Do you think starting a [B]WAR[/B] ever has a net positive effect on the world?

[Eukaryote]

What do you think?

And remember, this is about starting a war and invading countries, not about finishing the war and getting rid of the Nazis. So I don't wanna hear any thing like: "Well it was good that we sent in the troops or the invaders woulda killed us."

Edit: I choose option 2 and BTW, armed rebellions don't count.

 

[Bill3000]

It depends what weight you would put economy, land, and ideology to human lives.

 

[Perfection]

What about armed rebellions, do they count?

 

[Eukaryote]

What about armed rebellions, do they count?

Lets say no.

 

[Perfection]

What about intervening in a conflict between two parties that have no realistic chance of causing damage to the intervening nations?

 

[YNCS]

The decision to go to war is almost never rational. World War I was kicked off when some fool killed another fool. Events were cleverly manipulated by the Austrian foreign minister, Leopold von Berchtold, who didn't factor in the simple fact that his country lacked the power to achieve what he wanted. It didn't help that Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany was an intelligent but superficial man who didn't consider the effects of his actions. Austria-Hungry and Germany started that war. They both lost. In World War II Germany and Japan took on the entire world. It never occurred to them that the rest of the world was stronger. This was particularly true of Japan. The American Civil War was started by the Confederacy. The Confederacy lost. The Franco-Prussian war was started by France. France lost. Almost every war since the Industrial Revolution was initiated by the side which ultimately lost. Going to war is not a rational act.

War is the ultimate criminal act, an armed robbery writ large. It's always about economics, one of the few ideas that Marx had gotten right. It's always started by a nation that wants something some other nation has. The terms may be couched in terms such as Manifest Destiny or Lebenstraum or other political slogans to grab the attention and ardor of the masses, but what it comes down to is "They have it. We want it. Let's get it."

An unprovoked war is as immoral as an unprovoked murder. There is a significant difference between self-defense and murder. And I can guarantee you that a defense of "I killed him because I thought he might attack me at some unspecified time in the future" will not get you very far in your murder trial.

 

[BasketCase]

War is the ultimate criminal act

Not entirely. When an armed robbery occurs, the police are empowered to break the law (i.e. speed limits, use of force, and use of DEADLY force) in order to bring him to justice.

A war is pretty much universally considered justified if its purpose is to stop somebody who started a war against you. Then you've got World War II, in which the Allied nations were bending over backwards to get the U.S. involved long before the U.S. actually got hit by anything. And, with that, the line starts to get real blurry, real quick.

The current conventional wisdom is no solace--all kinds of crimes against humanity are tolerated as long as said crimes stay inside a nation's borders. "It's none of our business".

 

[blackheart]

It depends if I'm on the winning side, really.

 

[basta72]

War can never create a net positive impact because you have to compare it with a peaceful solution that always will have a greater positive impact. If you take on a war you have already lost because there is always more than one solution to a human problem.

 

[Perfection]

War can never create a net positive impact because you have to compare it with a peaceful solution that always will have a greater positive impact.

That may have some intuitive sense to it, but I'm not sure if that assertation is always valid.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

War can never create a net positive impact because you have to compare it with a peaceful solution that always will have a greater positive impact. If you take on a war you have already lost because there is always more than one solution to a human problem.

Your statement doesn't make logical sense. Just because a peaceful solution may be best, it doesn't follow that therefore a war can never create a net positive result.

 

[malclave]

Warfare allowed Rome to establish dominance over the Italian peninsula, then over much larger areas.

In the overall scheme of things, would you consider the Roman contributions to history to be a net positive, or a net negative?

 

[blackheart]

Warfare allowed Rome to establish dominance over the Italian peninsula, then over much larger areas.

In the overall scheme of things, would you consider the Roman contributions to history to be a net positive, or a net negative?

The OP needs to be clarified before that can be answered.

It is just war and no politics, just one war, a series of wars, or a warring atmosphere?

 

[malclave]

War can never create a net positive impact because you have to compare it with a peaceful solution that always will have a greater positive impact.

Such as the Munich Agreement ceding the Sudetenland to Germany?

 

[amadeus]

Yes. One example being that I'd say the land we liberated from Mexico is far better off today than had it stayed under control of the crooked Mexican government.

 

[YNCS]

So theft is justified if someone benefits from it.

What strange ethics you have, rm.

 

[taper]

I would consider the American Revolution to be a net benefit. We started that war, and now we're the most powerful country in the world. War also has substantial R&D that trickles down to peaceful civilian life. GPS, antibiotics, the Jeep, airplanes(The Boeing 707 was basically a modified B-47), canned/preserved food, accurate time-keeping, etc. War isn't fun for those involved, but later generations generally benefit.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

So theft is justified if someone benefits from it.

What strange ethics you have, rm.

Isn't that what taxes are? The government takes your money, by force if necessary, and uses it for the common good.

Don't get me wrong I'm not some 'abolish taxes' nut, but let's call it what it is. Taxes are legalized theft from one person for the benefit of everyone.

 

[YNCS]

Considering the Industrial Revolution started in Britain after the American Revolution, can you really be sure that the U.S. becoming separate from Britain was beneficial? Playing "what if" is purely an exercise in imagination.

 

[malclave]

So theft is justified if someone benefits from it.

Isn't that the whole concept behind the welfare state?