An End to War

[Camikaze]

Mankind can move beyond war. As in, it is possible for this to happen, in a utopian global society. However, I doubt that mankind will move beyond war. It is the staple of foreign policy (a large sector of government policy, and therefore public policy) in the world, whether it be in the form of the prevention of war, or the prosecution of war. And being a pivotal part of the world, due to this, means that it is unlikely to be abandoned as a means to an end.

 

[Phlegmak]

War is something we'll never get rid of.

The only reason we have wars to begin with is because the other guy starts them. When somebody goes insane and starts killing other people around them, how else are you supposed to deal with them? When they refuse to talk to you, when none of your other methods will stop them, there's simply no choice but to pull out a gun and shoot them. (One particularly scary police video I recently watched was of a crazed maniac--high on PCP--who was stark naked, trying to break into a school or a day care center or some such, and who kept pulling out the electrodes every time the police tasered him )

You, reader, are not the problem. The other guy is.

The other guy? That just makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[warpus]

Why are wars fought?

I would argue that they are fought over resources. Hence, a cooperative, rather than competitive, economic system could utterly eliminate war.

Europe unifying has eliminated war there (at least in the 'unified' parts). I can see similar things happening world-wide, if the world ever unifies in such a way.

I mean, we don't even need a "one world government", all we need is a bit more economic and political integration. It would be good for the species.

 

[BasketCase]

So Iraq started a war and an invasion was the only method? Yeah...

Not the only method--the best method, given the circumstances.

 

[BasketCase]

The other guy? That just makes no sense whatsoever.

Then I will clarify.

You, reader, are not the problem. The other guy is.

You, Phlegmak, wish to avoid war. Then one day BasketCase sends troops into your territory and starts capturing your cities. Poof, you're at war. But you, Phlegmak, were not the cause. THE OTHER GUY--BASKETCASE--WAS.

We will always have war, because there's no way to get rid of BasketCase other than invading his territory before he invades yours. History has always played out that way, every single Civ game in existence has played out that way.

Spoiler :

Well, except one. I know of exactly one Civ game (chronicled in the story threads) where the star player won the game without ever building a single military unit. He did it by exploiting known algorithms in the program code. Real-world military leaders have no such algorithms and cannot be predicted.

 

[Gelion]

Last week I watched a short Journeyman Pictures documentary called "The Objector". You can see it in it's entirety on youtube, but it certainly won't be necessary to discuss what I'm about to bring up.

The film is mainly about conscientious objectors in today's US military. These are people who join the military, get sent to battle, and find themselves unable to perform their duties as soldiers. They've been trained and certified, but in the thick of the fight, they can't bring themselves to kill another person. Some find themselves completely opposed to the idea of war in and of itself.

This is far from a new idea, the documentary says. One fact they bring up a few times is that during World War II, only 1/4 of the people who had an opportunity to kill the enemy actually went and did it. The rest were unofficial conscientious objectors, giving in to their natural resistance to wanting to kill another human being. I found this particular fact very interesting, because usually even the most anti-war people agree that WWII was justified (by that I mean fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan). Some might even say it was a "good fight".

Towards the end of the piece, one of the conscientious objectors from today's US military said something to the effect of mankind moving beyond the concept of war and killing, the same way we've moved beyond such things as slavery.

Having been a participant in many war-related discussions right here on CFC, I know that many of you don't support killing or wars of any kind for any reason. So I'd like to know what you think about the idea that mankind can move beyond war the same way it's moved beyond slavery, or whatever else you're thinking about all this.

Sorry. Sounds like an effect of "civilized" way of life on fighting capabilities. While the "effect" might grow in countries that experience low level of violence (street violence or fighting in general), other nations that are not "so evolved" seem to be coping much better. So, for those reasons, I doubt that the entire planet is affected.

I am certain that this effect would not last long if a larger or longer conflict appears. Plus, we have a lot ore violence on TV and Internet to compensate for the lack of fighting spirit. I thinkits a phenomen of the times, but not a lasting or significant one.

 

[Dachs]

It is clear to me that we are becoming more similar than we are different - worldwide

Which is why there are centrifugal particularist nationalist movements within the confines of several states right now amirite

 

[Hygro]

Last week I watched a short Journeyman Pictures documentary called "The Objector". You can see it in it's entirety on youtube, but it certainly won't be necessary to discuss what I'm about to bring up.

The film is mainly about conscientious objectors in today's US military. These are people who join the military, get sent to battle, and find themselves unable to perform their duties as soldiers. They've been trained and certified, but in the thick of the fight, they can't bring themselves to kill another person. Some find themselves completely opposed to the idea of war in and of itself.

This is far from a new idea, the documentary says. One fact they bring up a few times is that during World War II, only 1/4 of the people who had an opportunity to kill the enemy actually went and did it. The rest were unofficial conscientious objectors, giving in to their natural resistance to wanting to kill another human being. I found this particular fact very interesting, because usually even the most anti-war people agree that WWII was justified (by that I mean fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan). Some might even say it was a "good fight".

Towards the end of the piece, one of the conscientious objectors from today's US military said something to the effect of mankind moving beyond the concept of war and killing, the same way we've moved beyond such things as slavery.

Having been a participant in many war-related discussions right here on CFC, I know that many of you don't support killing or wars of any kind for any reason. So I'd like to know what you think about the idea that mankind can move beyond war the same way it's moved beyond slavery, or whatever else you're thinking about all this.

I HIGHLY suggest you read the book "On Killing" which discusses killing in the battlefield. Not only did 1/5 WW2 soldiers actually fire at the enemy, but most firing at the enemy were deliberately missing, just trying to posture and scare the enemy but unwilling to kill a fellow human who had personally done no wrong to the shooter.

Throughout history the vast, vast majority of soldiers have been unwilling to kill in combat. In fact most have been unwilling to even strike a potentially deadly blow at all. In most bayonet charges, the effect was purely morale: it is utterly terrifying to see a spear rushing toward your spleen and oftentime leads to retreat or submission. When bayonet chargers reached the enemy, there was a lot of slashing with bayonets, and a lot of bludgeoning with the butt of the guns, but rarely any legitimate impalings.

It is with the invent of depersonalized killing such as artillery, machine guns, planes, chucking grenades over walls, sniper-scope aiming, that lead to such high battlefield deaths.

Modern training has yielded an intensely greater willingness to kill the enemy in almost any circumstance. Firing rates in WW2 may have been 15-25%, but by the Korean War they were at 50% and by Vietnam they had reached 90%.

If anything the trend is going in the opposite direction.

 

[Patroklos]

The film is mainly about conscientious objectors in today's US military. These are people who join the military, get sent to battle, and find themselves unable to perform their duties as soldiers. They've been trained and certified, but in the thick of the fight, they can't bring themselves to kill another person. Some find themselves completely opposed to the idea of war in and of itself.

These are not consiencious objectors. Conscientious objectors are people who announce their inability to fullfill their enlistment requirements upon joining and then are either not enlisted or recieve a contract that specifically restricts them to non combat rolls. People who refuse to deploy/fight after the fact are cowards or at best simply people who fraudulently enlisted, each deserving the swift justice of a court marshal.

Also, those who refuse to follow illegal orders (actual ones, not their made up ones) are not consienctiously objecting, they are doing their duty. Disobeying legal orders is not consientiously objecting, it is simply wrongly not following orders.

This is not so much an issue in volunteer armies. If you don't want to fight, don't enlist. Drafted armies are a whole different thing.

This is far from a new idea, the documentary says. One fact they bring up a few times is that during World War II, only 1/4 of the people who had an opportunity to kill the enemy actually went and did it.

This has been thoughly debunked many times. It really doesn't make sense on its face, but as a mental exercise try to imagine how this data could possible be collected.

 

[Kozmos]

Oh god not another one....

I HIGHLY suggest you always double check on the writers sources.

http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/Main-R.htm

http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/grossman.html

It's true that we are being desensitized to violence, but a load of so called statistical data on which he founded his book is just flat out wrong. SLA Marshalls data and book has been written on fabrications and bs. Guess whose book and data Grossman took as a reference?

 

[Hygro]

The second link looked pretty good, read most of it but skimmed a fair amount toward the end because he was talking about the whole video game link which doesn't have that much to do with the interesting historical arguments he makes about a soldier's willingness to kill. Some of the second article sets up a bit of a strawman as well, as Grossman never stated people weren't frequently willing to kill one another but that they wouldn't do it in a battlefield setting.

And the author takes issue with Marshal, which accounts for a lot of the ww2 data, so thank you for posting your link. I'm not an ideologue, I'd like to know the truth. However never article seems to refute the real fascinating data regarding historical warfare past living human memory.

And Cleric, have you read Grossman's On Killing? And what do you mean, "not another one"? I feel like I'm the only person on this forum whose mentioned the book (a few other threads as well).

 

[REDY]

1)We are becoming more alienated. Todays we understand more enviromental problems than each other.
2)Countries and nationalities are still high valued. How many north koreans are worth to one south korean in western tables?
3)Warfare is also becoming more impersonal - in todays army you are simply pressing buttons to kill some opponents who are behind hills.

 

[Patroklos]

3)Warfare is also becoming more impersonal - in todays army you are simply pressing buttons to kill some opponents who are behind hills.

This is only true for conventional warfare which we have made so destuctive to be no longer an option for rational people (as long as the arsenals are maintained anyway).

 

[Nylan]

Elimination of war requires an elimination of selfishness and greed.

 

[Patroklos]

Elimination of war requires an elimination of selfishness and greed.

It requires a management of it. The good thing about greed and selfishness is that it is predictable and qualtfiable. You just have to make war no long accomplish the goals of selfishness and greed.

Of course selfishness and greed are not the sole motivators, ideology has been behind the most destuctive wars we have seen.

 

[classical_hero]

Mankind can move beyond war. As in, it is possible for this to happen, in a utopian global society. However, I doubt that mankind will move beyond war. It is the staple of foreign policy (a large sector of government policy, and therefore public policy) in the world, whether it be in the form of the prevention of war, or the prosecution of war. And being a pivotal part of the world, due to this, means that it is unlikely to be abandoned as a means to an end.

Every time a so called "utopian" society was tried to be formed it has always ended in the death of millions of people. There is never going to be an utopian society, since it is such a pipe dream. The state is the biggest mass murder of all time.

 

[Phlegmak]

Then I will clarify.


You, Phlegmak, wish to avoid war. Then one day BasketCase sends troops into your territory and starts capturing your cities. Poof, you're at war. But you, Phlegmak, were not the cause. THE OTHER GUY--BASKETCASE--WAS.

We will always have war, because there's no way to get rid of BasketCase other than invading his territory before he invades yours. History has always played out that way, every single Civ game in existence has played out that way.

Spoiler :

Well, except one. I know of exactly one Civ game (chronicled in the story threads) where the star player won the game without ever building a single military unit. He did it by exploiting known algorithms in the program code. Real-world military leaders have no such algorithms and cannot be predicted.

It looks somewhat like you're trying to say, "It's always somebody else's fault" or possibly "one guy will never blame himself for the fact that he's in a war; he'll always blame the other guy." I suspect you're trying to say the latter. If so, maybe that's true. The US's Iraq war was started by the US, so how does that fit in your belief? If I was an Iraqi, I'd be correct if I said the other guy started the war.

Every time a so called "utopian" society was tried to be formed it has always ended in the death of millions of people. There is never going to be an utopian society, since it is such a pipe dream. The state is the biggest mass murder of all time.

Agreed. If somebody talks about making a utopia here on Earth, run away. Guys that talk like that are NOT your friend.

 

[Hygro]

Every time a so called "utopian" society was tried to be formed it has always ended in the death of millions of people. There is never going to be an utopian society, since it is such a pipe dream. The state is the biggest mass murder of all time.

America was considered a utopian pipe dream.

 

[carmen510]

I've heard that war can be prevented via economic interdependence, countries are less likely to declare war on eachother if they are dependent on eachother. See France-Germany after WW2.

Now, I'm not sure if I agree with that, but it'll be interesting to see what CFC thinks about that idea.

 

[Sashie VII]

I've heard that war can be prevented via economic interdependence, countries are less likely to declare war on eachother if they are dependent on eachother. See France-Germany after WW2.

Now, I'm not sure if I agree with that, but it'll be interesting to see what CFC thinks about that idea.

I'm not sure I agree either. The desire to eliminate that very dependency may well drive a nation to war.