Why is war bad?

[Delta4Embassy]

Could make it more academic sounding but that's it in a nutshell. Why is war bad?

What always comes to mind when I think of war is D-Day and US Marines coming ashore on Omaha beach only to die seconds later. Dying to someone with a personal grudge is one thing. The heat of passion thing. At least that's a personal kind of killing. Killing in war it's impersonal. You don't have a particular problem with the enemy, they're simply an obstacle to overcome by killing them. That impersonal killing where everyone who dies was an individual with hopes and ambitions, loved and was loved dies in a split second to someone who didn't hate them or especially want them dead is the most horrible thing I can imagine, and I can think real dark.

 

[Pogo]

Is death bad?

No one knows the answer to that, but death is what war produces. If death is not a bad thing, then war's not so bad either. Plus it generates lots of construction jobs.

 

[Boss]

Could make it more academic sounding but that's it in a nutshell. Why is war bad?

What always comes to mind when I think of war is D-Day and US Marines coming ashore on Omaha beach only to die seconds later. Dying to someone with a personal grudge is one thing. The heat of passion thing. At least that's a personal kind of killing. Killing in war it's impersonal. You don't have a particular problem with the enemy, they're simply an obstacle to overcome by killing them. That impersonal killing where everyone who dies was an individual with hopes and ambitions, loved and was loved dies in a split second to someone who didn't hate them or especially want them dead is the most horrible thing I can imagine, and I can think real dark.

I don't think any intellectual argument can be made for war not being bad. You just explained very well why it is bad and I think most people would tend to agree with your assessment. War is bad... War is Hell, as someone smart once said.

There are several areas we can go from here. For instance, we can ponder the 'necessity of war' as something that can't be avoided or diverted. We can also discuss the reality that there are things worse than dying.

Some people tend to look at history in a retrospective way, imagining an alternative outcome that cannot be predicted. It's really ironic, being we are supposedly the most rational creatures of life on the planet. We somehow think we can imagine what might have happened, if... and we can't really do that. We cannot possibly know all the other intangible variables and resulting consequences of NOT doing whatever was done. It's futile. It amounts to our hubris and ego believing that we know this when we can't possibly know it.

So yes, war IS bad... we should always seek to avoid it whenever possible. However, there are times when it is unavoidable, as bad as it is. I personally believe, whenever that time comes, it is more humane and 'better' if you have the military might to end it quickly.

 

[Pogo]

War represents the ultimate human Failure. When we go to war, no matter what the circumstances that got us there, we have Failed.

 

[Pogo]

"Why do men go to war?
-- Because the women are watching."

--- T.E. Lawrence

 

[Harry Dresden]

remember that famous Klingon saying....

"Heghlu'DI' mobbe'lu'chugh QaQpu' Hegh wanI'".....(Death is an experience best shared)......

 

[Syriusly]

Could make it more academic sounding but that's it in a nutshell. Why is war bad?

What always comes to mind when I think of war is D-Day and US Marines coming ashore on Omaha beach only to die seconds later. Dying to someone with a personal grudge is one thing. The heat of passion thing. At least that's a personal kind of killing. Killing in war it's impersonal. You don't have a particular problem with the enemy, they're simply an obstacle to overcome by killing them. That impersonal killing where everyone who dies was an individual with hopes and ambitions, loved and was loved dies in a split second to someone who didn't hate them or especially want them dead is the most horrible thing I can imagine, and I can think real dark.

War is about destruction- sure there is death- premature death- and suffering- unnecessary suffering- but war leads to destruction of societies, and cultures, and art, and history, and infrastructure- war is all about wanton, wasteful destruction.

 

[Agit8r]

A picture is worth 1000 words:

 

[Publius1787]

Could make it more academic sounding but that's it in a nutshell. Why is war bad?

What always comes to mind when I think of war is D-Day and US Marines coming ashore on Omaha beach only to die seconds later. Dying to someone with a personal grudge is one thing. The heat of passion thing. At least that's a personal kind of killing. Killing in war it's impersonal. You don't have a particular problem with the enemy, they're simply an obstacle to overcome by killing them. That impersonal killing where everyone who dies was an individual with hopes and ambitions, loved and was loved dies in a split second to someone who didn't hate them or especially want them dead is the most horrible thing I can imagine, and I can think real dark.

Oddly enough we took it very personally. I'm sure the enemy took it personally on us. That's why we dehumanize the enemy by making culturally insensitive and off color jokes. Its a coping mechanism. But is war bad because of it? I never knew a war in which one side was attempting to accomplish what they thought was a bad thing.

 

[Publius1787]

A picture is worth 1000 words:

Indeed they are

 

[Publius1787]

Could make it more academic sounding but that's it in a nutshell. Why is war bad?

What always comes to mind when I think of war is D-Day and US Marines coming ashore on Omaha beach only to die seconds later. Dying to someone with a personal grudge is one thing. The heat of passion thing. At least that's a personal kind of killing. Killing in war it's impersonal. You don't have a particular problem with the enemy, they're simply an obstacle to overcome by killing them. That impersonal killing where everyone who dies was an individual with hopes and ambitions, loved and was loved dies in a split second to someone who didn't hate them or especially want them dead is the most horrible thing I can imagine, and I can think real dark.

War is about destruction- sure there is death- premature death- and suffering- unnecessary suffering- but war leads to destruction of societies, and cultures, and art, and history, and infrastructure- war is all about wanton, wasteful destruction.

Ever hear of creative destruction? Technological advancement has spread at the pace it has because of the necessity to advance beyond that of your enemies. More people live in relative comfort and security today because of war than have ever died in one.

 

[Publius1787]

War represents the ultimate human Failure. When we go to war, no matter what the circumstances that got us there, we have Failed.

You can carry that burden. I wont.

 

[Publius1787]

Could make it more academic sounding but that's it in a nutshell. Why is war bad?

What always comes to mind when I think of war is D-Day and US Marines coming ashore on Omaha beach only to die seconds later. Dying to someone with a personal grudge is one thing. The heat of passion thing. At least that's a personal kind of killing. Killing in war it's impersonal. You don't have a particular problem with the enemy, they're simply an obstacle to overcome by killing them. That impersonal killing where everyone who dies was an individual with hopes and ambitions, loved and was loved dies in a split second to someone who didn't hate them or especially want them dead is the most horrible thing I can imagine, and I can think real dark.

I don't think any intellectual argument can be made for war not being bad. You just explained very well why it is bad and I think most people would tend to agree with your assessment. War is bad... War is Hell, as someone smart once said.

There are several areas we can go from here. For instance, we can ponder the 'necessity of war' as something that can't be avoided or diverted. We can also discuss the reality that there are things worse than dying.

Some people tend to look at history in a retrospective way, imagining an alternative outcome that cannot be predicted. It's really ironic, being we are supposedly the most rational creatures of life on the planet. We somehow think we can imagine what might have happened, if... and we can't really do that. We cannot possibly know all the other intangible variables and resulting consequences of NOT doing whatever was done. It's futile. It amounts to our hubris and ego believing that we know this when we can't possibly know it.

So yes, war IS bad... we should always seek to avoid it whenever possible. However, there are times when it is unavoidable, as bad as it is. I personally believe, whenever that time comes, it is more humane and 'better' if you have the military might to end it quickly.

The more humane the war the longer it lasts. Sherman is the General you're quoting by the way.

Why is it so hard for people to think in a Machiavellian manner? Not everything is black and white and everything certainly isn't as it seems.

 

[whitehall]

Why do hypocrites think that war is good when democrats are in office but bad if republicans are in power?

 

[Publius1787]

Why do hypocrites think that war is good when democrats are in office but bad if republicans are in power?

I didn't see anyone make such a claim.

 

[Boss]

The more humane the war the longer it lasts. Sherman is the General you're quoting by the way.

Well Sherman certainly did his part to ensure war was hell for millions of civilian southern families. I can't argue there.

I disagree that longer wars are more humane. I see your point if you are speaking of intentions. If you attempt to engage in a "humane" war it takes longer to end. If we assume humane means cost in lives and quality of life, then it is more humane to end it sooner rather than later.

We instantly incinerated over 2 million Japanese citizens to end WWII. It doesn't sound humane until you compare it with the potential 60 million who would have likely died in the coming decade of war if we hadn't. So I guess it actually leads to a philosophical debate on what is humane?

 

[Publius1787]

The more humane the war the longer it lasts. Sherman is the General you're quoting by the way.

Well Sherman certainly did his part to ensure war was hell for millions of civilian southern families. I can't argue there.

I disagree that longer wars are more humane. I see your point if you are speaking of intentions. If you attempt to engage in a "humane" war it takes longer to end. If we assume humane means cost in lives and quality of life, then it is more humane to end it sooner rather than later.

We instantly incinerated over 2 million Japanese citizens to end WWII. It doesn't sound humane until you compare it with the potential 60 million who would have likely died in the coming decade of war if we hadn't. So I guess it actually leads to a philosophical debate on what is humane?

I said "The more humane the war the longer it lasts," not "the longer the war lasts the more humane." Big difference there buddy. Sherman is the perfect example, he shortened the war by being less humane. Likewise, the atomic bomb was less humane but it shortened the war. The more humane your are the longer the war lasts. There is an opportunity cost when trying to be humane. It is paid in human lives compounded over time. Inhumanness shortens that time but increases casualties.

 

[Boss]

The more humane the war the longer it lasts. Sherman is the General you're quoting by the way.

Well Sherman certainly did his part to ensure war was hell for millions of civilian southern families. I can't argue there.

I disagree that longer wars are more humane. I see your point if you are speaking of intentions. If you attempt to engage in a "humane" war it takes longer to end. If we assume humane means cost in lives and quality of life, then it is more humane to end it sooner rather than later.

We instantly incinerated over 2 million Japanese citizens to end WWII. It doesn't sound humane until you compare it with the potential 60 million who would have likely died in the coming decade of war if we hadn't. So I guess it actually leads to a philosophical debate on what is humane?

I said "The more humane the war the longer it lasts," not "the longer the war lasts the more humane." Big difference there buddy. Sherman is the perfect example, he shortened the war by being less humane. Likewise, the atomic bomb was less humane but it shortened the war. The more humane your are the longer the war lasts. There is an opportunity cost when trying to be humane. It is paid in human lives compounded over time. Inhumanness shortens that time but increases casualties.

Again, we are making the same point in different ways and with a different understanding of what "humane" means. I personally don't think Sherman shortened the war. He took the opportunity to burn the South to the ground on his march to Savanna, and it is one of the most despicable acts of military atrocity we've ever witnessed. It was totally unnecessary from a tactical standpoint and was all about vengeance and retribution.

The A-bombs on Japan in WWII are a better example of what I am talking about with regard to our perceptions of "humane" and what it means regarding war. It's difficult to view the instant incineration of 2 million people as being "humane" but in effect, it was much more humane than the alternative.

 

[Publius1787]

The more humane the war the longer it lasts. Sherman is the General you're quoting by the way.

Well Sherman certainly did his part to ensure war was hell for millions of civilian southern families. I can't argue there.

I disagree that longer wars are more humane. I see your point if you are speaking of intentions. If you attempt to engage in a "humane" war it takes longer to end. If we assume humane means cost in lives and quality of life, then it is more humane to end it sooner rather than later.

We instantly incinerated over 2 million Japanese citizens to end WWII. It doesn't sound humane until you compare it with the potential 60 million who would have likely died in the coming decade of war if we hadn't. So I guess it actually leads to a philosophical debate on what is humane?

I said "The more humane the war the longer it lasts," not "the longer the war lasts the more humane." Big difference there buddy. Sherman is the perfect example, he shortened the war by being less humane. Likewise, the atomic bomb was less humane but it shortened the war. The more humane your are the longer the war lasts. There is an opportunity cost when trying to be humane. It is paid in human lives compounded over time. Inhumanness shortens that time but increases casualties.

Again, we are making the same point in different ways and with a different understanding of what "humane" means. I personally don't think Sherman shortened the war. He took the opportunity to burn the South to the ground on his march to Savanna, and it is one of the most despicable acts of military atrocity we've ever witnessed. It was totally unnecessary from a tactical standpoint and was all about vengeance and retribution.

The A-bombs on Japan in WWII are a better example of what I am talking about with regard to our perceptions of "humane" and what it means regarding war. It's difficult to view the instant incineration of 2 million people as being "humane" but in effect, it was much more humane than the alternative.

2 million?

Civilian Deaths in the Battle of Okinawa 142,000 (hey kids, no nukes were dropped on Okinawa) http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/Okinawa/id20.htm
Civilian Deaths in Hiroshima 66,000 Total Casualties The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Historical Documents atomicarchive.com
Civilian Deaths in Nagasaki 39,000

My goodness, by killing less people than we did in Okinawa we ended the war. How many more Japanese civilians would have died if we did not drop the atomic bomb? Could you imagine the fallout of innocence if we had invaded the mainland? Certainly more than 105,000 (Hiroshima + Nagasaki combined) would have met their demise on such a venture. Amazing how an inhumane act could lead to more humanity huh?

What accounted for the high civilian death rate in Okinawa? The Japanese honor code stipulated that their civilians should die before their towns were taken by U.S. troops and men should fight to the death civilian or not. Many Japanese civilian men and boys were pressed into military service in Okinawa and civilians were shot when they attempted to receive aid from the U.S. Troops. Also I should mention the naval and areal bombardment campaign was very inaccurate by todays standards.

You claim that Sherman did not shorten the civil war? What do you believe the South would have done with all of those resources and man power had Sherman not destroyed it? They would have used it to prolong the war.

 

[whitehall]

Why do hypocrites think that war is good when democrats are in office but bad if republicans are in power?

I didn't see anyone make such a claim.

You could see "such a claim" in the streets when Bush was president. After Congress approved it, American Troops went farther, faster and took less casualties in Iraq than any other conflict of it's kind in U.S. history but they hanged Bush in effigy and protested in the streets. Harry Truman issued an (illegal) executive order that sent Troops to Korea and nobody protested when the U.S. ended up where they started after three years at the cost of 50,000 Americans killed.The double standard is evident, war is fine during democrat administrations, but bad when republicans are in power.