• 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!

How are wars profitable?

OldFatGuy:

I think folks can take social Darwinism too far at times. This may be one of those times.

War is proof of ongoing evolution. We keep improving our methods and tools for killing each other.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately working right along beside evolution to shape natural history is extinction driven by natural selection. About 99.999% of all kinds of living things to have ever lived have been made extinct by the struggle you are invoking. Therefore it is logical to predict that there is a high order of probability that such militarism will lead to human extinction rather than human evolution. And should humanity beat the odds to evolve, do we really want to live in an authoritarian, hive-mind, militarised state of being imposed upon us by behavioural evolution in response to collective killing and predation? It seems a losing game, no matter how we play it out. Perhaps it's time to use our own free will to stop fighting each other and to start fighting transmogrifying evolution and likely extinction instead?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
OldFatGuy:

I think folks can take social Darwinism too far at times. This may be one of those times.



Unfortunately working right along beside evolution to shape natural history is extinction driven by natural selection. About 99.999% of all kinds of living things to have ever lived have been made extinct by the struggle you are invoking. Therefore it is logical to predict that there is a high order of probability that such militarism will lead to human extinction rather than human evolution. And should humanity beat the odds to evolve, do we really want to live in an authoritarian, hive-mind, militarised state of being imposed upon us by behavioural evolution in response to collective killing and predation? It seems a losing game, no matter how we play it out. Perhaps it's time to use our own free will to stop fighting each other and to start fighting transmogrifying evolution and likely extinction instead?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

My statement was partly serious, but leaned more toward tongue in cheek. There is no logic, logic is a myth.

I don't and won't get upset about extinction. So it goes. Not even extinction of the human race. So it goes. Evolution has taught us, for every species now extinct, another has filled the niche left open. The most successful of species, the cockroach. Been around for millions of years, and will likely inherit what is left of this planet when we are gone. In the meantime I wear Tony Lama roach killers on my feet.
 
Aside from defense contracts, there's also infrastructure contracts, natural resource contracts, and geopolitical agreements between the U.S. and whatever new government they prop up into power which gives the U.S. preference. War is one of the best ways to support an ailing economy that is losing currency value because it creates new capital which includes real assets. Throughout history, whenever a country's economy goes downhill they start going to war more often. It's to acquire new assets and resources while blaming domestic problems on foreign enemies. Works every time.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Real life example: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman and thousands of other defense contractors sell fantastically expensive war machines to the US government, which then pays them with tax dollars.

Nobody said war is profitable for everyone, just that it is wildly profitable for the military industrial complex. These companies can then turn around and take those profits to lobby politicians on both sides of the aisle to buy and use more bombs and death machines, thus the cycle continues.

The citizens of both nations at war lose while the corporations stack their profits and the politicians exercise their power.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly true. Of course, border countries do tend to wreck each other out (Europe), but then there are those wars that remain around the borders and the citizens behind the fronts go to work (Iran-Iraq War).

One of the reasons that the U.S. emerged from World War II as the most powerful nation in history is that we conducted war from a distance. Historians are in general agreement that, while Roosevelt's New Deal helped, it was World War II that pulled the U.S., and thus the world, out of the Great Depression. While corporations certainly profited, World War II largely put America back to work in an environment that was safe from war. We economically grew while Europe **** all over itself (um...again).

Of course, things are a bit different now. We have a standing military and an established Defense industry. Also, World War II was massive and everybody in the population was involved one way or another. But one of the reasons that we have absurdly expensive defense contracts for equipment that the troops don't even need is that Senators like being able to tell their voters that a new factory from Boeing is opening and is providing 400 new jobs. War, and the idea of future wars, is a job maker for American citizens (and others). Hell, if aliens descended from the heavens today, every Senator would be lobbying the Defense industry tomorrow to make factories in their states in order to develop and make blasters and light sabers.

But these factories also produce equipment for infrastructure. Iraq, for example, became an international contract orgy. Workers in America, Europe, and Asia produced and imported items to rebuild power, communications, and buildings. Again, though, here we see war fought from a distance where outside citizens benefit. Of course, Iraqi citizens did not benefit so much, which was one of the mistakes in the beginning. Instead of putting able bodied Iraqis to work in order to fix the systems that they understood, work was outsourced, leaving many Iraqis unemployed, bored, and looking for something to do. Hello insurgency recruits!
 
Last edited:
MSgt:

A very good post. My only criticism is with your final paragraph.

But these factories also produce equipment for infrastructure. Iraq, for example, became an international contract orgy. Workers in America, Europe, and Asia produced and imported items to rebuild power, communications, and buildings. Again, though, here we see war fought from a distance where outside citizens benefit. Of course, Iraqi citizens did not benefit so much, which was one of the mistakes in the beginning. Instead of putting able bodied Iraqis to work in order to fix the systems that they understood, work was outsourced, leaving many Iraqis unemployed, bored, and looking for something to do. Hello insurgency recruits!
Click to expand...

Where did the bulk of the money come from to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure? Two answers. One, loans which Iraqis will be paying off with interest for generations for damage done to their country by the US-led Coalition - Iraqis screwed. Second, US taxpayers' public tax dollars transferred out to private companies for a war and reconstruction work that will never benefit them - US citizens screwed. War is an excuse and a political mechanism to transfer wealth and to impose debt on people who do not want such debt. Ownership of debt is power and power allows control.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom