News THE CAUSES OF WAR What factors lead to the outbreak of war between nations?

[MTyler8]

Opinion of war

First off A.E. had the right, just like everyone else, to express his opinion.
Second, when did it become necessary to have been in a battle before having an opinion about war? Any intelligent, educated person should know how horrible warfare is. If you are going to dis-allow an opinion because of a lack of "first hand knowledge" you will eliminate most of your own opinions. If you're only 18 you can't have very many "authorized" opinions yet.
My opinion: War may have its place. It should only be used as a last resort. Thats why I think the current "war" in Iraq is a crime. It was not necessary. International laws were broken to start it. It has wasted both lives and money and continues to do so. Lives and money that could have been better spent on other things, like funding scientific research.

 

[Astronuc]

Fair enough.

I do appreciate your point of view.

 

[loseyourname]

Because they are asking young men to do something that they themselves would not do. I am funny about stuff like that. I never ask someone to do something that I would not do myself - especially putting one's life at risk. But then that's me.

Is that honestly it, though? I'm not a big critic of hypocrisy, myself. What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong, and it doesn't matter how is giving the order. If the order is right, it's right; if it's wrong, it's wrong. Had it been Bush that ordered D-Day, even though he was never willing to put himself in such a situation, it still would have been the right order. Had it been Eisenhower ordering troops into Iraq, even though a veteran of many wars himself, it still would have been the wrong order.

 

[selfAdjoint]

when did it become necessary to have been in a battle before having an opinion about war? Any intelligent, educated person should know how horrible warfare is. If you are going to dis-allow an opinion because of a lack of "first hand knowledge" you will eliminate most of your own opinions.

It is good, though to have SOME experience, like knowing a veteran, so that you don't just assume that horror is the end of the story, so that everybody who goes to war willingly, or orders it, has to be assumed either mad or evil.

 

[Astronuc]

Is that honestly it, though? I'm not a big critic of hypocrisy, myself. What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong, and it doesn't matter how is giving the order. If the order is right, it's right; if it's wrong, it's wrong. Had it been Bush that ordered D-Day, even though he was never willing to put himself in such a situation, it still would have been the right order. Had it been Eisenhower ordering troops into Iraq, even though a veteran of many wars himself, it still would have been the wrong order.

Well - that too!

 

[alexandra]

well whatever it is you, just do it well & enjoy the hapiness of Life. I just hope something good will come out of the time we spent in the net, wish i could still be here when it goes well, if not mayb my daugther or her offspring will have the chance. thanks Alex
But I still want your expansion of "Internationalism and its economics" to have a framework of the gobal policy. Have U got that figured out, I'll wait.

Hello dsky

Sorry it took me a few days to respond (work has intervened in my 'real' life online ). Anyway, my political views have been discussed at length in a number of threads, and rather than bore everyone by restating them again in detail, I'll direct you to the threads:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=89977".

 

[BobG]

As opposed to 'if there were no men, there will be no wars?' Isn't that obvious? Why should be care about what a scientist (in this case, einstein) says on the matter of war i.e. a topic he has no credible knowledge about?

I agree with Bladibla's in regards to the quote. As Richard Feynman said, "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." (Of course, unless you could somehow construe this as a scientific problem, Feynman's comment presents a little bit of a paradox.) Einstein's opinions about war in general carry no more weight than the average person's and not even much more weight than the Dixie Chicks' opinons.

However, Einstein's opinion on developing the nuclear bomb and the effects of using it are relevant. He was in a position to get across just how different an atomic bomb would be from regular bombing missions. Psychologically, a couple of atomic bombs had much more impact than bombs that merely burned down entire cities. Regardless of whether we should have actually dropped the bomb, it wouldn't have been good to be the second country to develop it (in hindsight, Germany's progress was overestimated, but they were certainly further along than the US at the time of Einstein's letter).

 

[Astronuc]

Regardless of whether we should have actually dropped the bomb, it wouldn't have been good to be the second country to develop it (in hindsight, Germany's progress was overestimated, but they were certainly further along than the US at the time of Einstein's letter).

The Germans, or rather some, knew conceptually that it was possible, but the details of how were not known. However that was probably well ahead of the US at the time. Most of the leading nuclear research was being conducted in Europe.

 

[Astronuc]

Drifting back to the OP topic - Causes of War - one principal cause throughout history is "Belligerence". Seems to be ongoing!

Bush to reaffirm U.S. anti-terrorism strategy
President to issue new national security strategy document

President Bush plans to issue a new national security strategy today reaffirming his doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, despite the troubled experience in Iraq.

The document, an articulation of U.S. strategic priorities that by law is required every four years, lays out a robust view of America's power and an assertive view of its responsibility to bring change around the world. On everything from genocide to human trafficking to AIDS, the strategy describes itself as "idealistic about goals and realistic about means."

The strategy expands on the original security framework developed by the Bush administration in September 2002, before the invasion of Iraq. That strategy shifted U.S. foreign policy away from decades of deterrence and containment toward a more aggressive stance of attacking enemies before they attack the United States.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11847835/

But how does one determine that one 'will be' attacked? How reliable is or will be the intelligence? Or does that matter?

What if a president simply decides for personal reasons to attack another country, much like the kings, emperors or warlords deciding to attack some other tribe or country? What if such a president decides that those who disagree with such a belligerent policy are 'enemies of the state'?

What happens when the citizenry defer to 'experts', who have personal agendas, because the politics is so complicated?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch,
Bolton compares Iran threat to Sept. 11 attacks
House panel seeks sanctions; Rice wants talks with Tehran on nuclear aims
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11849446/

 

[RVBuckeye]

But how does one determine that one 'will be' attacked? How reliable is or will be the intelligence? Or does that matter?

You can build up an assumtion that you 'could be' attacked based on past actions by the other party. (past terrorist acts, nuclear build-up). You can determine that you 'will be' attacked based on current posturing by the other party. (troop build-up at the border, declaration of war by the head of state). The reliability of the intellegence matters, but without the "smoking gun", you are left to make assumptions with the intellegence you have before you. Reliable or not.

What if a president simply decides for personal reasons to attack another country, much like the kings, emperors or warlords deciding to attack some other tribe or country? What if such a president decides that those who disagree with such a belligerent policy are 'enemies of the state'?

I think the president can decide to attack another country for personal reasons, at his own political peril. A president cannot declare dissenters as 'enemies of the state' and it be so. What law would one be charged of breaking? Sedition? That's not a law. If there is a law out there, luckily here we have the right to a trial and it has to be proved. The U.S. is not a dictatorship, yet.