Wars and battles in human history inevitable?

[Avichal]

Most of the wars and battles that took place happened because of fight for natural resources, right?
Could these wars be avoided? Every country wants its survival so they will naturally fight for resources. Now that we have advance technology we can trade resources quickly so fight for resources has gone down but in those days I think wars were a valid option for survival.
Any opinions?

 

[phinds]

Most of the wars and battles that took place happened because of fight for natural resources, right?
Could these wars be avoided? Every country wants its survival so they will naturally fight for resources. Now that we have advance technology we can trade resources quickly so fight for resources has gone down but in those days I think wars were a valid option for survival.
Any opinions?

I think you are wildly optimistic to think that natural resources are the primary reason for war. I think the bad side of human nature plays a much bigger role, and technology isn't going to change that.

 

[Avichal]

I think you are wildly optimistic to think that natural resources are the primary reason for war. I think the bad side of human nature plays a much bigger role, and technology isn't going to change that.

Well then what were the reasons for which these wars happened?
I think all the wars must have happened because humans wanted to survive. Obviously they didn't see the long-term effect but ultimately the main reason was survival right?

 

[ImaLooser]

Most of the wars and battles that took place happened because of fight for natural resources, right?
Could these wars be avoided? Every country wants its survival so they will naturally fight for resources. Now that we have advance technology we can trade resources quickly so fight for resources has gone down but in those days I think wars were a valid option for survival.
Any opinions?

Many wars in the past were fought in order to get rich. You'd march in and steal the gold and jewels, then demand tribute so you wouldn't do it again. Taking of slaves was common. It was a form of organized crime. You could also take the farmers land and give it to your soldiers. According to Albert Einstein the main motivation for Germany joining WWI was economic. The nation had been enriched by the previous war and they wanted to do it again All this happened as recently as WWII which was largely to get rich by stealing land and gold and widespread enslavement.d Japan attacked the Allies in order to get iron and petroleum, so that was very much resource-motivated. Colonial wars were all about money. The France-Vietnam war was for control of the opium crop from Laos. The Chinese occupation of Tibet was a land grab, as was the state of Israela, as was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

In the US the Spanish-American and 1812 wars were land grabs. The war on the native americans was all about land. The Civil War was about slavery which was both a moral and economic issue. The US got very wealthy through war, particularly against Mexico. In those days it was the Department of War.

Modern war is a lot more costly and destructive, so it isn't as popular. The widespread distribution of the AK-47 rendered colonialism less profitable. Nuclear weapons render war extremely unprofitable. Without them I think we would still be having big wars.

Most revolutions are about money too. Not to get rich, but to avoid starvation. If you are going to die for sure if you do nothing...

So I would say that most wars have been due to the profit motive, not simple survival. In the wars I mentioned the aggressors would have survived comfortably without their war. The one who is worried about survival is the victim.

During some recent wars where the winner loses money there are often influential interests who gain considerable wealth. Some say that the Israel/Arab conflict is about religion, but actually it is about land. If all the Jews converted to Islam today it would make no difference at all. They would continue to fight over the land.

Inevitable? aCertainly not. If a warlike place like Europe can find peace, then any place can.

 

[willbell]

There is five factors that influence human history, especially war:
Social
Relationships in groups and societies, think Pakistan/India type conflicts.
Political
Competing Ideologies, think Fascism vs. Communism vs. Democratic Liberty in WW2 and the Cold War.
Economic
Natural Resources and other stuff, the 13 colonies were heavily taxed and they rebelled.
Religious
Different religions conflict like in the 30 years war.
Military
I can't think of anything in particular at the moment, during a particularly rocky stretch of the Roman Empire, the Year of the Six Emperors saw the military auctioning off the position of emperor to the highest bidder.

Just consider that, its not all natural resources. To make a peaceful world you would somehow need to remove that, it would most likely involve totally removing human inequality, our basic instincts and ambitions, all natural barriers to ensure a global culture, and involve a socialist or simply totalitarian world government, and to avoid conflict it would have to have happened really early in our history. In other words its impossible.

 

[ImaLooser]

Most of the wars and battles that took place happened because of fight for natural resources, right?
Could these wars be avoided? Every country wants its survival so they will naturally fight for resources. Now that we have advance technology we can trade resources quickly so fight for resources has gone down but in those days I think wars were a valid option for survival.
Any opinions?

Look at South America. In the past 200 years there have been a few "wars" but these are just border skirmishes. It is true that they have had civil wars, but these are pretty small potatoes compared with European wars, particularly the "World" wars.

Of all the continents I would say that Europe was the most warlike by a very great margin. Our history is biased toward Europe so we get a distorted view of things.

 

[David Christo]

Wars also regulate our population. We are a species that has the ability to reproduce at will, without any limits except resources.

What happens when there is not enough resources to support our population?

What restores the balance now that major wars do not provide additional resources?

 

[SteamKing]

Look at South America. In the past 200 years there have been a few "wars" but these are just border skirmishes. It is true that they have had civil wars, but these are pretty small potatoes compared with European wars, particularly the "World" wars.

Of all the continents I would say that Europe was the most warlike by a very great margin. Our history is biased toward Europe so we get a distorted view of things.

You might reconsider your first paragraph in light of the Paraguayan War of 1864-70. As a result of that conflict, it has been estimated that 60%-90% of the entire pre-war Paraguayan population (not just combatants) was lost due to fighting or disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War

One of the factors which controls the frequency of outbreaks of violence between two countries is geography. South America has plenty of jungles and tropical conditions in the north and is broken up in the south by high mountain ranges (the Andes) or inhospitable deserts. It is not for lack of trying that the various South American nations haven't been more warlike with one another, but much of their energy and treasure is spent keeping themselves alive in various less than hospitable climates.

 

[David Christo]

You might reconsider your first paragraph in light of the Paraguayan War of 1864-70. As a result of that conflict, it has been estimated that 60%-90% of the entire pre-war Paraguayan population (not just combatants) was lost due to fighting or disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War

One of the factors which controls the frequency of outbreaks of violence between two countries is geography. South America has plenty of jungles and tropical conditions in the north and is broken up in the south by high mountain ranges (the Andes) or inhospitable deserts. It is not for lack of trying that the various South American nations haven't been more warlike with one another, but much of their energy and treasure is spent keeping themselves alive in various less than hospitable climates.

Good point. I suppose our technology has made the Earth much smaller and easier to get places, and made conducting wars easier.

If I were starving, id think I would not just sit there and die..Id rather die trying to get some food.

 

[SteamKing]

Wars also regulate our population. We are a species that has the ability to reproduce at will, without any limits except resources.

What happens when there is not enough resources to support our population?

What restores the balance now that major wars do not provide additional resources?

Just because humans have the ability to reproduce at will does not mean that they will always do so.

War as a means of providing additional resources is an incredibly inefficient proposition. As few as fifty years ago, it was predicted that the 1970s and beyond would see millions die as a result of having insufficient food to feed the anticipated increase in population. These deaths did not occur because food production saw sharp increases due to better crops and more efficient methods of farming (the Green Revolution), not because the nations with growing populations and insufficient food production waged war on their more prosperous neighbors.

 

[David Christo]

Just because humans have the ability to reproduce at will does not mean that they will always do so.

War as a means of providing additional resources is an incredibly inefficient proposition. As few as fifty years ago, it was predicted that the 1970s and beyond would see millions die as a result of having insufficient food to feed the anticipated increase in population. These deaths did not occur because food production saw sharp increases due to better crops and more efficient methods of farming (the Green Revolution), not because the nations with growing populations and insufficient food production waged war on their more prosperous neighbors.

That's true. I wonder what it will take to keep our standard of living intact though. Everyone has and depends on cars now...how much has oil consumption jumped since the 50's I wonder? that's what I mean about resources.

 

[SteamKing]

It's a complicated topic; there are many different theories about when, or if, 'peak oil' has occurred:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

As energy generated by oil is essential to maintaining current standards of living, increases in the price of oil bring out a hole host of innovation in the exploration and production of oil. New seismological techniques help to find oil deposits which might have remained undiscovered, and new technology allows for the development of oil fields offshore or from from sources previously thought to be uneconomic to develop, like tar sands. Fracking can used in regions previously explored and thought depleted of economically recoverable oil and gas.

The point is, economics provides a host of incentives to innovate in the face of looming shortage to maintain a desirable standard of living. Poor economic theories can also artificially turn abundance into shortage in a relatively short time. Before WWI, tsarist Russia was a net exported of food; after the Bolshevik revolution, within a few years the Soviet Union was dependent on imported food and there were several large famines in the Ukraine, where much of Russia's food is produced.

 

[Digitalism]

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/531736/network-theory-reveals-the-hidden-link-between-trade-and-military-alliances-that-leads/

 

[Dotini]

IMO, conflict and war are an inescapable part of human nature.

Galations 5:17
New Living Translation
The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions.

George RR Martin
"The human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about."

 

[timthereaper]

Conflict comes when someone wants something bad enough that they take it unfairly from someone else and that someone else tries to stop it. The concept of "war", "battle", "skirmish", "fight", "invasion", and so on just depend on how many someones are involved, who the someones are, what and how big the something is, who wins, and how much fighting back there is.

 

[blue_leaf77]

As long as there are countries and beliefs (both in plural), there will always be a fight.

 

[Pythagorean]

As long as there are countries and beliefs (both in plural), there will always be a fight.

I think the fights are pretty much always about resources. People use their beliefs to justify their right to resources, but without resource contests, people with diverse beliefs co-exist pretty well.

 

[SteamKing]

I think the fights are pretty much always about resources. People use their beliefs to justify their right to resources, but without resource contests, people with diverse beliefs co-exist pretty well.

IMO, that's not true at all, especially in light of recent events. The Charlie Hebdo massacre, the attack at the cafe in Copenhagen, the whole ISIS thing all belie the sentiment that people with diverse beliefs co-exist pretty well.

 

[Pythagorean]

IMO, that's not true at all, especially in light of recent events. The Charlie Hebdo massacre, the attack at the cafe in Copenhagen, the whole ISIS thing all belie the sentiment that people with diverse beliefs co-exist pretty well.

ISIS's motivation is political at its core. The resource they're after is land. They're mad about Picot-Sykes. Before Picot-Sykes, Jews and Muslims co-existed. There was (naturally) hate crimes, but there wasn't war between them until westerners stepped in and promised land to multiple parties at once. And yes, there are fanatics that will commit terrorist acts on their beliefs, but getting a whole military wing to go to war requires material motivation.

Once people start fighting over resources, things get ugly, differences in beliefs become more apparent (and help morally justify one's right to kill for the resource they want).

 

[SteamKing]

ISIS's motivation is political at its core. The resource they're after is land. They're mad about Picot-Sykes. Before Picot-Sykes, Jews and Muslims co-existed. There was (naturally) hate crimes, but there wasn't war between them until westerners stepped in and promised land to multiple parties at once. And yes, there are fanatics that will commit terrorist acts on their beliefs, but getting a whole military wing to go to war requires material motivation.

Once people start fighting over resources, things get ugly, differences in beliefs become more apparent (and help morally justify one's right to kill for the resource they want).

Try again. ISIS is primarily fighting in a few city strongholds, and trying to take other cities in their attempt to drive out or kill all who do not subscribe to their beliefs. I doubt 1 in 100 ISIS members even know or care what Picot-Sykes is about. Their conflict, in part, stems from much older rivalries between Shia and Sunni Moslems that existed centuries before Messrs. Picot and Sykes ever played with a map.

ISIS soldiers are not agrarian reformers. They are fighting a war of extermination against all whom they see as not following the true path of whatever.

 

[blue_leaf77]

ISIS is looking for land, on which they can build their the state they dream of, a state in which only Islamic sharia prevails as the governing rule. So what moves their action up to this very second is their belief. It might be inaccurate but recently I heard they release their educational policy in which they ban evolutionary biology and social science, among others. In my opinion, if they were only looking for land or resources they don't have to go that deep.

 

[SteamKing]

ISIS is looking for land, on which they can build their the state they dream of, a state in which only Islamic sharia prevails as the governing rule. So what moves their action up to this very second is their belief. It might be inaccurate but recently I heard they release their educational policy in which they ban evolutionary biology and social science, among others. In my opinion, if they were only looking for land or resources they don't have to go that deep.

When ISIS executes a group of teenage boys for watching a soccer match, ascribing an 'educational policy' to the group gives them too much legitimacy, IMO. Just as ISIS is not a group of agrarian reformers, neither are they interested in 'education reform', except to make all submit to their interpretation of the Koran.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-publicly-execute-13-teenagers-watching-asia-cup-football-match-1484233

 

[Pythagorean]

Try again. ISIS is primarily fighting in a few city strongholds, and trying to take other cities in their attempt to drive out or kill all who do not subscribe to their beliefs. I doubt 1 in 100 ISIS members even know or care what Picot-Sykes is about. Their conflict, in part, stems from much older rivalries between Shia and Sunni Moslems that existed centuries before Messrs. Picot and Sykes ever played with a map.

ISIS soldiers are not agrarian reformers. They are fighting a war of extermination against all whom they see as not following the true path of whatever.

The soldiers are never the reformers, anyway. The leaders are.

I'll just preface the details here with some basic economics background. Economic factors are invariable to violent conflict:

• Wars often have cultural dimensions related to ethnicity or religion, but there are invariably underlying economic causes too
• Major root causes include political, economic, and social inequalities; extreme poverty; economic stagnation; poor government services; high unemployment; environmental degradation; and individual (economic) incentives to fight

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122271/
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1754535
The socioeconomic effects of Sykes-Picot don't require that the populations in the region consciously acknowledge the effects of Sykes-Picot (the effects are real, not imagined) but ISIS has explicitly acknowledged and acted against Sykes-Picot; they claim it's dissolution as one of their goals, though this could be just to appeal to the locals and gain more support since it's a popular position in the area anyway. The reality is that, on the individual level, the majority of fighters are there for material reasons, too (but that wasn't my point). ISIS is a well funded outfit, they pay their soldiers well, they have higher quality weapons and supplies then other regimes in the area; many people will have a much better lifestyle with ISIS than at home (or with another regime) in the first place.

The real question is the motivation of the political leaders (not the soldiers) of ISIS, which is most likely power and land, even if they believe that it's justified through their beliefs. They've cherry-picked the memes from their religion that fit their political agenda, not the other way around.

"This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders," a jihadist from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) warned in the video called End of Sykes-Picot, a reference to the agreement between France and Britain that divided up the Ottoman empire territories after the first world war.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/30/isis-announces-islamic-caliphate-iraq-syria

Their secret map, known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement or the Asia Minor Agreement, established the geography of French and British colonial rule and influence. And it established national borders.

The reverberations have been felt in the region since.

“The artificiality of state formation has caused numerous conflicts over the last few decades,” said Henner Fürtig, director of the Institute of Middle East Studies at GIGA research institute in Hamburg. “These questions haven’t been solved for a century and burst open again and again, in a cycle, like now with the ISIS advance in northern Iraq.”

“If you had looked at the Middle East 15 years ago, you would have seen a string of strikingly similar regimes — from Libya and Tunisia in the west to Syria and Iraq in the east. They were all dictatorships. They were all secular, in the sense that they did not derive their legitimacy from religious identity. Historically, they had all been supported by outside powers — first the British and French, then the superpowers — which meant that these rulers worried more about pleasing patrons abroad than currying favor at home. And they had secure borders.

“Today, across the region, from Libya to Syria, that structure of authority has collapsed and people are reaching for their older identities — Sunni, Shiite, Kurd. Sectarian groups, often Islamist, have filled the power vacuum..."

http://www.dailynews.com/general-ne...year-old-colonial-map-created-todays-conflict

Anyway, even if you don't believe Picot-Sykes is the driving factor, it's still primarily politically motivated.

ISIS’ vision is, ultimately, deeply ahistorical; rather, ISIS is using the past as a fig leaf to justify an opportunistic military campaign that capitalizes on the lawlessness wrought by Syria’s civil war and on the weakness of Iraq’s security forces.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/isis’-desire-erase-sykes-picot-rooted-fiction-not-history-11293