What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Say it again!
Umm…ok.
War. What is it good for?
War. What is it good for?
Prior to WW1, war was seen as a totally justifiable means to an end by a sovereign state (Clausewitzian). In an international structure which is more or less anarchic, war and the threat of war is the ultimate sanction by which states achieve their goals.
WW1 changed Westerners perceptions on war. The massive loss of life in WW1 did not seem to be worth the rewards.
And yet, statistically, the 20th century was characterised by more wars than the 19th century.
The nature of war has changed too. Instead of the set piece battles typical of the 19th century, when the losers would begrudgingly but with honour sign a treaty at the conclusion, wars nowadays rarely seem to have clear-cut winners. Even in the last pitched war with a set-piece battle, the Gulf War, Saddam was hardly compelled to sit down and sign a peace treaty - he had terms imposed upon him, and did everything he could to weasle out of them. India and Pakistan, topical examples, never seem to sort anything out by their wars.
It seems to me that wars used to be very effective in achieving policy objectives. Nowadays they don’t seem to be anywhere nears as effective.
War! uh!
What is it good for?
Population Control!
War! uh!
What is it good for?
The victor’s economy!
Well, no, that isn’t true. Deaths through warfare are a small fraction of the world’s overall population; even the Second World War killed, at the very most, one quarter of one percent of the world’s population. More babies were born in those years than died as a result of warfare.
This isn’t generally true, either. War is not, of course, good for the world’s economy as a whole; it destroys things and kills people, which costs money now and in the future. Suggesting that it’s good for the economy is like saying that breaking windows is good for the economy because it creates work for the glaziers; any accounting of economic effects that doesn’t include the cost of the dead and dying and the material destruction is silly.
The notion that war is good for the winner’s economy is a very American-centric myth stemming from the atypical examples of the World Wars, when the U.S. fought a war that A) wasn’t fought on its soil, and B) they stayed out of for the first three years and sold stuff to the countries that would eventually be their allies. In those unique situations the U.S. came out ahead, for the most part, economically, especially in World War II when so much of the world had been utterly destroyed. But that’s a wild exception, not a rule. A list of “victors” in wars through the ages will turn up mostly economic losers. Look at the economic destruction wrought in England or France in WWI for a good, and big, example.
Gee, I didn’t realise that this had developed into a SERIOUS thread…
It ain’t nothing but a heartbreaker.
I was afraid that it might. That’s why I posted this in *Great Debates, as opposed to Cafe Society or MPSIMS.
If you look at the various other threads on Great Debates, there is a general consensus that you, as the OPer, should put forth some some of argument yourself…
So, has nobody ever heard the “War! What is it good for!” song?
Good God, y’all!
I guess only the “old folk” around here have heard it.
Who hasn’t? IIRC, that was one of the best Faux Onion Headlines we came up with:
War! Huh! What is it good for?
“Absolutely nothing,” Rumsfeld declares
…or something like that.
Sorry. I’ve got absolutely nothing.
If you want a serious answer though, I’d say that war is supposed to preserve peace and prevent further injustice. In principle, that’s the case. In reality, war’s track record is rather spotty.
You could say that we must fight to keep our freedom… but Lord, there’s just got to be a better way.
War is good for forcibly imposing one’s will on other peoples or states, or for preventing them from forcibly imposing their will on you. There are occasionally times when it’s not as bad as the alternatives.
No one want to tackle a proposition that war is necessary, if nowadays ineffective, in the present anarchical system of international relations?
In the absence of an arbitrator with coercive force (a global empire), war is a justifiable mechanism to enforce foreign policy objectives, and the ultimate method of resolving conflicts between sovereign states.
[sub]I don’t necessarily believe that, but I wanted to toss it up in the air.[/sub]
Ah. I see in the preview MEBuckner has ducked in with the same proposition…
Hey, I’m only 24! I’m not old!
Just to throw some more cold water on the silly notion that wars are good for the economy - The United States was the only major combatant in WWII to make it through the war without sliding into a recession. And that’s mainly because the U.S. didn’t lose any of its infrastructure.