Are wars justified? Do you believe wars contribute to the expansion and evolution of humanity as sentient species in a short span of time? Are there benefits and positive outcomes to war?
>Are wars justified?
According to the definition of Clausewitz, war is simply another realm of politics. So yes, they can technically be justified under the same considerations as any other political decisions.
>Do you believe wars contribute to the expansion and evolution of humanity as sentient species in a short span of time?
Not particularly. They answer questions, but the questions are usually political rather than philosophical.
>Are there benefits and positive outcomes to war?
Yes. You get people who understand how much war sucks and who warn other people about it. They may even be listened to for a time before the next war happens.
Should a functioning backward thinking developing democratic country reliant on a certain foreign super power undergo a drastic major war to attain a sense of national identity to rival other major world powers?
Humans are primates. We are naturally violent. I dont think there is anything wrong with that. Nature is violent. Chimpanzees go to war and cannibalize those they kill. A lion will destroy the offspring of its rivals. Should lions and chimps be morally condemned? Why should humans be if we are 99% identical to other primates?
The fact that you are asking this question means we are overdue for a large scale conflict. WWII was so horrifying that countries got together and decided they should cede some of their sovereignty to a worldwide organization predicated on preventing future conflict.
Granted we can all accept what a failure that organization was. But for countries to even consider that avenue? The death a destruction was vast in scope. The next conflict (God forbid) will be far worse.
Consider what WWII was like: bombing of cities was necessary to stop industrial production of armaments. This will happen again. The carnage will be immense.
I swear, after my degree I'm moving to the countryside.
if you're american, due to the large amount of ICBM launch sites situated in the countryside, you'd probably still get fucked.
Wars can be justified through rhetoric in the media and propaganda, whether it's "for God", "for Freedom!", or "for the defense of our homeland", war has been fought for almost every imaginable reason or justification.
I originally believed that war cannot be 100% objectively justified, but I do think of defensive wars where wars are fought against an aggressor, whether it was the Soviets fighting off the Wehrmacht at Moscow's front gate or Franks fending off the Arabs at the Battle of Tours.
so I do believe that war can be justified, especially in situations where war is necessary to defend a nation's and ensure the safety of its people from those who wish to destroy it.
it goes every which way, and probably goes down to your personal view on whether a defensive war or a land grab for resources can be justified on an even ground, but no war exists in a vacuum and there'll always be different events and circumstances revolving around every individual conflict, so each one will have to be judged individually as such.
>countries got together and decided they should cede some of their sovereignty to a worldwide organization
I think you actually mean that the winners of WW2 imposed this system on the rest of the world by force.
but against an aggressor, the only thing at risk is culture. Is culture and sovereignty worth dying for?
Would you really notice a difference in everyday life is your government was administrated by a different country?
Defensive war concept is overstretched nowadays. Protecting a bunch American corporations' interests in a bumfuck nowhere could be considered as 'self-defense' if the President wants it to be.
Huge wars like Napoleonic, WW1, WW2? We do get good shit out of them sometimes, like artistic masterpieces, antibiotics and rockets, but considering the loss of artists, scientists, engineers in fighting or to wartime starvation and disease, the end result is debatable. If German gov't dedicated the same resources they did on rocketry in peacetime, I imagine we'd get the same result. The problem is that politicians ignore, deny progress unless they get really desperate.
Brushfire conflicts and country-vs-country wars are, however, an impediment to progress with no upside at all.
Once modern weaponry got invented, both sides walk off way worse for wear.
That may be, but you still have to explain why the USA and the USSR agreed to build an organization where they have an equal voice.
The founders of the UN had an explicit goal to eventually end world conflict, and in the shadow of the industrial-scale butchery of WWII many nations agreed.
The UN is often viewed as an impotent bureaucracy, and it is, but it's also the relic of a forgotten nightmare. Anybody who romanticizes war needs to remember that the most important soldiers today are autistic children with keys in a cement burrow.
We're witnessing the collapse of the post WW2 international order.
China has been moving to secure for itself the kind of great power perks it feels it rightfully deserves and is being denied by the US hegemony over the Pacific and Russia is feeling boxed in by an expanding NATO and seeks to recapture some of the prestige and largess it enjoyed as the superpower USSR.
Each are moving in a direction that seem to take them on a collision course with the US-led Western global hegemony that has been weakening at the seams from economic slumps and the expensive boondoggle of the Iraq&Afganistan wars.
The past is a prologue and the future is looking bleak.
>you still have to explain why the USA and the USSR agreed to build an organization where they have an equal voice
Because they both wanted to avoid a war between each other and neither power would accept a less than equal representation.
The UN Security Council, the only part of the UN that really matters, is literally just the nations that won WW2.
I think this is an overly cynical view of the UN, if it was a product of power-hungry selfishness why so impotent, if impotent why make it at all. That enemies got together and tried to form a coalition (however weak) is indicative of how powerful and horrifying the memory of WWII was.
Given the precedent of WW2 for the utter subjugation of a defeated country, it's not out of the realm of possibility for the leaders of a losing nation-state to resort to some doomsday scheme such as attempting to blow the icecaps, releasing biological agents like Smallpox, attempting to induce a yellowstone eruption with concentrated ordinance all in order to stave off an impending defeat and capitulation at the hands of their enemies.
it is not optimal, obviously. simply not spending resources on military would have a huge effect.
but things have gone "wrong" way before the declaration of war. the issue isn't that it happens, but that it becomes an acceptable option. not declaring it at that point might not be better.
>Are wars justified?
>Is [x] justified?
Justification can only happen from a normative perspective. The discipline of history rejects the taking of normative perspectives, instead seeking to represent the past as it essentially was. There is a board for normative perspectives, that board is >>>/pol/. You might like to take your shit post there.
"Ethics" a branch of philosophy does not deal with the content of normative perspectives "Is war bad" but rather asks about how normative perspectives may in fact be established at all, "How would it be possible to say if war were good or bad" or even "How would it be possible to say if anything were good or bad."
Please fuck off.