Norman Angell claimed in 1910 that a European war would be avoided because no nation would have anything to gain and everything to lose. It makes logical sense. I have always thought that there would be no World War III for the same reason; everyone would lose. When you closely examine the events leading up to World War I, you see that most political leaders believed that a world-wide war would not benefit their respective countries or empires. So why did war occur over an issue of relatively minor importance?
World War I was an entirely irrational war. It makes no sense. This got me to thinking; in the 20th and 21st century, are any wars "rational" or "logical". I would say "no". Wars of the past century as well as wars of the present are no longer rational, they are no longer in anyone's best interest. Do we fight wars today for resources? If so, is war the only, or the most effective, means of acquiring resources? It seems that too many resources are used for war and for militarism, which generates problems rather than solutions. A more rational approach seems to be one that considers that the entire planet will have to deal with the same issues of scarcity of food, water, as well as dwindling sources of energy, not to mention environmental decay. If we all have these same basic challenges, it would benefit everyone to try to work together to solve them through trade and technological innovation. This may sound completely unrealistic, I know, but it is definitely rational and logical.
I agree that most wars are irrational. But, I do think that for many counries, war seemed to be the only answer at the time. I know this may not be true, but it's worth considering. The war in Iraq may not seem logical, but, at the time, I don't think the U.S. had many other options that would've had an effect. I'm not supporting or refuting the war, but something had to be done after 9/11. I don't think wars are really fought for resources any more. Wars are fought in an attempt to prevent future wars, which doesn't make sense, but that's what wars on terror set out to do, as illogical as it may seem. Wars are somewhat outdated, as I don't see much being gained from fighting. However, until another solution can be thought of, war will be what countries turn to in times of conflict.
ReplyDeleteWar has always been pointless. For lack of resources or not, there's always been less wasteful ways of getting what you want than war. For example, assasinations - less people would have to die. Even less people would die if leaders relentlessly sought diplomatic means to resolve disputes instead of resorting to war.
ReplyDeleteI believe that wars in the 20th and 21st century have been very irrational. I think that in today’s world, war is the only answer we know, because for almost the entire 20th century, war was the answer to virtually all conflicts. Instead of peaceful negotiations, countries try to prove their strength physically by enlisting millions of soldiers in their armies and trying to intimidate the other countries with their force. I feel as if countries in present day act on impulse and the first thing that comes to mind is “war.” I think in the end, if countries tried to actually work together and compromise, war would be unnecessary and the same outcome would result, except without as many casualties and damage to multiple countries, as well as less uneasiness throughout the entire world.
ReplyDeleteI agree that war is outdated and that with all the advances in our world today we should be able to think of logical reasons to solve our problems. Our world has become so materialistic that most people don’t care about anyone but themselves, so if a nation believes that going to war will be beneficial most likely that’s what they’re going to do. I think that today a lot of television shows and movies have glorified the benefits of war and people follow examples of things that they see work even if it’s not really real.
ReplyDeleteThough wars may have been pointless in cause, you have to consider what has been gained from them. I'm not talking about resource, but from more of a technological advancing way. Probably the biggest boost for the advancement of technology in recent history was the Cold War. Though this was a 'cold' war by definition, it was still a war, just not in the traditional (more direct) sense.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lizzy in the sense that wars are fought now for defensive reasons. I think a perfect example of this is the United States' war on terror. I'm not sure what other options we have to protect ourselves against radical terrorists, and terrorist groups. I'm not sayin war is right, but I think in some cases it may be the only logical option. We are playing defense to protect our country from attack. Without some measure of security and protection, terrorism would have free rein in the US.
ReplyDeleteWars today are based on gaining resources. But is the resource gain worth all the losses that come with war? It sure seems like nations that go war almost always lose more than they gain. It would make sense to split limited resources up based on needs around the world. The world is not one united entity, however, so this is largely impossible. So why do countries repeatedly continue to go to war? Some of the MAIN reasons of World War I still seem to be the source of conflict today. Nations feel the need to have the largest military power in order to feel safe in today’s world. In a way, a stronger sense of nationalism results from this. World War I was avoidable, and because the driving forces behind the reasons for war remain similar today, war is irrational.
ReplyDeleteI agree with KB, there is never any point to wars, but it is human nature for people to fight against each other. I also disagree with Mr. Geary in that all of the people of the world can come together to solve any rational and important problems. There are always radicals, and people who disagree with others ideas, causing us never to agree on solutions and solve important problems.
ReplyDeleteto me was can be point less but with what billy said they have also helped with technology. past wars have been pointless in some sence but you can also look at what we tried to do with vietnam and korea we tried to help the people that wanted us there. with the war today, it started bc of 9/11 and we wanted to protect ourselves from alquidea and other terrorist groups
ReplyDeleteThe actual concept of war is illogical and irrational becuase in exchange for resources, land or rights, lives and money are lost. War may be irrational but it is not really able to be prevented. It is human nature to have conflicts with each other and most of the time those conflicts result in violence.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the idea that the world could work together to form a giant cooperative system. There are always differnces between people and there is always ethnocentrism. Cultures that historically have conflicts are not likely to join hands and work together to benefit each other. The idea makes sence but in reality it is not possible and now we need to focus on what is possible and realistic.
Very interesting posts so far! Still, why is mutual cooperation (where both or all sides benefit) so unrealistic, while war (where both or all sides suffer consequences) remains the reality. Human nature has been mentioned, and like animals we are territorial. At this point, though, shouldn't we have evolved more with our methods of resolving conflicts? With regards to technology, the world is always developing technology in both peace and in war. How much technological innovation was destroyed or set back by war?
ReplyDeleteMaybe one reason that war is outdated is because there isn't the same honor associated with war as there used to be. Today war itself is not something that is seen as ideal in our culture, and people are not seen as dispensible, life is valued today more than ever. The dynamics of war have changed; when both sides have the means to entirely annihilate each other, nobody wins. So we default on solving our conflicts peacefully when possible. But the threat of end-all methods still exists.
ReplyDeleteFirst, all wars in our past and our present seem irrational and illogical on some level or another. But, someone, somewhere laid out all the options and consciously decided that some action that led to war was their best option. Even if it was an irrational decision in our eyes now, we can't necessarily say it was completely irrational THEN, becuase that someone, somewhere must have rationalized it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, perhaps we don't know how to end war, becuase we're not ready to give up the definitive and tactile results of war; perhaps we rely on war, because it has been the most reliable aspect of worldwide relations. Diplomacy hasn't become the sole outlet for countries, because we haven't learned to comprehend, measure, and implement it (as a result of mis-trust, irreconcilable differences, un-willingness to compromise...). But we DO know how to understand how war works, and how to measure its success, and how to implement it. War is far more tactile than diplomacy, and often humans have to see to believe. This is and has definatley been the case when it comes to establishing and maintaining the balance of power in the world.
War occurred because the nations involved wanted to gain land and show their individual power. I also think that some wars are rational in the sense that if we didn't fight them we would either be taken over by other countries who are going to fight them or each nation would slowly take up a state of isolationism. This would happen because we will always have our differences in opinions with other cultures therefore when one country for example, Iran, which is a theocracy, can't go on a Jihad when there's no one willing to fight back and would instead close its boarders to trade and we would slowly decline together. I do think war is a good thing and they will continue to be fought no matter how great anything becomes.
ReplyDelete