No winners in war?

Question

I have heard many people say that there are no winners in war. I disagree, but I would like to see what you guys think. Please back your argument up.

Answer 1

There is an old saying that there is no sight so terrible as the field of a battle lost, unless perhaps, it is the sight of the field of a battle won.

War is not so much a solution as a consequence of the refusal to accept a solution.

dona nobis pacem Domine

Answer 2

Well, its true that there are losers on both sides, but if there is only one standing after the clash dictating terms to the other, then there is a winner.

Certainly, we lost alot of men in World War II, but we won because Germany complied completely with the terms of the victors.

Answer 3

In a nuclear war, the only true enemy is war itself. In an initial exchange of nuclear weapons, 1 billion people will be killed in the first 30 minutes. Another 1.5 billion will die from radiation poisoning. ...mostly in the US, Europe, Russia, China and Japan. The northern hemisphere will be plunged into prolonged agony and barbarity. Eventually, the nuclear winter will reach the southern hemisphere and kill all plant life. Soon thereafter will follow all animal life. Those surviving in underground shelters will eventually succumb after their water and food run out.

So tell me who won in this war scenario?

Answer 4

I think there is no winners because very country losing men and power when at war

Answer 5

Even if one side wins, what is the cost?

Look how long it took England to get back on her feet after WWII. The reconstruction of the infrastructure, the shattered lives, the disabled soldies, the toll on the economy.

It gets pretty rough.

Answer 6

It's a metaphor for the cosmic theory that war is meaningless. However, in a different sense, we're just animals, it's our nature to fight over pointless crap.

Answer 7

War is necessary sometimes, thanks for being a realist.

Answer 8

if they eliminate each other, we win...................