Is war a safety net to protect the human race from uncontrolled agression? Nuclear war?

Question

For thousands of years people have fought one another for control of natural resources, and dominance. What I think happens is a cycle of increased anger, then war, fear, regret, recovery, growth, satisfaction, complacency, arrogance, annoyance, anger, increased anger, war, fear. And so on round that cycle.

But now war in the western world is not possible because of the nuclear deterrant. So does this block this cycle? And are we going to see an un-checked buildup of anger over the next few tens of years resulting in sufficient anger to cause a major nuclear conflict in the west, with devastating results?

Answer 1

Maybe war is a safety net for overpopulation.
But sure there are other ways.

Answer 2

The most advanced nations in the world have managed to avoid war between themselves through co-operation and diplomacy. War has been displaced to the peripheries - the poorer, less technologically advanced countries.

War as an 'instrument' of foreign policy no longer means countries like Britain and Germany or even Britain and Russia fighting each other. Instead the most powerful nations fight 'surrogate' wars in countries like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan under the pretext of 'containing Communism' or 'combatting terrorism'.

A cynical arms trade practiced by the wealthier nations expliots actual and potential conflicts among the poorer.

The nuclear 'deterrent' is a myth. Countries like the USA and Russia don't fight because their governments can talk to and understand each other, not because each has spent billions on nuclear weapons. They have the 'nukes' because being a nuclear power is a prerequisite to Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council. This is the real reason why countries like North Korea and Iran want nukes and why the established nuclear powers -US, Britain et al - are so anxious to stop them.

Also in the case of Iran because Israel has had 'nukes' since the 1960s with British & US help and therefore Iran wants to be militarily on a par with Israel.

In other words a hideous arms race is in progress and as usual it is the innocent who pay, (children, the sick, the elderly, the vulnerable, the non-combatants) either directly by being killed or injured in war or indirectly by suffering through sanctions, lack of spending on health or other essential services due to arms expenditure, etc.

Answer 3

It's what the west is doing to the rest of the world which worries me. What gives the so-called Western world (it appears to include Australia) the right to say 'do as I say, not as I do?'

What gives them the right to say that whilst they are not prepared to destroy their nuclear weapons, nobody else should have them? Let's face it, in the middle east, a nuclear war would be catastrophic for all countries in the area. The wind could change, even the wind blowing over Israel.
This seems to be still about oil: I put it to you: What good is radioactive oil to anyone?

Answer 4

War is always possible but so is peace. War is destructive. There is nothing constructive about it - it does not serve humanity's best interests in any way. So I disagree with the basic premise of your question.

I saw an excellent bumper sticker yesterday, it said "Fight WAR not Wars. Fight POWER not people."

Answer 5

War is uncontrolled aggression.

Answer 6

You dont really believe we cannot be attacked do you? Nukes going off dooms us too. Its no failsafe as they make it seem

Answer 7

conventional war -- ok ; nuclear war will be worst