• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

War Is Not Inevitable

United Feds

Banned
Joined
Mar 28, 2017
Messages
15
Reaction score
6
Location
Taipei, Taiwan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
War Is Not Inevitable

I have been taking international relations course in 9th grade, recently I bumped up a really interest question: Is War Inevitable?
I believe that war is not inevitable, hope you agree with me. (Please don't judge my writing, I'm only 13)
Below in the link, you will approach my idea: (Google Doc)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oMSOyLAAvokU7bTpRYfaq7B6y5P35Eb8OHJOgZ1T0RI/edit?usp=sharing

Discussions are welcomed.

Thank you for reading,
David

I think that the world could in theory and possibly in practice be organized in a way that makes war highly unlikely. Sorrily it is now not so organized. In fact, it is organizing itself as we talk as a structure whose game theoretical prognosis makes major war less a probability than a certainty. You see, systems of competing multipoles are not stable and instability in security affairs is a euphemism for war.
 
I think that the world could in theory and possibly in practice be organized in a way that makes war highly unlikely. Sorrily it is now not so organized. In fact, it is organizing itself as we talk as a structure whose game theoretical prognosis makes major war less a probability than a certainty. You see, systems of competing multipoles are not stable and instability in security affairs is a euphemism for war.

So your saying that the world is "organized" to cuase conflict? Or in this case war? Please elaborate...
 
The major reason wars have consistently gotten smaller in recent decades is that fielding large formations of soldiers is no longer effective, being sitting ducks for stand-off weaponry.

The only real ray of light in our progression in warfare is that all the major players are afraid to fight directly, because there is no way to avoid horrific retaliation of one form or another.

Sorry, United Feds, people aren't wired to be nice and share with each other. If we were, we'd have embraced Communism.

Humans are only peaceful in very small groups with ample resources and a unified culture.
 
Sorry, United Feds, people aren't wired to be nice and share with each other. If we were, we'd have embraced Communism.
Humans are only peaceful in very small groups with ample resources and a unified culture.

I repectful disagree, you have to remember that embracing communism does not equal to embracing peacefulness.
War is killing does not equal to communism which is sharing.

I mean you get the idea...
 
I repectful disagree, you have to remember that embracing communism does not equal to embracing peacefulness.
War is killing does not equal to communism which is sharing.

I mean you get the idea...

Nature doesn't worry much about parsing definitions, it just is.

I'll try another tack:

I'd hope we'd agree that over time humans have moved further and further away from any sort of natural lifestyle or organization.

Given that, if there is a natural tendency towards peaceful coexistence, it should appear somewhere in our past.

I'd challenge you to find one that doesn't match my definition (small groups, ample resources, unified culture.)
 
Nature doesn't worry much about parsing definitions, it just is.

I'll try another tack:

I'd hope we'd agree that over time humans have moved further and further away from any sort of natural lifestyle or organization.

Given that, if there is a natural tendency towards peaceful coexistence, it should appear somewhere in our past.

I'd challenge you to find one that doesn't match my definition (small groups, ample resources, unified culture.)

Alright, so first off all I am concerned about your statement "I'd hope we'd agree that over time humans have moved further and further away from any sort of natural lifestyle or organization.": I don't believe you can makethis simple statements about humans in general especially when you don't elaborate "any sort of natural lifestyle or organization". Humans aren't as simple as you think they are, nothing is certain here.

To answer your challenge: Nuclear Peace Groups (Nuclear Weapons-Focused Groups) is a really obvious organization.
United Nations aims for peace.
After WWI and WWII anti-war commitees were everywhere.
 
Alright, so first off all I am concerned about your statement "I'd hope we'd agree that over time humans have moved further and further away from any sort of natural lifestyle or organization.": I don't believe you can makethis simple statements about humans in general especially when you don't elaborate "any sort of natural lifestyle or organization". Humans aren't as simple as you think they are, nothing is certain here.

Be as concerned as you like, but please don't presume to read my thoughts.

Surely we can agree a small tribe living in a cave a few thousand years go and hunting/gathering their own food is living in a more natural lifestyle/organization than you or I.


To answer your challenge: Nuclear Peace Groups (Nuclear Weapons-Focused Groups) is a really obvious organization.
United Nations aims for peace.
After WWI and WWII anti-war commitees were everywhere.

I'm thinking in terms of governments/societies, not interest groups with revolving memberships made of citizens of many nations. I'm asking for examples of actual self-governing groups of humans living in peace.

The groups that came to my mind were small native tribes such a some Native American, Australian aborigine, and African tribes. Even amongst those, many/most of them have had plenty of turmoil, typically with the most violent group coming out on top.

What you're not going to find is a modern nation of any size that is built around a completely peaceful culture.
 
I'm thinking in terms of governments/societies, not interest groups with revolving memberships made of citizens of many nations. I'm asking for examples of actual self-governing groups of humans living in peace.

The groups that came to my mind were small native tribes such a some Native American, Australian aborigine, and African tribes. Even amongst those, many/most of them have had plenty of turmoil, typically with the most violent group coming out on top.

What you're not going to find is a modern nation of any size that is built around a completely peaceful culture.

Iceland, Vatican City...22 countries in the world doesn't have s standing army.
5 - 6 countries or even more have a limited military force. Japan for example haven't deployed a single division.
 
So your saying that the world is "organized" to cuase conflict? Or in this case war? Please elaborate...

Not really. I am saying that the probability of behavior patterns occurring depends on the shape of the organization within which it takes place. A well known example of this is MAD during the cold war or the Prisoners Paradox is a well known example for small groups game structures determining the behavior being guided by rules. Take a look at Game Theory to see how this works. What one finds is that it is very often not "good will" of the participants that produces the outcome and that the result can often be lose/lose although there was an easily win/win available, but less likely as a consequence of the structure/rules of the game.
 
Not really. I am saying that the probability of behavior patterns occurring depends on the shape of the organization within which it takes place. A well known example of this is MAD during the cold war or the Prisoners Paradox is a well known example for small groups game structures determining the behavior being guided by rules. Take a look at Game Theory to see how this works. What one finds is that it is very often not "good will" of the participants that produces the outcome and that the result can often be lose/lose although there was an easily win/win available, but less likely as a consequence of the structure/rules of the game.

Yea! I get what your saying! I mean everyone choosing not to build there military (win/win) really means that both sides (alliances) have to cooperate. The other 3 outcomes are either win/lose or lose/lose which means there is a 75% percent chance of "war". Yes I agree with you.
 
Iceland, Vatican City...22 countries in the world doesn't have s standing army.
5 - 6 countries or even more have a limited military force. Japan for example haven't deployed a single division.

I feel like we're not communicating very well.

Japan was a major aggressor in WWII, and warfare is a major facet of their history and culture. They didn't give up on violence, they lost their military when the U.S. took over their government.

The Vatican (or the Popes, before they got their city-state) participated in every major European war for centuries, though admittedly it was primarily as a political force, rather than military. They started the Crusades, FFS! No great love of peace there, whatever they might say. More recently they no longer have the clout to cause that sort of trouble. Their military protection is derived from Italy, and the support of Catholics worldwide.

Iceland is as close as you've gotten so far. They did have a civil war that lasted over 40 years, but that was some time ago. They were vassal states to Norway and Denmark, more recently they had a bit of a standoff with the U.K. over fishing rights. Since WWII, they have fallen under the U.S. umbrella, and we have a important strategic base there. Still, as humans go, pretty peaceful. Note that they also easily match two points of my definition (plentiful resources, unified culture) and the third is arguable.
 
I feel that we aren't communicating well as well...

Do you have any sort of chatting platform that we could possibly discuss on? I'm willing to negotiate with you about this.

Thank you anyways.
 
as long as there are people who profit from the war, there will be wars.

militarization-of-police.jpgwar-profiteers-2.jpg
 
as long as there are people who profit from the war, there will be wars.

Yea I agree with you. However, war is still inevitable if we do some special treaty with them?

For example:
Japan or Germany
Non-Proliferation Treaty

By the way, I haven't got to how to prevent war...just stating that preventing war is possible...
 
Iceland, Vatican City...22 countries in the world doesn't have s standing army.5 - 6 countries or even more have a limited military force. Japan for example haven't deployed a single division.
Japan, under Abe and with USA encouragement, has begun to build offensive military systems. The treaty after WWII forbade Japan anythng except defensive forces, hence, the name of the Japanese military, JDF, Japanese Defense Forces. The USA wants to use Japan as a thorn in the side against China, ergo has encouraged the new Japanese military upgrades. Keep in mind that War is a business. A very large Corporate business in the USA. A $700 billion, perhaps a triliion dollar Corporate Megalith. This is called the Military Industrial Complex and has great political power and lobby groups. To promote, expand, maintain, profit, from this Industry requires Wars. That is where the expression, "War is good business" comes from. If you can't gin up a big war, use a bunch of small wars. Wars require enemies. The MSM's job is to support wars by demonizing the war target and this is the NARRATIVE and I capitalize that so you realize it is a KEY and not necessarily the TRUTH. After sufficient demonization, the population synchronizes with the Narrative and thinks the targets of demonization should be attacked, killed, maimed, destroyed, bankrupted, or even nuked. Attacks follow and you should think Veitnam, Libya, Syria, Granada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, etc. and the result is, "War is good business, and business is good." This MIC is a larger industry than the Auto Industry and it runs on Energy, also a very profitable Industry, and the Banking Industry provides all the loans. Ergo, "War is good business." All the ISM's that run the World are equivalent, but the ISM leadership is what upsets the applecart. Cuba and China are Communist Nations. Both look good to me. Latin American leaders are adjusted for Corporate political reasons for the benefit of those Corporate business investments. Check the United Fruit history. In South Amierica Chile's socialist leader Allende was murdered and the dictator Pinochet installed to protect the IT & T copper interests (history, all communicatons were on copper wires before fiber optics.). In the current NARRATIVE, Russia is being deminozed and is a powerful nuclear Nations. This results in more Nuclear weapons business in the USA. "War is good business." The USA, as the World's largest weapons dealer, sells to all sides and profits handsomely from all wars. Perhaps creating enemies just for the purpose of maintaining the good business. Al Qeda and Osama bin Ladin was organized and financed and armed by the CIA. ISIS is armed and funded by Saudi Arabia and SA is the USA's great ally. Food for thought young poster. Don't ever forget, "War is good business, and business is good." Read about Smedley Butler. Also, History of the USA and History of the World, by Howard Zinn. The truth is out there.
 
Japan, under Abe and with USA encouragement, has begun to build offensive military systems. The treaty after WWII forbade Japan anythng except defensive forces, hence, the name of the Japanese military, JDF, Japanese Defense Forces. The USA wants to use Japan as a thorn in the side against China, ergo has encouraged the new Japanese military upgrades.

Oh, I'm just trying to state that a nation can strive wether with a military or not.
But I really appreciate your effort on writing that supper long paragraph, for that I'm giving you a like : ).
 
Iceland, Vatican City...22 countries in the world doesn't have s standing army.
5 - 6 countries or even more have a limited military force. Japan for example haven't deployed a single division.
They can't.
 
Back
Top Bottom