Is war really necessary ?

Question

This is my opinion no doubt ill get abused thru it but.......... First off i feel war is not necessary because when you think about it if you cause war you kill innocent people..... but then if u try to get rid of the bad people you end up killing people so basically war is sort of like murder and its unecessary.

I give whole lot of praises to those who helped me to be in this world who fought in wars you are great people i respect you fully but when we see those soldiers who think its a fantastic game to kill innocent people for no reason or make up lies as most of war is it really makes me mad so i feel there should be other ways of resolving issues why dont we just have this thing where all weapons get destroyed and then all those who are bad serve time in prison as basically if u execute a murderer its too quick.... why not let them rot ?


Thats my opinion so id like to hear some nice opinions from others.... and a real decent reason has to why we cant not have "war".

Answer 1

Yes. War is necessary. You would not be able to post your anti-war propaganda on this site if it weren't for wars. Just remember that.

Answer 2

Yes I am afraid war is sometimes necessary. People are not all alike nor do they believe the same things. The US is a fine example of this. People here are free to believe whatever they want. In many other nations people are conditioned from birth to behave in a certain, much more limited way. There is very little freedom in many places. i also believe that there are far too many people who are willing to victimize others and unfortunately the only way to resist these people is often violent.

Answer 3

Personally I have not seen proof that the war we are currently in has anything to do with 911 (as it was presented for us to believe). Therefore until someone convinces me other wise I am against this particular war. However to answer your question...

Should we allow terrorism? If we don't do something about it, it will continue. How many innocent American lives have to be shed to satisfy someones need to validate war?

It is easy to sit back and criticize things we don't understand. I don't fully understand it either but unless we have alternative suggestions what right do we have to criticize?

I wish the leaders could sit down and discuss it like adults and come to an agreement without all the fighting, however how many adults do you know that can actually do that with lessor problems. Not very likely that we can settle this over a game of chess.

My son is in Iraq and if he were to not come home, it would be nice to know he died for a good cause. I welcome anyone to try to convince me his death would be for a good cause.

Answer 4

I understand what you're saying, and this debate has been going for centuries. I'm not trying to shoot down your opinion, but there are some logistical questions that need answering. How would you get the bad people into prison if they didn't want to go? You either have to force them, which could lead to war, or let them keep commiting international crimes. If we destroy all of our weapons, how do we make sure that our enemies will? and if we end up destroying all of our weapons and they don't, what's to stop them from making war against us?
When it comes down to it, having a war-free world depends on everybody cooperating equally and being open and honest, which seems to be against human nature.

Answer 5

Answer these questions honestly and you'll understand a little better.

England, under "We have peace in our time" Chamberlain, negotiated with Nazi Germany. Did British appeasement of German demands prevent war?

With Nazi Germany at war in Europe, Stalin negotiated a non-aggression pact with them. Was Russia attacked by Hitler in complete disregard to this treaty?

Korea was overrun by communist forces backed by China. This prevelantly northern force was driven back by UN forces. There is currently still a state of war in Korea. Now the northern leader is lobbing missiles over Japan and claiming to have nuclear weapons. How well have 50+ years of sanctions and negotiations worked?

In 1973 Israel was invaded by Egypt and Syria with the stated goal of driving the Jews into the ocean. It was a sneak attack on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. If Israel fought back desperately just to survive. Do you think negotiations or sanctions would have worked better?

Force is sometimes the only "language" that is comprehended. In your honest opinion, how would you have solved the above problems without the use of force? If everyone were to take force out of their vocabulary then yes, war is superfluous. Until then, those that beat their swords into ploughs will do the tilling for those that do not.

Answer 6

With out war, this country can not survive!!! This country would be in a depression all the time!!! Why do you think the president in 1941 let Japan bomb Pearl Harbor, He new it long before it happened? It got us out of a depression and put people to work 16 hours a day!!! Why do you think John Kennedy was assassinated? Cause he would not send troops into Nam and was going to pull the advisers out, the country needed a war because we were heading for another depression. The definition of WAR is (Jobs for the American worker) Gen. Patton once said war is beautiful!!!

Answer 7

Armies, and wars in general, are needed as a natural part of human evolution. When you look at war from a long-range perspective, it becomes clear that, as destructive as wars are, their very destructiveness has served as the primary force for the evolution of the human race. By mercilessly elimnating those who were unable to survive in the theater of war, wars resulted in a constant upgrading of both the physiological and intellectual acuity of man.

Although many bright people perish in wars, the preponderance of the casualties occur among people with the limited intellectual capacity to understand the mechanics of wars and who are thus unable to avoid becoming casualties.

Who would seriosly dispute the fact that smart people have higher living standards than intellectually less endowed persons do? War elimnates the intellectually less fit and thus, in the end, raises the average intelligence and the living standards of society as a whole.

Throughout the ages, evolution took advantage of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, war, natural disasters, disease and famine.

If we succeed in eliminating armies and war, we are also eliminating war in its capacity as a powerful contributor to evolution by keeping the world population in check. We are now at 6 billion humans, scientific projections of growth predict 10 billion within 50 years...mostly in under developed countries. Humanity will reach the limits of available resources at 9-12 billion..this is not sustainable.

We can only speculate as to which path evolution will take in reducing the world from 10 to 3 billion. A battle for resources will favor those with higher levels of intelligence and rationality. Evolution never receds to irrationality, superstition and stupidity.

Answer 8

Talking is a good thing. Negotiating is a good thing. Words without the capacity for action are meaningless. The potential to enforce our expectations is a good thing and saved many lives as in the "Cold War" and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In war there are some innocents who die inadvertently, but there are some people who primarily target the innocents—they must be stopped. Sometimes War is necessary to guarantee the peace. Without the capacity for force, who is going to put your bad people in prison to rot?

Answer 9

Wars are INEVITABLE. There's ALWAYS some punk who wants to be king of the mountain.

To knock him off the mountain requires a war. So even if you're not stupid enough to fight the ambitious punk, eventually, the ambitious punk will bring the war to your own doorstep.

This is our glorious simian ancestry telling us that we maximize peace only by preparing for the inevitable and having as few wars as possible are infrequently as possible. We can wage peace and minimize actual war -- but -- the time at war doesn't get down to zero, it just gets down to a punk-smashing minimum.

Answer 10

As long as the majority of politicians are men, wars will be fought. Men only understand violence as a means of settling disputes. Women shout at each other and only pull hair after men egg them n to fight. Even then its only a scratch or two, no knives or broken bottles.

So if women strat to rule, wars will reduce in number.

Answer 11

Well The World Would Have Been Over-Populated Had There Not Been Any....There Will Always Be Wars Until Man Is Eradicated....