# Why are ALL wars fought? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 4, 2000, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-all-wars-fought/24517 "2000-07-04T02:42:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-all-wars-fought/24517/121 "2000-07-13T04:18:23Z")
Somebody (The same somebody who emailed me before) wrote this and emailed it to me. I think it’s fascinating. Read, discuss! > [@](#): > > As for US entry into WWII, the major European powers each had regions > of > China that they traded with. FDR had the “Open Door Policy”. He > wanted to > trade with every region. Japan, knowing that they needed markets for > the > goods that they were beginning to mass produce wanted all round eyes > out. > They also needed the resources of the European controlled parts of > Southeast > Asia such as oil and rubber from the Dutch East Indies. What they > didn’t > understand was that if they bought the stuff from the Dutch it could be > shipped on Dutch flagged vessels, which would not be attacked. When > the > invaded, the stuff was still 3000 miles away and now it had to be > shipped on > Japanese flagged vessels and they were fair game. > > Also, the economies of Japan and Germany couldn’t compete with us. In > 1943, > the peak year for Axis and Japanese aircraft production, Germany > produced > 34,000 planes and Japan produced 24,000 palnes. That same year the > United > States made 150,000 planes, 50,000 of which were long range bombers. > > Less than 6 monhs after Pearl Harbor we had actually won the war > against > Japan and didn’t know it for 3 more years. At the Battle of Midway we > lost > one aircraft carrier to Japans four. We made 13 carriers a year while > they > made one every four years. They could never recover from that. To us > it was > the loss of three weeks of production. To them it was sixteen years of > production. > > As for Pearl Harbor being a set up it probably was but not the way that > most > people believe. All of the big guns were taken out of the Western > Pacific > leaving the Philipines an easy target for a Japanese attack. They did > attack > there but they also figured they might as well take out Battle Ship Row > at > Pearl since we had very conveniently put all of our big guns there. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2000, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-all-wars-fought/24517/122 "2000-07-18T02:13:47Z")
Well, my hard drives got more damn faults than…I don’t know…California, maybe. Anyway, resurrected in good catholic fashion. **oldscratch** “In the begining however, they most definetely had a popular uprising.” It might have been popular with you but full and democratic elections involving the entire population ? Still not convinced – show me the money. **oldscratch** “My general proposition is that it is too hard to justify attacking another democracy. If the US could have gotten away with it they would have had no qualms about invading Chile for example. Would a case arise where two democracies would declare war? Yes. Is it likely to happen? No. According to the stats you pulled up, 356 pairs of nations have gone to war in the last 200 years and none involved democracy vs. democracy. Sure it could happen in a radical situation (and Pakistan/India is a wholly religious conflict, whether they dress it up as a territory issue or not) but the general principle holds and if you play percentages, it’s looking pretty good. There **is** a crucial and very influential dynamic at play. **oldscratch** "And what we see is increasing competition over shrinking rescources. If that doesn’t threaten trade, I don’t know what does.” I don’t see this at all. Again the market will step in. What we have learnt in recent times is that once resources become scarce three things can happen: ``` (1) Substitution – everything from plastic for anything, through man-made fibre’s for cotton to soya beans for meat. ``` (2) Resource becomes managed and sustainable – this has happened, for example, in the timber industry in Europe and it will inevitably happen in the South American rain forests when they finally get close to finally destroying it, and (3) Technology moves at an exponential rate. Once it becomes clear there is a market for something, the pace of development increases to fill the void. Take for example something humble like battery technology. Was going nowhere until five years ago yet all of a sudden more advance has been made in the interim 5 years than in the past 50 Why ? a perceived demand (laptop computers and cell phones). Apply that reasoning to, for instance, oil. Just this week the European Space Agency launched an entire network of satellites together in order to study how the sun affects the weather in space. Are they doing that for fun ? No, they see a potential market somewhere in the mid-future. It’s simply a calculated long-term investment based on the energy potential. The pace of this development (and others) is wholly linked to the rate at which oil is used. Conclusion: The markets and trade aren’t threatened by scarcity - the markets, by their very nature, determine the pace at which resources become managed and alternatives are developed. New tech means new area’s of competition amongst the leading industrial nations and new markets for those goods in the developing world. I don’t particularly like that, but it’s a fact. I also agree with pepperland’s anonymous correspondent, Midway was the point at which military victory, through economic supremacy, became inevitable. It was a rare feat, gearing up to fight a war in Europe and in the Pacific in such short time. Surprised the Japanese, that’s for sure – in retrospect they might not have sufficiently considered that the US flat tops weren’t needed in Europe. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2000, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-all-wars-fought/24517/123 "2000-07-20T04:53:10Z")
Hmmm…WWII was fought for over money. Yes, that’s why Poland tried to fight the Nazi blitzkreig…because those poles were so greedy! And the US was so greedy, getting bombed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Etc, etc. Yes, most wars are started by bastards who want a bigger piece of the pie. But what about the people who the bastards attack? Are they motivated soley by economics, or by the desire to avoid being killed or enslaved? ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2000, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-all-wars-fought/24517/124 "2000-07-20T06:51:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Are they motivated soley by economics, or by the desire to > avoid being killed or enslaved? That, and of course, they are motivated to not lose their land and the country’s wealth. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-all-wars-fought/24517.md?page=6)