would happen when someone manages to build their own army and starts taking advantage of the fact that no nation can oppose them because they all got rid of their militaries? How does a society that has forsaken warfare defend itself against those who wish to wage war against it?

 

[Linkman226]

It is definitionally impossible for one group of people to take up arms against another in a warless world.

 

[Commodore]

It is definitionally impossible for one group of people to take up arms against another in a warless world.

So you are saying if humanity as a whole gave up warfare, there could never, ever be anyone that would take advantage of the situation?

Basically I am asking what is to stop someone from seeing a world without armies for what it really is and seizing the opportunity to advance their own ambitions through force of arms?

 

[Linkman226]

So you are saying if humanity as a whole gave up warfare, there could never, ever be anyone that would take advantage of the situation?

Basically I am asking what is to stop someone from seeing a world without armies for what it really is and seizing the opportunity to advance their own ambitions through force of arms?

To clarify, I think the people in the thread you've quoted are referring to not just a warless society, but in fact a post-war society. That is, a world in which war is literally unthinkable.

For example, if absolutely no one anywhere was banned from CFC for flaming in the next 24 hours, we would not declare CFC a post-flaming society. It is still possible for someone to start flaming tomorrow.

The essence of the anti-war movement must be to abolish the very causes of war. When such a thing is accomplished, we will have achieved a post-war society.

 

[RFC_Viceroy]

I don't think a world without "war" of any kind whatsoever is possible. There will always be people who want to take up arms against each other, and I think its utopian to deny this.

That said, the State certainly increases the sheer number of resources that can be mobilized for warfare, and enable otherwise moral and decent people to feel good about fighting (preemptive) wars.

The solution, of course, is repentance from idolatry and a recognition that God, not the State, is the standard for morality.

John Robbins said:

Since President Bush ordered 200,000 troops to the Middle East, we have heard a great deal about a Moslem jihad or “holy war” against the U.S. and its allies. But it must be pointed out that Islam is not the only religion that believes in holy war; there is a form of counterfeit Christianity that does as well. In fact, this counterfeit Christianity has been a major factor in guiding American foreign policy since the end of the 19th century.

With the apparent end of the Cold War (several nations, including the world’s most populous, remain Communist), the focus of American foreign policy has shifted, but its motive has not: Our government still intends to make the world safe for democracy, and it still believes that it is doing “God’s work” on Earth. Until that belief and motive change, Americans will find themselves embroiled in one conflict after another. In fact, the international situation since the “end” of the Cold War may pose a greater threat to America and Americans than the missiles of the Soviet Union did.



Political messianism was a prominent characteristic of nineteenth century philosophy. One need only recall the very influential German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), who believed that the State was God walking on Earth, to understand that the State had begun to assume the role of God in the nineteenth century, just as the Papacy and Roman State-Church had done in the Middle Ages.

Hegel was not alone in his idolatry of the State. The Frenchman, now largely forgotten, Claude-Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint Simon (1760-1825), developed a system of thought he called Nouveau Christianisme (New Christianity) for the transformation of society. His followers declared that “the world has been waiting for a Savior... [and] Saint Simon appeared.” But of all the nineteenth-century advocates of political messianism - Fourier, Fichte, Lamennais, Mazzini, Godwin, and so on - only one remains in the public consciousness: Karl Marx. Though they are now forgotten, their ideas of nationalism, racism, anarchism, Communism, imperialism, and socialism are still very much with us and influence our thinking even without our realizing it.

- See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=77#sthash.KAZuKjsX.dpuf

I am not sure what John Robbins means by "anarchism" or how he thinks it can lead to imperialism, but the rest of his point is sound. The root problem is idolatry. As long as the State, utility, or social revolution are worshipped above God, preemptive wars will continue.

 

[Linkman226]

God

Do you have a citation?

 

[Commodore]

To clarify, I think the people in the thread you've quoted are referring to not just a warless society, but in fact a post-war society. That is, a world in which war is literally unthinkable.

For example, if absolutely no one anywhere was banned from CFC for flaming in the next 24 hours, we would not declare CFC a post-flaming society. It is still possible for someone to start flaming tomorrow.

The essence of the anti-war movement must be to abolish the very causes of war. When such a thing is accomplished, we will have achieved a post-war society.

But how do you create a world where war is unthinkable? There will always be those who will look at a society with no army and no weapons and see it as a juicy target ripe for the picking. How do you stop those people if not through force of arms?

The main point I am making is at some point every society reaches a point in which it is forced to defend itself with violence and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Even if people are given plenty of resources, money, etc. to prosper, there will always be the greedy who want what others have and will take it by force if they can. The only way to defend against such people is to be stronger than them.

 

[Linkman226]

No one looks at another human beings and thinks, "Wow, man, a hunk of flesh just walking around, ripe for the picking! Look's like meat's back on the menu, boys!"

Such a thing would be literally unthinkable. That's why cannibalism is basically non-existent in our society. We live in a post-cannibalistic society.

Likewise, I believe that once poverty, the root of most violence today, is abolished, proper socialization and culture alone will be enough to eliminate 99.99% of the remaining violence.

 

[RFC_Viceroy]

Do you have a citation?

2 Timothy 3:16.

No one looks at another human beings and thinks, "Wow, man, a hunk of flesh just walking around, ripe for the picking! Look's like meat's back on the menu, boys!"

Such a thing would be literally unthinkable. That's why cannibalism is basically non-existent in our society. We live in a post-cannibalistic society.

Likewise, I believe that once poverty, the root of most violence today, is abolished, proper socialization and culture alone will be enough to eliminate 99.99% of the remaining violence.

Hmm... this is an interesting argument. I don't think you can really eliminate poverty though, especially since its so relative. American "poor" are still well off compared to the average person on earth, yet America hasn't abolished theft yet (and that, of course, doesn't even begin to factor in theft by the political class through Fed printing inflation and taxation.)

 

[Kyriakos]

^"Well-off" is also relative to the price of living, though, so i am not sure that the poor (by now) in the so-called western world are that much better than the analogous part of the population elsewhere.
Also depends on what kind of "poor" you focus on. It is one thing to have in mind people who just manage to get by, and another to move to effectively those who live in the street and are beggars.

As for the question of the thread, i also think that eliminating poverty is the most crucial external factor of having a more co-operative humanity. There are also some issues with alienation/estrangement due to life experiences (particularly in childhood), but i think those could be dealt with more effectively if the external parameters were notably improved.
Ie i do not at all think that humanity is inherently something horrible and prone to destruction. In my view a main factor of the current (very bad) state is that most of the material wealth of the planet seems to be controlled by a horribly tiny percentage of people, and even worse they seem to be actually quite misanthropic/greedy/manipulative, and form circles of power (media, politics, other means of diversionary or downright eroding influence circulation).

And although without specific info (which would take a lot to be gained) i cannot attribute this all to a fully-fledged NWO type situation (as in the conspiracy theory), it does seem to be a very prominent influence those oligarchs have in dumbing down and crippling society.

 

[Tahuti]

War is innate to mankind. And most importantly, war is highly complex. Fascists often tend to think of war is inherently good, which is not the case, yet war is not inherently bad either. For all the carnage and unjustice war causes, it also weeds out injustices and obliterates decadence.

It is true however, that wars have recently become more brutal and assymetric, as someone from his lazy couch is controlling a drone against people that take physical risks, which is not a good thing.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Now on to the real question I wanted to ask: If humanity did manage to abolish all war and every nation disarmed and disbanded their militaries, what would happen when someone manages to build their own army and starts taking advantage of the fact that no nation can oppose them because they all got rid of their militaries? How does a society that has forsaken warfare defend itself against those who wish to wage war against it?

If humanity is looking to abolish war, which it should, it has to be done not through superimposed political/ideological/religious sentiment but by rooting out the cause for war. It is the lower propensities in man, his egoistic lust for power and domination, among other things, which open up the possibility of war instead negotiating mutually acceptable solutions. The path to harmony through cultivating the best in man and spiritual development may seem long but its probably the only really efficient way.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Likewise, I believe that once poverty, the root of most violence today, is abolished, proper socialization and culture alone will be enough to eliminate 99.99% of the remaining violence.

No I dont think thats enough. Cultures differ greatly which is natural. What is proper socialization differs too and in great deal depends on the culture. To be materialy sufficient doesnt prevent US to be the most warring nation either.

War is innate to mankind. And most importantly, war is highly complex. Fascists often tend to think of war is inherently good, which is not the case, yet war is not inherently bad either. For all the carnage and unjustice war causes, it also weeds out injustices and obliterates decadence.

It is true however, that wars have recently become more brutal and assymetric, as someone from his lazy couch is controlling a drone against people that take physical risks, which is not a good thing.

Struggle not war is innate to mankind. We are constantly forced to struggle against our lower nature and this struggle sometimes takes on form of war. I think, it is through this process together with the cultivation of our subtle propensities how we eventualy arrive at mastering life and transcending our natural limitations.

 

[brennan]

War is a defined category of violence. We cannot have a world without war until we have very nearly done away with violence. There is very little evidence that this is even possible at this stage.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I don't think "a world without war" should be conflated with "a world without armies and weapons." I think the deterrence provided by armies and navies would be a necessary component of a peaceful world.

 

[brennan]

Doing away with weapons and armies just because there is peace is a recipe for disaster. How have peace loving tribes with no weapons traditionally coped when they met 'civilisation'?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Doing away with weapons and armies just because there is peace is a recipe for disaster. How have peace loving tribes with no weapons traditionally coped when they met 'civilisation'?

There is no such thing. Native americans where constantly fighting each other with spears and tomahawks.

 

[Borachio]

Well, there are and have been some notable peace-loving peoples in the world. Unfortunately, I can't find the links I was looking for for this. Some tribe or other in a remote part of India, somewhere.

But, iirc, the most usual technique for a peace-loving people, when they encounter a more aggressive one, is to simply move away.

Then there's this bunch of people. But I don't suppose there's any significant conclusion to be drawn from their experience.

As a small and precarious population, Moriori embraced a pacifist culture that rigidly avoided warfare, substituting it with dispute resolution in the form of ritual fighting and conciliation.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

But how do you create a world where war is unthinkable? There will always be those who will look at a society with no army and no weapons and see it as a juicy target ripe for the picking. How do you stop those people if not through force of arms?

The main point I am making is at some point every society reaches a point in which it is forced to defend itself with violence and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Even if people are given plenty of resources, money, etc. to prosper, there will always be the greedy who want what others have and will take it by force if they can. The only way to defend against such people is to be stronger than them.

A single world state could prevent war by having a monopoly on force in exactly the same way that national governments do domestically.

Alternatively, a multipolar world could prevent war by having enough destructive power in each alliance to render war impossible due to the cost/benefit analysis of war and peace being massively skewed towards peace. In other words, MAD.

I agree that a world where some have access to military force and others do not will inevitably lead to war. Massive power differentials always lead the powerful to impose their will on the powerless when a conflict of interest arises. However, these kinds of power differentials are not necessarily a permanent feature of the world we live in.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

But I don't suppose there's any significant conclusion to be drawn from their experience.

ou contre there is much to be learned from them:

Moriori are the indigenous people of the Chatham Islands (Rēkohu in Moriori, Wharekauri in Māori), east of the New Zealand archipelago in the Pacific Ocean. These people lived by a code of non-violence and passive resistance (see Nunuku-whenua), which made it easier for Taranaki Māori invaders to nearly exterminate them in the 1830s.

A single world state could prevent war by having a monopoly on force in exactly the same way that national governments do domestically.

yeah but there will always be someone to upset the balance, monopoly itself doesnt guarantee much.

I agree that a world where some have access to military force and others do not will inevitably lead to war. Massive power differentials always lead the powerful to impose their will on the powerless when a conflict of interest arises. However, these kinds of power differentials are not necessarily a permanent feature of the world we live in.

There is always possibility of some mad dog trying his chance. When Hitler asked when we will be ready to attack Czechoslovakia? to his generals the answer was 1945...