is war necessary?

>>2483805
what is it good for?

>>2483808
Absolutley nothing.

>>2483805
Yes.

>>2483805
Sometimes.

We live in a fallen, sinful world.

There will always be evil people who want to take your shit. War in self-defense is necessary.

File: IMG_3645.jpg (124KB, 679x1024px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 679x1024px

>>2483805
Always

>>2483805

What a retarded question.

Apes perpetuate wars because the most ambitious want to compete against each other for power, prestige, resources, and legacies.

Is it necessary is like asking if an otter throwing clams to another otter, and back and forth, is necessary.

>>2483805
No war but class war

>>2483805
as general consensus today puts it, War is a diplomatic last resort, when all other options for resolution are exhausted.

That isn't to say that has always been the case as offensive wars of glory and conquest were waged all the time, but in today's globalized world, a full-scale industrialized war where millions are troops are fielded is simply too expensive and too high-risk to be considered as a first option. Hell, World War II economically shattered every participant not named the US and USSR.

Today's world has gotten to the point where only 3 nations are even able to realistically wage a large scale war and not be drained within the first year, being the US, Russia and China.

but to answer the question; yes, war is necessary as a last resort against belligerent powers who would otherwise ignore other deterrents such as economic sanctions and trade embargos.

>>2484252
Didn't they think this in 1913?

>>2484262
governments were retarded and thought themselves far more powerful/menacing than they actually were

>>2483805

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
- Isaac Asimov

Not really. It's almost invariably pushed by small cadres of the ruling parties in one or both contending societies, not a mass event, with no other option.

The only things I can think of are nomadic steppe raiders, in which that entire people have come to take and to violate, and that's the only way they know how to sustain themselves. In every other imaginable scenario, there are people or people's pushing for war, for their personal gain, in contrast to the will and good of the people, until their propaganda machine has come full-swing.

Yes.

Not every war obviously, but the people that say it isn't are living in some parallel universe where people, power and groups are fundamentally different.

>>2484650
By your logic, it sounds like you're saying every war was necessary, because it happened.

You have to look back at what caused the societal contest, which is almost never a matter of there only being enough food or water to sustain one side, with no alternative, but that there was a king, a class, an industry, etc. that found that conflict in their favor. They didn't need the war, in order to keep on living. Their was actually a fifty/fifty chance they'd have lived longer, if not for the war, but their circumstances in peace simply weren't their favorite thing. As we all know, it's absolutely necessary to always do your favorite thing, because there's literally no alternative to doing your favorite thing and always getting your way.