Can War Be A Peace Maker?

[Meldaria]

It's true that peace cannot exist without conflict, but if we strive to end war with peace it sort of makes more sense than ending war with war. Imagine peace as water and war as fire(assuming it's non-electrical). To spread fire into an already burning forest ultimately leads to the destruction of that forest, in the end nothing will be left to burn, this is not peace, this is destruction. To spread water in the forest that is burning, is to save the forest and all of it's trees without burning it to the ground.

[Mirkana]

I don't know who this guy War is, but despite his name, I believe that he can bring peace.

Seriously, the flamethrower analogy is actually a good one. A flamethrower can put out a fire by destroying all fuel. Similarly, a major war can put an end to pre-exiting unrest or tensions.

For example, imagine that nuclear weapons had never been invented, and that the United States and Soviet Union had gone to war sometime in the 1950s. Let us also imagine that the US somehow managed to win, and replaced the Communist regime with a democratic government. The result would have been no extended Cold War, possibly a lot fewer wars overall - oh, and millions of Russians and Americans dead in the Russo-American War.

Yes, war can bring peace. However, war also kills people. Furthermore, a war can also cause more war. War is complicated.

[Skirtingboard]

War is a part of human nature. There will always be war.

This, really. But what i do still feel is that violence can be used, potentially, for the greater good. But this peace is only due to the conflict subsiding, hense war leading to peace, because in the absense of conflict, there is peace.

[Skirtingboard]

To spread fire into an already burning forest ultimately leads to the destruction of that forest, in the end nothing will be left to burn, this is not peace, this is destruction.

This is still peace, albeit peace through destruction.

[Whittoria]

Using a dumbed down version of the Socratic method (which I learned in Philosophy class last summer, I think), here is my response:

Let's establish that war is the opposite of peace. But let's assume that during a time of peace, there is tension between two lands. Let's also assume that these two lands propose solutions to this conflict; however, all solutions offered are in the best interests of one nation and leave very few benefits for the other, leading to disagreement over terms of peace and tensions increasing further.

Now let's assume that tensions have risen so high due to aggravated talks that both sides declare war on each other. But how are wars won? There are a few answers:

1.) One country wears down the other until the latter surrenders
2.) KILL EVERYONE

Alas, but we must also define war. What is war? It is the act in which two or more entities engage in combat with each other and fight. Thus, war is defined by fighting. And winning a war means basically kicking the crap out of the opponent. So the goal, then would be to win the war (because no one likes to lose!), which must be carried out by fighting the opposition and killing more of them than they kill of you until one of the two aforementioned results is acheived. Once this happens, there is no fighting, thus no war, and since war is the opposite of peace, and if there is no longer war, then alas there is peace. Thus, war leads to peace.


Thank you for allowing me to waste your time!

[Skirtingboard]

I like you description better than mine, Whittoria

[Zachtung]

interesting, anyone here watched 'fog of war'?