Alrighty then, Is War a Necessary evil in your opinion?

[Zweite Alaje]

It is not a necessary evil, as that would imply that it is an entirely unavoidable state of affairs. It is an evil made necessary by evil systems and evil rulers.

It is an unavoidable state of affairs, not created by evil intentions necessarily, but conflicts of interest.

[Scomagia]

See everyone, violence and murder are alright as long as we get a fancy new gadget out of it.

Which improves the lives of every human to be born in the future.

Technological progress, which equates to the advancement of humanity, is worth its weight in blood. World War Two, no matter how dire or horrible, was one of the greatest events in history, ironically, as it launched humanity forward on the back of a nuclear bomb.
Of course, it has to be the correct type of war, between fairly matched opponents, thus forcing innovation. A first world nation beating the snot out of a third world nation creates little innovation, due to the fact that little, if not zero innovation is required to annihilate a weaker foe.

I cannot agree with you. Millions of lives lost is not worth technological advancement. We can advance without murdering each other. And atomic weapons are the single worst invention that any human civilization has come up with, so I'm not sure that's something to celebrate.

[Scomagia]

It is not a necessary evil, as that would imply that it is an entirely unavoidable state of affairs. It is an evil made necessary by evil systems and evil rulers.

It is an unavoidable state of affairs, not created by evil intentions necessarily, but conflicts of interest.

War is not unavoidable.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Which improves the lives of every human to be born in the future.

Technological progress, which equates to the advancement of humanity, is worth its weight in blood. World War Two, no matter how dire or horrible, was one of the greatest events in history, ironically, as it launched humanity forward on the back of a nuclear bomb.
Of course, it has to be the correct type of war, between fairly matched opponents, thus forcing innovation. A first world nation beating the snot out of a third world nation creates little innovation, due to the fact that little, if not zero innovation is required to annihilate a weaker foe.

I cannot agree with you. Millions of lives lost is not worth technological advancement. We can advance without murdering each other. And atomic weapons are the single worst invention that any human civilization has come up with, so I'm not sure that's something to celebrate.

No, I'm pretty sure Boy Bands are worse.

[Scomagia]

I cannot agree with you. Millions of lives lost is not worth technological advancement. We can advance without murdering each other. And atomic weapons are the single worst invention that any human civilization has come up with, so I'm not sure that's something to celebrate.

No, I'm pretty sure Boy Bands are worse.

Nah, boy bands are second.

[AETEN II]

Which improves the lives of every human to be born in the future.

Technological progress, which equates to the advancement of humanity, is worth its weight in blood. World War Two, no matter how dire or horrible, was one of the greatest events in history, ironically, as it launched humanity forward on the back of a nuclear bomb.
Of course, it has to be the correct type of war, between fairly matched opponents, thus forcing innovation. A first world nation beating the snot out of a third world nation creates little innovation, due to the fact that little, if not zero innovation is required to annihilate a weaker foe.

I cannot agree with you. Millions of lives lost is not worth technological advancement. We can advance without murdering each other. And atomic weapons are the single worst invention that any human civilization has come up with, so I'm not sure that's something to celebrate.

Except the fact they were one of the best, as they paved the way for nuclear generators (NOTE, which only malfunction when people cut corners, in America, nationalized and put under the control of the Navy, there'd never be a problem).

And of course we can advance without death. It's simply a slow, grueling process as funds are always allocated away from science and into the pocket of politicians. War simply is faster and more efficient.

[Karniveras]

I do believe that war is a necessary evil. Sometimes the cost of doing nothing is too great not to act.

[The Emerald Dawn]

No, I'm pretty sure Boy Bands are worse.

Nah, boy bands are second.

Erase a city in a single, painless, instant, then cause lingering death for millions over a generation or more.
Create a screaming mob of bewitched 12-14 year old females capable of shattering the ear drums of any in their near vicinity, instantly, then cause lingering death for millions over a generation or more.

Some may think the first a blessing.

[Scomagia]

I cannot agree with you. Millions of lives lost is not worth technological advancement. We can advance without murdering each other. And atomic weapons are the single worst invention that any human civilization has come up with, so I'm not sure that's something to celebrate.

Except the fact they were one of the best, as they paved the way for nuclear generators (NOTE, which only malfunction when people cut corners, in America, nationalized and put under the control of the Navy, there'd never be a problem).

And of course we can advance without death. It's simply a slow, grueling process as funds are always allocated away from science and into the pocket of politicians. War simply is faster and more efficient.

War is anything but efficient.

[Nua Corda]

War is only permissible in the case of an existential threat. Such as repelling an invasion by a foreign power or preemptively striking against a foreign power which is undoubtedly going to invade you (eg. declaring war on Nazi Germany).

[The Emerald Dawn]

War is only permissible in the case of an existential threat. Such as repelling an invasion by a foreign power or preemptively striking against a foreign power which is undoubtedly going to invade you (eg. declaring war on Nazi Germany).

I do not think that word means what you think that word means.

[Scomagia]

Nah, boy bands are second.

Erase a city in a single, painless, instant, then cause lingering death for millions over a generation or more.
Create a screaming mob of bewitched 12-14 year old females capable of shattering the ear drums of any in their near vicinity, instantly, then cause lingering death for millions over a generation or more.

Some may think the first a blessing.

Part of me wants to be annoyed that you are belittling the destructive force of nuclear weapons, but you do it so well that I can't help but smile. Thank you for that.

[Nua Corda]

War is only permissible in the case of an existential threat. Such as repelling an invasion by a foreign power or preemptively striking against a foreign power which is undoubtedly going to invade you (eg. declaring war on Nazi Germany).

I do not think that word means what you think that word means.

I assume it to mean, and used it to mean in this case, a serious threat to the very existence of your nation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[AETEN II]

Except the fact they were one of the best, as they paved the way for nuclear generators (NOTE, which only malfunction when people cut corners, in America, nationalized and put under the control of the Navy, there'd never be a problem).

And of course we can advance without death. It's simply a slow, grueling process as funds are always allocated away from science and into the pocket of politicians. War simply is faster and more efficient.

War is anything but efficient.

It is efficient. It typically secures vast resources, numerous inventions, and enemy scientists/inventions/etc, in under a decade. Much faster than normal progress, which can take several decades. Sacking Germany and Japan was one of the best things that ever happened to the Allies. Same with the Mongols bulldozing a third of the world, and Rome sacking Europe. Extremely profitable, if done correctly.

I also find it ironic that your avatar is a prophet of the Great Old Ones, a fictional grouping that wishes to launch mankind into a new era of horrific acts including orgies of death.

[New Sapienta]

War is anything but efficient.

It is efficient. It typically secures vast resources, numerous inventions, and enemy scientists/inventions/etc, in under a decade. Much faster than normal progress, which can take several decades. Sacking Germany and Japan was one of the best things that ever happened to the Allies. Same with the Mongols bulldozing a third of the world, and Rome sacking Europe. Extremely profitable, if done correctly.

You have played too many video games.

[Mkuki]

Is going to war with another country the right thing to do to solve problems i.e. Is it a necessary evil and why? Personally I believe a state of war is permissable if one country is threatening another nation's liberty.However I do not agree with being the aggressor.

The reasons for going to war are what differentiate between necessary evil and jackass invasion. Although being an aggressor makes that job much harder to do.

Either way I may love to study past wars (World War II and the American Civil War), but in this day and age war really should be obsolete. A last resort until all diplomatic options are used up twice.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

War is necessary but it is not evil...

[The Emerald Dawn]

Erase a city in a single, painless, instant, then cause lingering death for millions over a generation or more.
Create a screaming mob of bewitched 12-14 year old females capable of shattering the ear drums of any in their near vicinity, instantly, then cause lingering death for millions over a generation or more.

Some may think the first a blessing.

Part of me wants to be annoyed that you are belittling the destructive force of nuclear weapons, but you do it so well that I can't help but smile. Thank you for that.

Always trying to keep levity in matters of war. I spent long enough fighting them, I realized early on how quickly morbid sorrow can infest logic. Emotions have their place in arguments, but if all you focus on is the dark ones, you can ruin your judgement.

I do not think that word means what you think that word means.

I assume it to mean, and used it to mean in this case, a serious threat to the very existence of your nation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Eh....I wouldn't have used the word, because it creates an argument whereby you can not do war to prevent the decay, rather than destruction, of your nation.

To wit, Japan had a very valid point in bombing Pearl Harbor. It was stupid, but it was necessary if they wanted to keep their nation in place. It wouldn't have destroyed them, losing the oil, but it also prevented their growth or even stability. The same as any other war over resources (funny how soon those are going to start popping up here) it may become necessary because I guarantee you that Bob doesn't give a shit about Tom and his family if Tom and his family have the only source of something like, say, water.

[Nua Corda]

Part of me wants to be annoyed that you are belittling the destructive force of nuclear weapons, but you do it so well that I can't help but smile. Thank you for that.

Always trying to keep levity in matters of war. I spent long enough fighting them, I realized early on how quickly morbid sorrow can infest logic. Emotions have their place in arguments, but if all you focus on is the dark ones, you can ruin your judgement.

I assume it to mean, and used it to mean in this case, a serious threat to the very existence of your nation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Eh....I wouldn't have used the word, because it creates an argument whereby you can not do war to prevent the decay, rather than destruction, of your nation.

To wit, Japan had a very valid point in bombing Pearl Harbor. It was stupid, but it was necessary if they wanted to keep their nation in place. It wouldn't have destroyed them, losing the oil, but it also prevented their growth or even stability. The same as any other war over resources (funny how soon those are going to start popping up here) it may become necessary because I guarantee you that Bob doesn't give a shit about Tom and his family if Tom and his family have the only source of something like, say, water.

Granted, but you understand my point, I assume? Beyond that it's merely semantics.

[AETEN II]

It is efficient. It typically secures vast resources, numerous inventions, and enemy scientists/inventions/etc, in under a decade. Much faster than normal progress, which can take several decades. Sacking Germany and Japan was one of the best things that ever happened to the Allies. Same with the Mongols bulldozing a third of the world, and Rome sacking Europe. Extremely profitable, if done correctly.

You have played too many video games.

Not to many video games, simply analyzed. In order to survive, one must secure resources, eliminate enemies, and increase its strength. On the macro-scale, this applies to nations as well. No nation lasts forever, but you can certainly try your best and leave a landmark of technological progress. If America wasn't partially braindead, they would secure this future, and like other eastern nations, permanently secure resources in the Middle East and ensure they weren't retaken. In a perfect world, we would all live in harmony and dedicate resources to the advancement of the human race, but this world is not perfect, and thus requires violent force.

Also, you can manipulate nations like the CIA used to do, but that tends to backfire as preferable leaders in third-world nations also happen to have a habit of dying. Copying the British Empire, Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, Ancient China, and Persian Empire methods when in need of resources is much easier.

[Calenhardon]

OP is off my a couple letters. War is not necessarily evil.

[British Prussia]

Nuclear war is just cheating...

[Scomagia]

War is anything but efficient.

It is efficient. It typically secures vast resources, numerous inventions, and enemy scientists/inventions/etc, in under a decade. Much faster than normal progress, which can take several decades. Sacking Germany and Japan was one of the best things that ever happened to the Allies. Same with the Mongols bulldozing a third of the world, and Rome sacking Europe. Extremely profitable, if done correctly.

No, war wastes resources. See while we may make advancements that a benificial to all, they are generally made as a side note to weapons of death. In war you are not concerned with raising quality of life through technology, instead you are simply trying to find more effective ways of murdering the enemy. If anything war slows progress because of the sheer volume of lives lost. Don't you dare try to justify murdering swaths of people with "Well we get some fancy toys out of it."

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

You have played too many video games.

Not to many video games, simply analyzed. In order to survive, one must secure resources, eliminate enemies, and increase its strength. On the macro-scale, this applies to nations as well. No nation lasts forever, but you can certainly try your best and leave a landmark of technological progress. If America wasn't partially braindead, they would secure this future, and like other eastern nations, permanently secure resources in the Middle East and ensure they weren't retaken. In a perfect world, we would all live in harmony and dedicate resources to the advancement of the human race, but this world is not perfect, and thus requires violent force.

I agree.

[Zweite Alaje]

It is an unavoidable state of affairs, not created by evil intentions necessarily, but conflicts of interest.

War is not unavoidable.

People have vastly differing opinions on about everything, there will always be sufficient cause for war.