War?

[von Lucke]

"War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of politics by other means."

--- Karl von Clausewitz, On War, Preface

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

To think that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was a sudden event, isolated in history, is, well, stupid. Japan invaded southern China for resources, steel and rubber mainly. They did this because we cut off our export of such resources to them. Their attack was bogged down, as any major land war in Asia is destined to be, and so they looked elsewhere, Indonesia, India, Australia, the Phillipines. To attack these meant to go to war with the U.S. This is why they bombed us at Pearl Harbor.

For Japan to not go to war with us would have meant pulling out of China, which was impossible given the social mindset of Imperial Japan in the late 30s. We pushed them into war, the argument is whether it was justified or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, yr half right.

By 7 Dec 41, Japan had been at war with China, off and on, since 1894 when they had "liberated" Korea from the Chinese. In 1915 with their infamous "21 Demands" to Beijing, Tokyo was only narrowly diverted (by British and American political intervention) from becoming China's de-facto overlord. With China's collapse into civil war and anarchy in the 20's, Japan sent troops into Manchuria (what later became the infamous Kwantung Army) to protect it's economic interests --- much as the European powers had done in China in decades past. And speaking of anarchy, Japan's political and military upheavals following the Crash of '29 are way to complex to set down here --- let's just say that "government-by-assassination" was the norm at home, and abroad it was not uncommon for the Army and Navy to negotiate their own treaties with foreign powers, and then ram them down the throats of the politicians back in Tokyo.

In the 30's, beginning with the overrunning of Manchuria in 31-32, Japan began a deliberate encroachment of Chinese territory as part of the Miyazaki Plan to expand heavy industry sufficiently to enable Japan to support a war economy for three years of fighting. Unfortunately for Japan, the cost of maintaining it's "special undeclared war" against China drained the resources nescessary to put the Miyazaki Plan into effect!

After the fall of France, and with the predominant view in the US that Britain would be next, the Congress passed the Two-Ocean Naval Expansion Act. This would provide --- after about 3 years --- for an increase in naval production sufficient to make the US immune from attack from either the Atlantic or Pacific oceans. Immediately after this, the Imperial Japanese Navy ordered full mobilization, and embarked on it's own modernization and refitting program --- a process that required exactly 18 months to implement. 18 months from June 1940 is December 1941. In December 1941 there was only a single Japanese warship (a destroyer) not in service, while the US was still 2 or 3 years from completion of the first major fleet units authorized by the Two-Ocean Act. Coincidence?

It wasn't until the Japanese occupied French Indo-China in Sept of '40 that the US imposed sanctions --- but it would seem the Japanese had already made up their minds by then.

In '41 the Japanese military was at it's peak --- the deteriorating situation in China, and it's rapidly aging fleet (most of it's hulls had been laid in the pre-1930's), placed it in a now-or-never situation. And how could a nation that had never known defeat in a thousand years of recorded history concieve of losing?

Banzai!

[This message has been edited by von Lucke (edited 08-31-2000).]

[JOCHEN PEIPER]

I rationalise WAR as being a way of keeping the EARTHs population down...

It is getting bigger and bigger {no thanks to CHINA} and things can only get worse with a population increase.....

Wars.....preferably NON-NUCLEAR are a way of culling population numbers....

------------------

Quote.

If you see a white plane it's American, if you see a black plane it's the RAF. If you see no planes at all it's the Luftwaffe." ---German soldier on the Western Front, 1944.

[Guest Germanboy]

von Lucke, good post. Elijah, if you have not read it, I recommend 'The origins of the second world war in the Pacific' (forgotten the author). Your argument that US sanctions drove Japan to war is partly right in regard with war in 1941 against the US, there was in fact a great divide between those (mostly army) who wanted to go to Siberia as in 1920 and those (mostly navy) who wanted to go south. This conflict between the two branches dogged Japan's war effort until the end.

Having said that, the Japanese had been all over China (Rape of Nanking anyone, or maybe the Mukden Incident?) a long long time before US sanctions. And the atrocious behaviour of the Japanese during this war did a lot in convincing the US to not side with them. Just going back two years is of course nice to support your argument, but it does not wash.

------------------

Andreas

[Philistine]

The Commissar said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

{snip}In the animal world, large groups are never allowed to grow beyond what the land can contain. This is done with predetors monitoring and killing off the herbivores. If there were no predetors, the herbivores would not only ruin the habitat, but would also suffer from numerous diseases because the sick animals were not killed off by the predetors.

{snip}

Now imagine we never had a war, that humans were all just happy go-lucky types who never picked a fight (yeah, it's impossible I know, just making a point). If we did not kill off the millions or maybe even BILLIONS who have died in every war, every battle, every clash or fight we humans have ever waged over our long and sometimes unrecorded history, those billions would have reproduced and bred more humans.

{snip}

Can you see where I'm going with this? We would already be extinct from overpopulation. We would die from deseases and wouldn't have any place on our poor little world way before we even GOT to WW2!

{snip}

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JOCHEN PEIPER said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I rationalise WAR as being a way of keeping the EARTHs population down...{snip}<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure that I buy war as a population control measure, per se. Unlike predation, where generally the weak, aged or infirm animals are the ones who are "culled",in war, through most of human history, you've been killing the strongest.

Also, I just don't see war, as really having a significant effect on population on a global scale compared with disease or other "natural" forms of death. Compare the numbers killed in the influenza epidemic in 1917 (or thereabouts) with the numbers killed in WWI. WWII might be an exception, but I'm not sure you can include the numbers killed by Stalin and Hitler (and Pol Pot or other leaders in later days, for example) in the context of "war," and it only very recently (on the scale of human history) that humanity has come up with ways of killing significant numbers of people.

Thus, I don't see war being programmed into our genes as a species survival method to maintain population.

My take (based on no real study or information) is that man is an aggressive animal and a social animal. The juxtaposition of the two traits (IMHO) results in war.

--Philistine

[aka_tom_w]

War

One simple truth

"Growth in any closed system is ALWAYS a short term phenomenon"

Guess what?

the Earth's bioshere is a CLOSED system, human population growth cannot grow unchecked forever.

So wars thin things out every now and then. Either we need another big ugly war or we need a leathal epididemic of global proportions as the earth's biospere can only support so many humans. When there are scarce resources, like NOT enough food or maybe oil, the nation with the best military will TAKE what it needs from those that have it, by force if it cannot get it any other way to continue its growth.

If I recall the question here was "What is the purpose of war"?

Good question

-tom w

[M Hofbauer]

I completely agree with Philistine. Much more humans are dieing / have died from "natural" causes such as illness and starvation than in all the wars. Just take a loom at the casualties. I am not going into detail too much, but how much lifes did ww2 cost? 20 mio in europe, plus 6 mio murdered jews if you want to add these to the war, 5 mio in the pacific. japanese campaign in china another 10 mio; ww1 another max. 10 mio. - and these are the modern wars, the million-men wars, unlike the romans, egyptians, the crusades, the mongoles etc. pp., which actually where battles of thousands.

and now compare that with the population at the time - billions. I don't have a figure here, but even if the world population was only barely a billion then the total cost of lives of ww2 and ww1 combined, arguably the single and biggest example for the theory of war as a means or effect of population control, of well 40 mio is insignificant, only 4%, in the grand scheme. and this is only a comparison done at the peak of war.

Still it is an "additional" cause of death besides the latent natural causes, therefore it is one we should try to avoid and might have control over.

btw I would also side with Elijah on the US-Jap. thing, because from what I had read it wasn't such a clear black-white issue, pearl harbor and all, but I remember too little to really take a stand here.

[aka_Deadline]

Why do we as young boys growing up, play war

with our plastic guns and swords. We collect plastic tanks and soldiers and go to our

best friends house, to play war.

Eventually the two of you bring friends over

with there tanks and plastic soldiers and before you realize there are 10 to 12 kids playing war, recreating imaginary battles

where the only casualties are a lost soldier berried in the sand.

But as a man you realize that war is far more

then plastic tanks and plastic soldiers, but yet we continue to play at war with the truth that reality for any man is that there may be a time when that little boy, now a man

may have to go to war.

Deadline

------------------

"My honor is Life both grow as one, take honor

from me and my life is done."

[Rarg]

War is terrible, crude, but fast and efficient way to technologycal evolution.

This have been good to mankind? I don't know.

The axis powers boosted the world and we must thanks for? ...Oh my God!

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Strat:

The reasons for war are numerous.

Some reasons for an aggressor:

1. Economic and resource deficiencies - I don't have enough, I want what you have.

2. Territorial disputes - Thats my land, get off.

3. Religious differences - My religion is better than yours so you will worship the way I do.

4. Political differences - My way of living is better than yours so you will live my way.

Strat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nicely put.

4. Is the "American way".

Road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Who the hell said that??

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Christov]

Thanks for all your answers, I didn't think I would get quite the response. All I said to her is " Its one of the things that humans seem to do best, why would we stop some thing we're good at."

Chris

[Toad]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Christov:

My Girlfriend asked me a few days ago, "What is the purpose of War?"

I thought I should ask the men at arms on this forum. So what is the Purpose? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

War is the Alpha-testing stage for cool computer games.

------------------

--

Toad

Ontario, Canada

[Mr. T]

Take baseball for example. Everyone's playing the game, having a fine time at it, getting along OK. Someone gets a hit and he has a nice chat with the first baseman from the other team. Everythings going pretty smooth. Well, one team's pitcher senses a lack of respect given to his fastball, or the batter starts crowding the plate, so he decides he's going to start throwing a few pitches inside. Well the other team gets a little irritated and comes back with some inside pitches of their own. So this irritates the the first team and they come back again inside and eventually hit a batter. Well the other team won't stand for that, so they come back an hit one of their batters. The batter charges the mound and then the benches clear and a huge fight breaks out. They end up beating the tar out of each other, and then afterwards they go back to playing the game again, under an new mutual understanding of one another's position on how the game should be played, and the consequences that might result if played otherwise.

[Guest Mortiis]

War being considered a natural population control is a scary way for civilized people to think. Most people on this board realize how much money goes into conducting a war and this is idealism at its best but if all the money from these wars went into research for food production, changing barren land into land that can grow crops. And just general research into the real dangers of overpopulation, Im sure all that money would help in producing a non-violent solution. As for us running out of land to house all these new generations, the reality is that there is still room for more. When we run out of room thats when youll see an epidemic of some sort that will reduce our numbers significantly.

I dont think humans have an instinct to gather together and make war. If anything we try our best to avoid it. I mean there would be no need for conscription if we all were prone to start battles out of some primal urges. Wars are started by a few men and fought by many who never really know the true reasons they are fighting it and who would rather be somewhere else. War is about power and the accumulation of it. I have yet to see a war that wasnt about power. The leaders may give many altruistic reasons as to why they are fighting the great fight but it really just boils down to a struggle for who can get the most for themselves. War will be a reality until we wipe ourselves out and that is not evolution that is devolution and is not natural.

I dont offer any answers to this but I dont think war is in our nature its just a reality of life. One last thing the theory of evolution is just that a theory and we shouldnt be so quick to base our arguments on it as if it was fact. Flame away

[Guest MajorH]

On war vs diplomacy ...

B'Elanna Torres: You killed him ?!!!

Seven of Nine: He wasn't responding to diplomacy.

- Star Trek Voyager #81, Message In A Bottle.

------------------

Best regards, Major H

majorh@mac.com

[Philistine]

Mortis,

I agree that war isn't a pre-programmed "population control measure" for the reasons I've posted above (as well as the fact that other creatures at the top of the food chain, and/or w/ no natural predators [e.g. Orcas, Great White Sharks, Tigers] haven't seemed to gotton around to warring w/ each other).

I just wanted to point out that saying something is "only" a theory, does not reduce it to being essentially a "guess."

Gravity is "only" a theory. Quantum mechanics is "only" a theory. Both theories, as currently postulated, are almost certainly incorrect in their particulars to one extent or another. Nonetheless, use of them has produced such things as airplanes (gravity)and computers (QM).

Not trying to start a creationism/evolution flamewar, just pointing out calling something a theory doesn't demote it to being unworthy of acceptace.

--Philistine

[Hamstersss]

Kudos, Phillistine, no truer words have ever been spoken.

-Oh, and for those of you who want to argue on the merit of various truer words throughout history, it's a compliment, dammit, not a statement of fact-

-Second oh, when I said that people who thought Pearl Harbor was an isolated event were stupid, I was not directing that at anyone here but rather at the masses of people who have no more than a Hollywood education-

Steve et al,

I think we agree on the major issues but disagree on the specific definition of war. Atomic particles are not at war with each other. The lions and zebra on the Serengeti are not at war with each other. The oxygen and our lungs are not at war with each other. Finally, a drunk driver is not at war with his victims. All of these are cases of conflict, though, and result in destruction or damage of various degrees. I regard war as something higher, involving metaphysical goals as well as material ones, and including men, animals and tools whose purpose is to wage war. I also think war has a longer lifespan than simple conflict. In evolution, a population of marmots may be kept in check by disease, predators and the occasional woolly hamster but these forces do not wage war on the marmots any more than lightning wages war on the ground. Its easy to mistake correlation with causation from a geological perspective but we must remember that no antelope thinks itself a soldier, the wind does not sit in a grand council planning the erosion of the mountains and a wolf pack only hunts when it's hungry.

-------

History is not was, its is.

-William Faulkner

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 08-31-2000).]

[Guest Mortiis]

I agree with you phillistine in that just because something is theory doesnt mean that it has no value. My point was theory is sometimes accepted as fact by many. For example the whole issue with us descending from simeons is getting to be accepted as fact when there is no hard evidence to prove or disprove it. There is plenty to learn from theories there is no disputing that; for all knowledge originates from theories but placing a theory in the category of truth is limiting the possibilities to branch out ones thinking into other avenues of thought. I think an example is in order for Im not the best at conveying my thoughts thru an electronic medium. If we were to take say the origins of man and accept the theory that we evolved from apes as fact then any attempt to venture into discovering the truth to the question will be considered a waste of time and ridiculed. Which is what poor darwin faced when he put forth his ideas. It was accepted fact that we came from a higher being and to dispute it was heresey, when this issue was not fact but the beliefs of others. Now Im way off topic but just wanted to make sure that its clear that its not a matter of me not giving theories any value but simply that I dont like theories being treated as fact. Sorry for going off topic but just wanted to clear that up.

[Splinty]

I think you are all correct as far as the particulars go. War is only one way of Nature, or God, or evolution (pick one or all of the previous) to force change on the human race,natural disaster,disease and famine are others,I don't think it matters what forces a population to change or adapt as long as it does.War is just one force of change.

------------------

Nicht Schiessen!!

[Guest Turret]

What is the purpose of War?

Ahhh. I love a philosophical question.

Purpose in the dictionary says aim or goal. War says armed conflict. So perhaps we anwering "What is the aim of armed conflict?". When you break it down it the question falls apart. Conflict itself has no unique aim other than to be what it is. I'm being picky I know. But while one purpose of a pencil is to write, that's not all you can do with it. It has so many purposes there is not one purpose other than to be a something that serves the purposes of pencils. A lawnmower is intended to mow lawns but I've seen people actually build R/C aircraft in the shape of lawnmowers. Again a lawnmower's goal is to be something that can be used by humans so that they are continue using it in the ways they intend it to be used and use the term lawnmower when describing the object which they used. I digress. My point is that war has no unique all encompassing purpose other than to serve as method to use arms against other humans in such a way that it seems to have the effect of stopping the others from using arms against you.

I think the question is really trying to get the answer to a naive question like "Why do we kill each other when peace is so much better."

You'd really have to ask God why we resolve conflict with weapons. Because it works I suppose. It also makes great wargames!!

Now off to submit my new silly walk to the ministry.

[This message has been edited by Turret (edited 08-31-2000).]

[Philistine]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mortiis:

I agree with you phillistine in that just because something is theory doesnt mean that it has no value. My point was theory is sometimes accepted as fact by many. For example the whole issue with us descending from simeons is getting to be accepted as fact when there is no hard evidence to prove or disprove it.

{snip}<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure I disagree with you in principle (although in specific I think we may be far apart, but that's OK ). I think we are mainly talking semantics here.

What caused me to respond to your previous post was something that is a bit of a hot button to me (and probably of no moment to the vast majority of people). That is the use by people of the word "theory" as a shorthand for "unproved theory" (generally in the context of evolution, although not necessarily) when what is meant by theory is that it currently presents the best fit with all the experimental/observational evidence.

Thus, gravity, electromagnetism, inertia, QM, etc. are theories that represent (in some cases) hundreds of years of experiments and observations and represent our current best understanding.

The hostility that exists to competing arguments against established theories is (for the most part) due to the failure to explain how the new argument would address the numerous of situations outside of the special case which is being argued (of course there is also often a tendency to stubbornly stick to what you have been taught, but such is human nature).

The problem those who are not convinced by Evolution seem to have is, as you stated in your post, they believe "there is no hard evidence to prove or disprove it."

This type of critisism is quite valid of any theory, but that is the argument to make, not a statement that "it is only a theory, and therefore you can't accept it as fact." Like it or not, everyone accepts numerous theories as fact everyday, otherwise, you couldn't function.

As to whether evolution is or is not supported by evidence, that is an entirely different question, the disucssion of which would undoubtedly lead to the closing of this thread.

Sorry to keep up the OT posting, just letting you know why I posted in the first place.

--Philistine

[jshandorf]

So, let make sure what we are defining "war" as meaning. I am assuming we are using war to mean "a group/tribe/government use of violent force upon another."

Basically the ONLY purpose for war is for one group of people to force it's will upon another. Be it a tribe of a hundred, or a government of millions its purpose is singular and the same.

In a sense it is a form of diplomacy and in some instances it is the continuation of it in other forms.

For people here to tie war into feelings of aggression and man’s violent nature is silly. War is a product of a social group. Governments cannot hate because of the obvious, they don’t have feelings. They are the product of our own creation.

Now before someone runs off and posts some message before they actually read my post or even think first (it happens a lot) I am fully aware that governments are composed of people and that people have feelings but that is besides the point. No matter how many people might “feel” the same way none of them all feel exactly the same. We all have out own opinions, thoughts, and yes, feelings.

The only purpose of a government going to war is to unite us in a singular purpose and that is to force our will/beliefs upon another government.

Jeff

[Bobbaro]

Does peace have a purpose? What is it? Is it all that different from that of war? Does purpose actually exist or is it something rationalized and ascribed to circumstance?

From what does war arise? Is peace the absence of war or war the absence of peace? Are either ever truely absent, peace without some conflict or war or war without some peace within? Is descriptive language up to providing a satisfactory rendition?

If political activity characterizes peaceful conflict, then war is merely political activity extended into more forceful form.

Is all human endevor conflict or is it harmony? Are all these opposites just points on a continium? We cut a line between at convinence.

[Guest Mortiis]

I would like to continue this discusion but it would be best to do it thru email instead of cluttering this thread with ot material . I have some chores to attend to but expect an email later tonight.

[Reaper]

Hey,

As was said above, war is the continuation of politics by other means.

It is the direct result of two reasoning groups of people failing to agree. In simplistic terms, think of two tribes on either side of a wheat field. Both feel they have a right to the wheat, and both MAY be correct. For a time they can split the field and thirve. But there comes a time when both tribes have grown, and now they require more of the wheat field to sustain themselves. Since both tribes face the same problem, and there is only one field, they are at an impass. Both need the wheat; both have rational reasons why the wheat should be theirs; but the reality is that there is only so much wheat (land) and both sides can't afford to share. Result: violence. As humans have evolved, the equation may have changed values (substitute gold or land or religious differences for wheat), but the result is always the same.

The most expedient and long lasting way to resolve these types of conflicts is to remove the opposing group, permanently.

A phrase I coined while taking military history in college was "Anyone who says violence doesn't solve anything has never been killed in a dispute."

It really boils down to space. There is only so much of it, and some parts are better than others. Every group feels entitled to their own "space" but if its all taken already, they have to fight the current tenants for it. This could be for food, prosperity, freedom to pursue an ideal, etc...

Obviously this is boiled down to almost inconsequential levels on this forum, and this is a subject which has filled volumes of text over the years, but that is my super-simplified take on war.

Reaper

------------------

"We're in business, definitely!"

Mike, Saving Private Ryan