War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

Palomar · 2004-09-02 15:25:14

*Just when I think I'm going to lay off this sort of talk...

I've been thinking about Cobra's signature line:

+"There are a host of people . . . who will say that this will be the last war and that from now on we will only need world 'clubs'. They are the ones who will be responsible for the deaths of millions of people."

General George S. Patton+

I'll refrain from rehashing my views of various wars throughout history we've discussed (avoiding repetiton), except to say: Yes, war is sometimes necessary and unavoidable.

However, I can't help recalling Frederick the Great. As a prince, he wrote against Machiavelli. After his father died and he assumed the throne, Frederick got tired (apparently) of feeding and playing with the royal greyhounds, strolling in his gardens and writing letters to luminaries of the time (particularly scholars and philosophers). He told Voltaire (who was a pacifist) that "the spirit of glory haunted him." He wanted glory, so he picked a fight with the Empress Maria Theresa of Austria and started a war. He involved his nation in many wars and earned his reputation as a warrior king.

Sometimes I watch "The History Channel" with my husband about wars, machinery, ammunition, etc. WWII particularly interests me -- to a point.

Sometimes war is necessary...sometimes it's simply glorified and pursued for whatever reason. :-\ Perhaps the line dividing the two gets a little more blurred than we'd like to think.

Not saying anyone -here- is glorifying war, by the way. I just think more wars have been UNnecessary than necessary.

--Cindy

REB · 2004-09-02 15:37:50

I am a Pacifist at Heart. I dream of the human race working together to do things like terraforming Mars and Venus. Imagine if the human race took all the resources we have put into war and used them to explore and settle space. Instead of fighting over this old world, we could build new worlds.

But as long as there are Hitlers and Saddams, terrorist like OBL. As long as people being slaughtered like in Sudan, and as long as government want to oppress their people like North Korea and Iran, there will be bloodshed.

Turning a blind eye makes us hypocrites and guilty- guilty for ignoring crimes against humanity when we could do something about it. Hypocrites because someone else dies for our human rights and freedom, and we are unwilling to do the same.
Some times war is necessary.

On the bright side, more people (in relation to population growth) are living better lives than every before.
Basic human rights and freedom are slowing taking over the Earth, inch by inch. We’ll get there- to a peaceful global society- one day.

Ian Flint · 2004-09-02 17:23:10

I'm also a pacifist at heart, but I do admit that wars are sometimes inevitable. But...

But as long as there are Hitlers and Saddams, terrorist like OBL. As long as people being slaughtered like in Sudan, and as long as government want to oppress their people like North Korea and Iran, there will be bloodshed.

As long as there are http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.c … ]excessive war reparations...

The impact of the reparations was widespread. The economic depression that they created in Germany helped to pave the way for the end of the Weimar Republic and the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.

As long as there are powerful nations using others as puppets...(same link as above - search for Saddam Hussein)

The pretext for hostilities with Iran was this territorial dispute, but the war was more likely an attempt by Saddam, supported by both the United States and the Soviet Union, to have Iraq form a bulwark against the expansion of radical Iranian-style revolution

As long as there are imperialist powers redefining other countries' borders...(same article as Saddam Hussein)

On another compelling level, Saddam showed disdain for the Kuwait-Iraq boundary line (actually imposed on Iraq by British imperial officials in 1922) because it cut Iraq off from the sea. One of the few articles of faith uniting the political scene in a nation rife with sharp social, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic divides was the belief that Kuwait had no right to even exist in the first place. For at least half a century, Iraqi nationalists were espousing emphatically the belief that Kuwait was historically an integral part of Iraq, and that Kuwait had only come into being through the maneuverings of British imperialism

I have to go right now, but stay tuned for more "As long as there are..." history lessons.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-02 18:37:54

I have to go right now, but stay tuned for more "As long as there are..." history lessons.

I'll save you the trouble. As long as there are human beings alive...

As for pacifism, while it may come as a skull shattering shock to some here, I'm a rather peaceful, non-belligerant sort of guy. It takes quite a bit before I'm willing to throw down.

Another quote comes to mind, this time from Machiavelli.
"You must know, then, that there are two methods of fighting, the one by law, the other by force: the first method is that of men, the second of beasts; but as the first method is often insufficient, one must have recourse to the second."

Sometimes we have to fight. Sometimes, even when we can avoid it, there are things worth fighting for. We live in a world where wars happen far too often, but we must never lose sight of the fact that war is not the worst thing in the world. Slavery, fear, torture and tyranny; that is the final destination of pacifism. It's better to carry a sword than to carry chains. Wars, even unnecessary wars, can often bring about a great deal of good.

Back to Patton for example, after Germany's defeat he got a first-hand look at both the German people and the Red Army, and began to question some of the decisions made by his superiors. As far as he was concerned, it wasn't over, he was set to roll right on to Moscow, and probably could have done it. Unnecessary? Yes. But it would have prevented Korea, Vietnam, the fall of Eastern Europe to communist oppression, the threat of global nuclear annihilation. Morality is somewhat cloudy, though perhaps the moral is that an unnecessary war now can be a blessing in the future.

Or perhaps not, we can never know what lies down the road not taken.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-02 19:58:17

The problem with peace is that the world is a machine with six billion parts, and you only need one nut to cause a major malfunction.

My standard of "When is war necessary?" is pretty simple, and serves as a rough and ready guide: if it isn't worth fighting door to door and to the knife for, it's not really worth the bloodshed. Sometimes wars meet this standard because they deal with issues of great importance (World War II) and sometimes they reach that level because the other guy insists on an ugly fight (the current war on terrorism), but in general, you shouldn't bother those who aren't bothering you (or planning to bother you after they take care of the neighbors)

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-03 06:06:45

...but in general, you shouldn't bother those who aren't bothering you (or planning to bother you after they take care of the neighbors)

That's where the line gets blurry, how certain do you have to be that they're planning to "bother you" and how soon before they can are you justified in acting?

Back to the Patton example, everyone with any sense knew the Soviet Union wasn't going to suddenly embrace the capitalist world and play nice. It was also clear that it would be awhile before they would try anything. But it was most surely coming. Patton argued that there would never be a better time, that the longer we waited the stronger they'd grow while we grew weaker. We were already over there, they'd already taken a beating, we claimed to be fighting for the "four freedoms" and such, why not finish the job?

So by Trebuchet's standard, would such a war have been justified?

Palomar · 2004-09-03 07:33:58

*Just remembered a political cartoon I saw in Newsweek magazine, in July (?). IIRC, it was originally printed in a Savannah, Georgia newspaper.

Anyway: A man in sharp dress uniform with rows of medals, standing ramrod straight, is yelling at 3 guys dressed in old, ill-fitting uniforms who are standing at ease while holding muskets and bayonets. The officer says the military needs all the soldiers it can get for Iraq, and why are they just standing around? One of the 3 (all looking at the officer like he's crazy) replies, "But we're Civil War re-enactors!"

:laugh:

I tried to find that on the 'net, no luck. It was hilarious.

--Cindy

Mundaka · 2004-09-12 00:46:03

REB · 2004-09-13 06:59:06

Mundaka, it sounds almost like your describing the Cold War.

REB · 2004-09-13 07:00:57

...and, the problem with terrorist is that they could care less what you have. We have nukes, yet they attacked us. They value their cause more than their lives.

You can't intemidate terrorist like that.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-13 08:07:00

We have nukes, yet they attacked us. They value their cause more than their lives.
You can't intemidate terrorist like that.

You can intimidate those who back them. And if that fails, you still have the means to strike clean and hard should you be attacked.

Dook · 2004-09-13 12:47:16

Very few countries in the world actually need a capable military to provide for their defense. North Korea needs one to keep their dictator in power and the South needs one to keep out the North. Pakistan and India both need capable military's to prevent the other from attacking. Taiwan needs a good military.

Most other countries military's are a complete waste of money. Does Cuba or Iran really think they can stop the US from conquering them if we really wanted to? Mexico has the most incapable military of any country compared to it's size. Why? Because they know the US is not going to invade and if we did there is nothing they could do about it.

Countries like Iran should be spending money to help their economies catch up but they want to cause trouble instead. They send ships loaded with weapons to Palestine and give $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.

Unfortunately, there will be more wars.

DonPanic · 2004-09-13 15:33:20

LO

You can intimidate those who back them. And if that fails, you still have the means to strike clean and hard should you be attacked.

Did Oklahoma City bombers had any kind of foreign country support ?

Will you strike a country just because terrorists have a minority support by some extremist wild gangs ?
We should better work on infiltrating terrorists groups, and up to that, getting strong support of the world public opinion is better than be seen as a threat at any country.
You're sure not speaking the way to get that support.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-13 18:04:57

Will you strike a country just because terrorists have a minority support by some extremist wild gangs ?

No, but you do strike when those terrorists are sponsored and harbored by a specific government.

Don't oversimplify the issue, there is no universal solution, no single policy stance that works all the time and makes everything okay. We can deter state-sponsored terrorism by projecting military force, it doesn't mean we don't use other avenues when appropriate.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-13 20:46:16

I too, tend to agree with CC in this regard, and in others, though not when it comes to General Patton's idea of advancing on Moscow.
The Soviet Uion had indeed "taken a beating" during WWII but, from mid 1943 onwards, they turned things around with a vengeance. Throughout 1944 and into 1945, their factories were producing upwards of 2000 T-34 tanks per month. (Think about it.) Armed with 76 mm guns and utilising sloped armour, these tanks were superior to every German tank except the Tiger and possibly the Panther, and at least the equal of the American Sherman. Their parts were largely interchangeable with those of Soviet agricultural tractors, so that spares could be found in most barns! By May 1945, the Soviets had at least 40,000 of them in battle-ready condition and crewed by an extraordinarily tough, battle-hardened breed of soldier. They also had tens of thousands of artillery pieces and millions of troops. Production facilities were way out, east of the Urals, beyond bombing range, and were quite capable of increasing production in the event of an American/German/British assault.
However ill-prepared and inept the Soviet forces had been in 1941 (largely due to Stalin's 'decapitation' of the military command structure during the late thirties for fear of a coup), the Red Army in 1945 was a very different creature all together.
Short of a nuclear attack, I believe any allied advance into the Soviet Union would have bogged down and become a particularly bloody and protracted war. I don't honestly think Patton knew just what he was facing in Berlin that summer of 1945.

Mundaka's notion of having a military so "humungous, ferocious .." etc. that no one dares attack, is certainly nothing new. There's an old Roman dictum which goes: "Si vis pacem, para bellum" ... If you want peace, prepare for war.

Some people here worry that aliens will come and kill us and take over the world. That possibility doesn't trouble me much at all because I have to say I'd feel sorry for any race attempting such a thing. It's difficult to imagine a more warlike and ferocious adversary than homo sapiens - I think we'd give the aliens a hell of a time!
As I saw on a T-shirt once:-
"Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I shall fear no evil ... 'cos I'm the meanest son-of-a-bitch in the valley."
:laugh: :;):

DonPanic · 2004-09-14 05:38:34

LO

Short of a nuclear attack, I believe any allied advance into the Soviet Union would have bogged down and become a particularly bloody and protracted war.

You're right, Shaun, and must be added to this that all the european peoples having suffered nazi occupation wouldn't have tolerate any alliance with the former Wermacht and the nazi divisions and would have sabotaged this infame alliance, if not starting a open guerilla war against it.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-14 05:43:23

Well, in my own defense (not to mention Patton's) the "march to Moscow" scenario was never really conceived as being easy, but more as "easier now than later." The Red Army was weary, their supply lines were stretched as well as dependent to a large degree on American lend-lease trucks, they had expended so much of their manpower against the Germans that they couldn't maintain it for much longer, their factories were out of range of German bombers but not American B-29's operating from the Pacific, and all of this ignores the now-known fact that the US would have a deployable nuclear weapon in a matter of months.

If it was a foregone conclusion that war with the Soviets was inevitable, such action would have made sense. Otherwise, it's reckless warmongering.

But it casts some murk into when a war is justified. The easy answer is the Russians weren't going to attack, so no. But if it's coming anyway, the whole equation changes. No easy answers.

DonPanic · 2004-09-14 05:50:44

LO

Back to Patton for example, after Germany's defeat he got a first-hand look at both the German people and the Red Army, and began to question some of the decisions made by his superiors. As far as he was concerned, it wasn't over, he was set to roll right on to Moscow, and probably could have done it. Unnecessary? Yes. But it would have prevented Korea, Vietnam, the fall of Eastern Europe to communist oppression, the threat of global nuclear annihilation. Morality is somewhat cloudy, though perhaps the moral is that an unnecessary war now can be a blessing in the future.

About Vietnam, no one, except for General Leclerc who understood vietnamese greed for independance could have avoided a liberation war at France, or any ally, the Viets would have fought with sticks and stones for independance rather than be submitted again to any colonial power.

their factories were out of range of German bombers but not American B-29's operating from the Pacific, their factories were out of range of German bombers but not American B-29's operating from the Pacific,

Ussr air army wasn't as weak as Luftwaffe or Jap's in 1945, and I'm not quite sure that B29s could carry bomb payload as well as fuel to get back home. And as long as Japan was still at war, it would have been a 2 fronts war.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-14 06:08:18

About Vietnam, no one, except for General Leclerc who understood vietnamese greed for independance could have avoided a liberation war at France, or any ally, the Viets would have fought with sticks and stones for independance rather than be submitted again to any colonial power.

I was speaking of "avoiding Vietnam" from an American perspective. We weren't there to keep them from gaining independence but to prevent them from becoming another Soviet satellite.

France had its own problems in Indochina that I would not have been particularly concerned with, from an American perspective. :;):

Ussr air army wasn't as weak as Luftwaffe or Jap's in 1945

But it was inferior to that of the US, and the point was that unlike when they were fighting Germany, the Soviets would not be able to maintain production because we could bomb their factories.

But again, the justification for doing so depends largely on one's perspective. It can be deserving of total condemnation yet be utterly defensible at the same time.

DonPanic · 2004-09-14 06:21:55

LO

the Soviets would not be able to maintain production because we could bomb their factories.

My last post about this point of topic, do you really realise the difficulty of air operations over such a vast territory as USSR, more than twice the USA in size, thrice in length, if the warcraft factories were spread in small units ?
Let me have some doubts...

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-14 06:36:33

I didn't say it would have been easy, and if you'll recall it wasn't my policy suggestion. :;):

It's an example to consider with regards to when war is justified, to illustrate that perceptions can be just as important and just as valid as actual, quantifiable threats. Is it less just to fight a war when you can avoid it but have a better chance of winning than to put it off until you can no longer avoid it at the expense of much more death and suffering later?

Grypd · 2004-09-14 10:49:15

About the B29, you see the soviets had there own copies from the aircraft that due to damage or similar had flown to the safety of the Soviet union from the bombing of Japan. There ability to copy and then use there own versions was astonishing it then became who could build the most and the USSR might well have been able to do it.

So if Patton had got his wish to carry on and to try to finish off the USSR it is pretty sure he would have failed. His supply lines where streched just to get to germany and he was facing a numerically superior foe in terms of war materials so the use of the atomic bomb would have been a necessity. If a conventional war had been fought at the time we may have hurt the soviets enough to have them pull back but that would actually make them stronger as there stretched supply lines would have been eased. The death toll amongst the B29 crews as they attacked the USSRs armaments factories behind the Ural mountains would have been catastrophic.

Though Patton may have felt the risk was worth it I honestly think saner heads prevaled there. Of course it lead to the cold war but the options to stop it where too risky and what the Cold war was a war of ideals with each side maneuvering through allies and neutrals to try to win. This war lead to a strain that the USSR could not maintain and when the end did come it was quick and certain. Of course the fallout is still hurting with Ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and the Islamic terrorists that we trained to fight the USSR attacking us now. But that is what happens when a paradigm changes.

History teaches us that there is always a space between these type of conflicts and we are in one now. But there will be future confrontations between differing idealogies/ civilisations as an example Greek vs Persian, Roman vs Carthaginian, Islamic vs Christianity, England vs France, Allies vs Fascism. It now asks the question what will be the next conflict and what will it be, you see there are quite a few possibilities.

dicktice · 2004-09-14 17:27:29

The next confrontation? For us who are already "knowledgable" it can only be the challengs of orbital, interplanetary and eventually, deep space: The Ultimate Aversary.
Osama bin Laden, I maintain, is providing Earth with the (until now) missing "alien" ingrediant to inspire traditional enemy nations to cooperate in the common cause of peaceful coexistance, which will then lead to confronting Space.

DonPanic · 2004-09-22 15:07:17

LO
Well, as the jugement on a war is the winner's point of view, a justified war has to be won, and war is won when it leads to a state of peace.
Knowing that, 1914-1918 war at Germany led to WWII, and wasn't a victory.

Grypd · 2004-09-22 16:48:15

I agree if we use History we see that it is not a commen occurence for a war to be a final decider to resolve issues.
War is only a decider when the other side is for all intents obliterated. War is often a symptom of competition of some sorts and rarely is it a sudden thing as both sides get a chance to arm themselves as the competition heats up.

And well for my side we are in a confrontation but this one is idealogical with one side wanting to convert all to there idea of Islam with the rest of the world and other muslims resisting. But the next one is to see who is to dominate the world buisness or goverments

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-02 15:25:14

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#2 2004-09-02 15:37:50

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#3 2004-09-02 17:23:10

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#4 2004-09-02 18:37:54

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#5 2004-09-02 19:58:17

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#6 2004-09-03 06:06:45

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#7 2004-09-03 07:33:58

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#8 2004-09-12 00:46:03

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#9 2004-09-13 06:59:06

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#10 2004-09-13 07:00:57

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#11 2004-09-13 08:07:00

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#12 2004-09-13 12:47:16

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#13 2004-09-13 15:33:20

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#14 2004-09-13 18:04:57

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#15 2004-09-13 20:46:16

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#16 2004-09-14 05:38:34

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#17 2004-09-14 05:43:23

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#18 2004-09-14 05:50:44

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#19 2004-09-14 06:08:18

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#20 2004-09-14 06:21:55

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#21 2004-09-14 06:36:33

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#22 2004-09-14 10:49:15

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#23 2004-09-14 17:27:29

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#24 2004-09-22 15:07:17

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

#25 2004-09-22 16:48:15

Re: War: When Necessary/When Not - ?

Board footer