News NOW the war is unpopular? Well, its a little too late

In what way is war productive?

no matter how you look at it... everyone loses. one might say that one country gains power over another, however the sum total of the value on earth has been diminished. Morale of people, Land, resources, and last but not least, lives. Where is the good?

Do the best you can... and when you can't do anymore, at least you've tried. Temper tantrums are for kids.
 
K

kyleb

I take it you didn't see Halliburton's latest quarterly profits?
 
I knew someone was going to bring up stock markets and finances... you know i didn't mean this type of productivity... companies in the business of war and supplying for war will benefit... but it's not to the benefit of the world... so take your yin-yang and spin along cassidy :rofl:
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,828
14
In what way is war productive? ... Where is the good?
Let's look at some ways in which this could happen:


A whole is often greater than the sum of its individual parts. Thus, a war that joins two regions can be more valuable than the two regions separately... even if both regions are damaged through the process of war.

Wars are good motivators. They can stimulate economies and fuel scientific progress.

Wars can solve problems, by eliminating their source.


Do the best you can... and when you can't do anymore, at least you've tried.
Giving up can be worse than war.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,734
172
Hurkyl said:
I was content with "Saddam hasn't been fully cooperating with the weapons inspectors". Laws aren't particularly effective if they're not enforced.
The justification used to invade was that Iraq was an imminent threat the US security. So maybe you favor taking UN law into our own hands and spiting our allies, but this was not good enough for US law. We have this little thing called the constitution.

Another interesting point surfaced after the invasion: the economic sanctions (y'know, the popular alternative to invasion) had been fairly effective at destroying the country. (and at breeding resentment of the West)
Oh, the resentment is greatly reduced now. :rolleyes:

It bothers me that these issues never come up when people make these vehement posts about how bad it is to go to war. You can't look at it in a vacuum: I care little for narrow opinions.
I don't see that it applies in either case, as stated.
 
Hurkyl said:
Let's look at some ways in which this could happen:

A whole is often greater than the sum of its individual parts. Thus, a war that joins two regions can be more valuable than the two regions separately... even if both regions are damaged through the process of war.
And so ends the tale of the crap shoot of life. One man's opinion that will imediately change if it is HE and HIS family that face anihalation at the wrong end of the gun.

Why is it that leaders always sue for peace when the canon fodder is gone and 'the enemy' is banging at the gates of the capital?

Again an American displays a lack of knowledge about the effects of war since it has never actually been seriously threatened by war.

Thank heavens for impenetrable defences and moats ... er? Oceans.

(Dare I say, "Remember the Alamo" at this point and remind you of that wall between you and Mexico?)
Hurkyl said:
Wars are good motivators. They can stimulate economies and fuel scientific progress.

Wars can solve problems, by eliminating their source.
Like people! :surprised

Hurkyl said:
Giving up can be worse than war.
Not a fan of Ghandi are you.
 
Last edited:
K

kyleb

outsider said:
so take your yin-yang and spin along cassidy :rofl:
I was simply pointing out that your question "In what way is war productive?" has a different answer for people like the guys at Halliburton.

I think me and my yin-yang have a place here. ;)
 
454
0
I think war is futile. Man will never be able to stop all the violence in the world. So why be a part of it?
 
Hurkyl said:
Let's look at some ways in which this could happen:
yes, let's.
A whole is often greater than the sum of its individual parts. Thus, a war that joins two regions can be more valuable than the two regions separately... even if both regions are damaged through the process of war.
Yes, I see where you are going with this... your line of reasoning implies that even though one party is not willing to merge, the greater good permits the other party to wage war to comensurate a merger? This sounds a little like rape to me. :uhh:

Wars are good motivators.
in what way? That scary, run for your life way? :eek:
They can stimulate economies and fuel scientific progress.
they can... but it's just not necessary.
The progress that you speak of, what are they? better weapons? W's of MD? Where are the cures for cancer / aids / TB? Why is there poverty? Why do we still use oil / gas? Why is the world heating up and the environment going to ****? If you can give me some acceptable answers to how war is helping, I will step off of this topic.
Wars can solve problems, by eliminating their source.
so your reasoning would allow me to eliminate you?
Giving up can be worse than war.
there are those who consider war the ultimate surrender. :biggrin:
 
kyleb said:
I was simply pointing out that your question "In what way is war productive?" has a different answer for people like the guys at Halliburton.

I think me and my yin-yang have a place here. ;)
you are right... :smile: please stick around..
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,734
172
Hurkyl said:
Let's look at some ways in which this could happen:


A whole is often greater than the sum of its individual parts. Thus, a war that joins two regions can be more valuable than the two regions separately... even if both regions are damaged through the process of war.

Wars are good motivators. They can stimulate economies and fuel scientific progress.

Wars can solve problems, by eliminating their source.
Holy cow! :eek:

This is so outrageous I'm nearly speechless. I think you should run down, sign up, and hurry over to Iraq. Talk about arguing in a vacuum!!!

Giving up can be worse than war
This was part of my original point which you chose to ignore.
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,828
14
TSM: since you don't actually address anything I've said, what was the point in quoting me? Is it that you can't stand to see this topic discussed in a rational manner? Or do you just enjoy launching ad hominem attacks against me?


Man will never be able to stop all the violence in the world. So why be a part of it?
One might use violence for personal gain.
Violence can be used to focus others' attention.
Some people think violence is fun. Boxing, for example.
Others might turn to violence as a means of furthering the greater good. Stopping someone from commiting more, or worse violence, for example.


Yes, I see where you are going with this... your line of reasoning implies that even though one party is not willing to merge, the greater good permits the other party to wage war to comensurate a merger? This sounds a little like rape to me.
You asked how war could be productive, not for a moral judgement. :tongue2:

However, if you take a stance where the ends are used to evaluate the means (as you seem to do), then you would not only be permitted, but compelled to wage such a war, if you were certain it would lead to a better outcome than other options.


The progress that you speak of, what are they? ... If you can give me some acceptable answers to how war is helping, I will step off of this topic.
I found some articles with a quick search... not exactly history texts, but they are the sort of thing I expect to find:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug2000/966882281.Sh.r.html
http://www.accel-team.com/scientific/scientific_04.html [Broken]

But the point is that scientific development isn't done in a vacuum. It's not like there's a field of science called "weapons research" that is 100% independent from all other fields of science.

The principle here is the same as with economic stimulation: war creates a need, and is willing to pour money and people into satisfying that need.


so your reasoning would allow me to eliminate you?
I assume you mean that in a moral sense, in which case I would have to say that my post says nothing about this question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
454
0
One might use violence for personal gain.
Violence can be used to focus others' attention.
Some people think violence is fun. Boxing, for example.
That is an extremely selfish and warped view-point. I'm really suprised you would say something like this.

Others might turn to violence as a means of furthering the greater good. Stopping someone from commiting more, or worse violence, for example.
Like you said before, it isn't that simple. Most violent actions are the direct result of other violent actions. By being the better man and forgiving people you stop the circle. This isn't even taking into consideration that mankind doesn't know what the hell is good for them. No man can fight for the greater good because man doesn't know what it is.
 
Hurkyl said:
TSM: since you don't actually address anything I've said, what was the point in quoting me? Is it that you can't stand to see this topic discussed in a rational manner? Or do you just enjoy launching ad hominem attacks against me?
You're just so easy and the typical 'everyman' of America.

A Homer Simpson of the PF Lounge epitomizing all that is wrong with the USA.

It's true, I do tend to address more than you have said because I find it hard to assume the narrow view of reality of the American psyche and this certainly must confuse you.

I sort of get the impression of that 'deer in the headlights' stare as your eyes gloss over from lack of comprehension.

Step back and read what you wrote.

You are trying to justify that war is a 'good thing'.

War is Peace ... "Thus, a war that joins two regions can be more valuable than the two regions separately... even if both regions are damaged through the process of war." I mean ... Do you really need me to quote the Orwell or are you capable of getting there on your own? When do we discuss 'freedom is slavery'? We have all noticed that the 'ministry of information' has been changing the reason for the war.

Hurkyl said:
However, if you take a stance where the ends are used to evaluate the means (as you seem to do), then you would not only be permitted, but compelled to wage such a war, if you were certain it would lead to a better outcome than other options.
Hence the Ghandi comment. As an American, you truly have not explored the alternate methods of reaching a goal, have you? I mean really, for a 'Christian Nation' you really have to wonder what it is all about when the religion itself was named afer a man who would rather get nailed to a cross than raise a hand to despots even though HE could weild the power of GOD!

Do you know what war does to a nation other than people go away from your town occasionally and some of them don't come back?

Hurkyl, I sure as heck hope you are really good at some branch of science and have a really valid reason for being here because your ranking as a theologian, philosopher and a moralist is something akin to Mr. Bean. (The character and NOT Rowan Atkinson the actor)
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,828
14
Entropy said:
That is an extremely selfish and warped view-point. I'm really suprised you would say something like this.
I was answering the question "So why be a part of it?". I was not answering the question "What morally justifiable reasons are there for violence?"



TSM: If I'm a "Homer Simpson" whose "eyes gloss over from lack of comprehension", and my "ranking as a theologian, philosopher, and a moralist is something akin to Mr. Bean"...

then of the two of us, why am I the only one who is able to respond to a question directly? And why are you the only one who is attacking straw men, and bringing in emotionally charged baggage?
 
K

kyleb

I'm still waiting for someone to respond to Lisa's inquiry on good wars. From what I gather, the position has no historical backing.
 
224
2
It doesn't. That's the point. There is nothing overly positive about war.
 
454
0
I was answering the question "So why be a part of it?". I was not answering the question "What morally justifiable reasons are there for violence?"
Okay, my misunderstanding.
 
224
2
Misunderstanding what? "Why start war" and "When is it okay to start war" are, for all practical purposes, the SAME QUESTION.
 
454
0
He was simply pointing out why people start wars. I was taking it for his own personally reasoning. As if he believe it was okay, personally, to kill someone just for personal gain. And I apologized for misunderstanding what he ment.
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"NOW the war is unpopular? Well, its a little too late" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Top Threads

Top