War

[jBirch]

Given the current political and economic conditions in the world, what is the justification and purpose of war? Is it still advantageous to develop better offensive/defensive weapons technology then other nations? What advantages are conferred? What is the purpose of a standing army? How would a standing military be deployed and utilized to affect political gains? What political gains are there left to be acquired that force of arms has the potential to garner?

[scrapinpeg]

You're kidding, right?

[HillBilly]

No I can kind of see what JBirch is getting at... But he'll need to elaborate.

[telkanuru]

For that matter, how does one now define 'war'? I mean, are we at war in Iraq? Congress certainly hasn't gone through the needed steps for that, but troops are dying because of bullets and bombs.

However, my current opinion on the 'War on Terror' is that it is very much Orwellian in nature. Postulate thusly:
1) One of the defining attributes of the Republican party is 'Big on defense'
2) The Cold war has ended.
3) In order for such a defining attribute to be relivant, the US must have at least one external threat.
4) Due to effective post 9/11 rhetoric by the Bush administration, Terror has replaced Communism as THE GLOBAL THREAT.

Now, to be cliche, I point you in the direction of '1984' and the concept of '2 minutes hate', as well as the observation that the 3 superpowers in said novel would never defeat each other because they were all neeeded for the survival of the others, as each was defined by its opposition to the others. For 50 years, the USA has been 'the anti-USSR'. However, communism is no more. So, terror steps in. And that's life.

[scrapinpeg]

Reality: the world is full of belligerents. Be they pirates, terrorists, warlords, genocides or expansionists, their existence is real and their willingness to use force to get what they want is equally real.

Belligerents cause victims of injustice, by taking their lives, their property, and their liberty. We don't want to be victims, and we don't want other people to be victims either.

There are two ways to prevent such injustice. Either convince the belligerent to not act, or prevent the belligerent from acting by taking out his weapons/supplies/command/etc.

You can't do either without military force. Diplomacy doesn't work without a threat of force backing it up. And it has to be a real threat -- standing armies alone aren't going to do the trick if you demonstrate an unwillingness to use them.

Going to war to take another's land or liberty is unjust. Going to war to protect yourself or to protect others is entirely just and right.

Having a superior military, superior weapons and a demonstrated willingness to use them makes having to go to war less likely, and makes the cost of any such war less horrible.

[lochinvar]

Given the current political and economic conditions in the world, what is the justification and purpose of war?

The purpose and justification of war is, as it has always been, to impose one's will on the enemy and/or prevent their imposing their will upon you. Political and economic conditions do not enter into it: People haven't changed.

Is it still advantageous to develop better offensive/defensive weapons technology then other nations? What advantages are conferred?

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." If other nations unfriendly to us develop superior weapons, what's to prevent their imposing their will upon us? See point 1 above.

What is the purpose of a standing army?

The purpose of a standing army is to deter those who might think to impose their will upon us.

How would a standing military be deployed and utilized to affect political gains? What political gains are there left to be acquired that force of arms has the potential to garner?

Ah, there's the rub...
I don't think anyone would seriously debate the need for a standing army, or for the readiness to use it--the "rough men standing ready to do violence on our behalf" that allows us to sleep peacefully at night. However, the size of that force, how it's to be deployed, and to what ends is it to be used are the substance of much debate.

[telkanuru]

Reality: the world is full of belligerents. Be they pirates, terrorists, warlords, genocides or expansionists, their existence is real and their willingness to use force to get what they want is equally real.

And the US does what, asks nicely? Do we get a different standare because we're 'right' (hah, a pun!)?

Belligerents cause victims of injustice, by taking their lives, their property, and their liberty. We don't want to be victims, and we don't want other people to be victims either.

If you intend to stop all injustice by going to war, why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia? China? North Korea?

There are two ways to prevent such injustice. Either convince the belligerent to not act, or prevent the belligerent from acting by taking out his weapons/supplies/command/etc.

True. Definitions of injustice are obviously relative, however.

You can't do either without military force. Diplomacy doesn't work without a threat of force backing it up. And it has to be a real threat -- standing armies alone aren't going to do the trick if you demonstrate an unwillingness to use them.

Yay, unfounded assumptions! Proof positive, please?

Going to war to take another's land or liberty is unjust. Going to war to protect yourself or to protect others is entirely just and right.

Shall we address you as 'Unconditional Arbiter of Morality' from now on?

Having a superior military, superior weapons and a demonstrated willingness to use them makes having to go to war less likely, and makes the cost of any such war less horrible.

How can any situation in which people die be less horrible than another?

[jBirch]

The purpose and justification of war is, as it has always been, to impose one's will on the enemy and/or prevent their imposing their will upon you. Political and economic conditions do not enter into it: People haven't changed."The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." If other nations unfriendly to us develop superior weapons, what's to prevent their imposing their will upon us? See point 1 above. The purpose of a standing army is to deter those who might think to impose their will upon us.Ah, there's the rub...
I don't think anyone would seriously debate the need for a standing army, or for the readiness to use it--the "rough men standing ready to do violence on our behalf" that allows us to sleep peacefully at night. However, the size of that force, how it's to be deployed, and to what ends is it to be used are the substance of much debate.

Straight from Clauswitz, which is where I was thinking of this going. What I'm interested in exploring is less the morality of war but more the practical outcomes of it. Is it beneficial to engage in war? If yes, why? If no, why not? Is it beneficial to prepare for war (with large armies, vast weapons stockpiles, ongoing R&D)? If yes, why? If no, why not?

I was thinking about the political and economic environment because it seems to me that the world is tighter then ever before and these forces often preclude the use of armed force against other nation/states. When you enter nuclear weapons into the fray, "politics by other means" becomes impossible. You can make yourself highly secure because of their threat but you can't really use them to coerce other nations because of the political and economic fallout from doing so, plus their own nuclear deterrent.

Conventially, (less then total war) the environment seems to have shifted a bit in the last while in that economics has a mobility that has never before been seen. Wars are analysed based, not on their overt political outcomes, but more on their subtle economic ones. If you embark on unpopular wars then you tend to reap the economic fallout from doing so. So, in that light, is it still wise to prepare for, and engage in, warfare beyond a massive nuclear deterant?

[Philistine]

Given the current political and economic conditions in the world, what is the justification and purpose of war? Is it still advantageous to develop better offensive/defensive weapons technology then other nations? What advantages are conferred? What is the purpose of a standing army? How would a standing military be deployed and utilized to affect political gains? What political gains are there left to be acquired that force of arms has the potential to garner?

So... in a nutshell you're asking: "War! Huh – Good God y’all -- What is it good for?"



--Philistine

[scrapinpeg]

And the US does what, asks nicely? Do we get a different standare because we're 'right' (hah, a pun!)?

Who said anything about the US and whether its actions are justifiable or not?

If you intend to stop all injustice by going to war, why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia? China? North Korea?

Nobody said that war is the only way to stop injustice. Nor that it is our job to stop all injustice. Only that, if you want to stop belligerents or prevent them, you'd better be able to back it up with force.

True. Definitions of injustice are obviously relative, however.

Ah, ethical relativism. A fun subject to discuss! But probably in another thread.

Yay, unfounded assumptions! Proof positive, please?

Somalia. US pulled out after demonstrating an unwilligness to use its forces, and thereby encouraged not only the warlords there but also al-Qaida to go ahead.

Shall we address you as 'Unconditional Arbiter of Morality' from now on?

No, that's too long. Just call me Almighty Poobah.

How can any situation in which people die be less horrible than another?

You and a bunch of your friends round up and slaughter several thousand innocent people, who just happen to have a different ancestor from you and also occupy some prime grazing land.

I and some of my friends intervene, kill a bunch of your belligerents and destroy your means of committing violence, suffering minimal losses ourselves.

I think it's pretty obvious which is less horrible.

[damion18d]

Since you use the world as the base of your question I will respond to areas other than the U.S. which at who I think this was aimed. Lets go to Africa where civil war, genocide, and tribal conflict have touched nearly every country on the continent in the last 3 decades. War is the means of both political and economical gain in many of these countries. The Congo has split, changed names and power structure more times than I care to count.

Balkins, the Serb and Albanian factions alone have hated each other longer than America has existed. Once again politics and economics are ruled by force and corruption. The day multinational forces withdrawl there will be a rekindling of conflict in that region.

Middle East, do you believe for one second that if America pulled out of Iraq that other regional countries wouldn't pounce on the weakened state of this nation? Look at regional history there is a lot of stored up hate here.

War is a horrible thing. War should not be used niether for economical nor political gain. In the same breath though, I say as war losses go this has been a fortunate situation. People rant and rave about over a thousand dead. There are more homicides in America in a month than a year of warfare. In Vietnam there were single months with 3 to 4 times the body count. Really I'm trying to figure out what the point of your question was. War was here waiting for man before we walked the earth and it will wait for our replacements long after we are gone.

I have to be honest and I hate to stereo type you but this question and the geography of where you are from doesn't surprise me in the least. Especially after seeing how your country dealt with the unfortunate death of a Somali man at the hands of a few bad apples in a regiment with a rich history.

I'll pose my own question for you then. What would draw you into a war? What justification meets whatever standard you have? Are you against war and military in general? Are you a pacifist? Do you believe this war is about economics or political wrangling? If so why are gas prices so high why was the war so unpopular why aren't we reaping the plentiful fruit of our labor? Canada has a military, right? Do you boycott them?

[jBirch]

Reality: the world is full of belligerents. Be they pirates, terrorists, warlords, genocides or expansionists, their existence is real and their willingness to use force to get what they want is equally real.

Agreed.

Belligerents cause victims of injustice, by taking their lives, their property, and their liberty. We don't want to be victims, and we don't want other people to be victims either.

Agreed only so much as all beligerance involves violence and it is violence that causes the loss of life, liberty, and property.

There are two ways to prevent such injustice. Either convince the belligerent to not act, or prevent the belligerent from acting by taking out his weapons/supplies/command/etc.

Agreed if you remove everything after .."prevent the belligerent from acting".

You can't do either without military force. Diplomacy doesn't work without a threat of force backing it up. And it has to be a real threat -- standing armies alone aren't going to do the trick if you demonstrate an unwillingness to use them.

I disagree in that military force is not the only type of force. I disagree in that diplomacy doesn't need force (mutually beneficial solutions don't need force). If coercion is to be used (force), I agree that the force must be overt and truly threatening.

Going to war to take another's land or liberty is unjust. Going to war to protect yourself or to protect others is entirely just and right.

I disagree. Going to war is precisely designed to limit or remove another's freedom to act because you disagree strongly with their choice of action. Just and right are not something I'd like to get into because they bring into the equation emotional evaluation.

Having a superior military, superior weapons and a demonstrated willingness to use them makes having to go to war less likely, and makes the cost of any such war less horrible.

I disagree with both assertions here. The first, that having a massive military prevents war, is invalid because it causes you to act in such a way that invites offense. The second, the cost of such a war less horrible, is invalid because a) the economic cost to build up the military takes away from social programs (social programs being those designed to improve the lot of the citizenry, not just helping the homeless find apartments), b) the actual expenditure of force is still just as devastating, c) the need to overwhelm the enemy with excessive force in order preserve your perception as powerful.

[jBirch]

I have to be honest and I hate to stereo type you but this question and the geography of where you are from doesn't surprise me in the least. Especially after seeing how your country dealt with the unfortunate death of a Somali man at the hands of a few bad apples in a regiment with a rich history.

I'll pose my own question for you then. What would draw you into a war? What justification meets whatever standard you have? Are you against war and military in general? Are you a pacifist? Do you believe this war is about economics or political wrangling? If so why are gas prices so high why was the war so unpopular why aren't we reaping the plentiful fruit of our labor? Canada has a military, right? Do you boycott them?

This is very inflammatory and I don't know how to respond without getting truly angry. So I'll get angry at your idiocy and ignorance.

*begin rant*
You assume that because I question the utility of war I, and my country, are cowards. F#CK off. I am an infantryman. I have trained with your marines and been unimpressed. I was in the military during the period of the somalian homicide. I was being trained at the time by our Airborne Parachute instructors. They were of the opinion that the regiment should be disbanded in dishonour. They were of the opinion that dishonourable actions deserve to be sanctioned.

I would not expect you to understand, honour being a word that is foreign to you. My countrymen have died to ensure YOUR freedom, you little turd. They died in Vietnam. They died in GW1. They are dying now in Afghanistan. They are dying in GW2. They have died alongside your betters for many years. Not only have they died, they have had their families shattered because they are all over the world protecting the people that you so dearly love to stomp on. Have you met Gen. Dalliare and spoken to the "coward" about Rwanda? Do you have a notion of the type of people you like to insult? Our federal MP, Myron Thompson, has a son in Iraq with an American unit right now. People from the town just north of mine have a son in the SEALs.

You're just an ignorant idiotic child. Hush up and let the grown ups talk.
*end rant*

To your questions:

1) A clear case of injustice and threat to the peoples of the world would cause us to go to war.

2) The point of my questions was to probe the issue of war with intelligent people. I'm interested in finding out ideas about when it is good to go to war, and when it is not, in light of recent changes on the world stage. War with no purpose seems wasteful to me.

3) Your example of African countries is intriguing because, though they seem to engage in warfare, they don't seem to gain anything from doing so. Is the struggle there only about corruption or is there any underlying rational reason for conflict? What is at stake? What are they fighting to gain (or prevent themselves from losing?)

[scrapinpeg]

I disagree with both assertions here. The first, that having a massive military prevents war, is invalid because it causes you to act in such a way that invites offense. The second, the cost of such a war less horrible, is invalid because a) the economic cost to build up the military takes away from social programs (social programs being those designed to improve the lot of the citizenry, not just helping the homeless find apartments), b) the actual expenditure of force is still just as devastating, c) the need to overwhelm the enemy with excessive force in order preserve your perception as powerful.

I do not see how having an effective military would be the cause of a country acting in such a way as to invite offense.

I also take issue with the "blame the victim" mentality which seems to underlie your use of the phrase inviting offense. Someone attacks you and somehow it's your fault?

With respect to your cost analysis: a) the old guns-or-butter argument is inapt. you can have both, and the military is a far smaller part of the budget than other social programs. and of course the military is a significant social program itself beyond the obvious protective role. b) not true. the more effective your military, the less costly it is in lives and materiel to achieve a given objective. c) not true. excessive force is not what creates deterrence, it is effective force that does so. targeted precision bombing for example is more effective than carpet-bombing, and cheaper, and far less devastating.

[telkanuru]

Who said anything about the US and whether its actions are justifiable or not?

Your statement was directly applicable to the current administration's policies.

Nobody said that war is the only way to stop injustice. Nor that it is our job to stop all injustice. Only that, if you want to stop belligerents or prevent them, you'd better be able to back it up with force.

Again, your statement implied such. Apologies if my interpretation was off. Agreed on the last point, but disagree that the only interpretation of 'force' involves a military.

Ah, ethical relativism. A fun subject to discuss! But probably in another thread.

Indeed.

Somalia. US pulled out after demonstrating an unwilligness to use its forces, and thereby encouraged not only the warlords there but also al-Qaida to go ahead.

Again, I disagree that there exists a dichotomy of forces along the military/diplomatic line.

No, that's too long. Just call me Almighty Poobah.

But can you trace your ancestors to a primodial preatomic globual? (yay, Gilbert and Sullivan)

You and a bunch of your friends round up and slaughter several thousand innocent people, who just happen to have a different ancestor from you and also occupy some prime grazing land.

I and some of my friends intervene, kill a bunch of your belligerents and destroy your means of committing violence, suffering minimal losses ourselves.

I think it's pretty obvious which is less horrible.

Disagree. The right thing can be horrible. Depriving another person of their life is a terrible thing to do, no matter the reason. A war can be for the right reasons, but should still be the absolute last resort.

Oh, and crazy points to the ranting jbirch.

[jBirch]

I do not see how having an effective military would be the cause of a country acting in such a way as to invite offense.

I also take issue with the "blame the victim" mentality which seems to underlie your use of the phrase inviting offense. Someone attacks you and somehow it's your fault?

If I gave offense, it was unintentional. It's not "blame the victim" that I'm thinking of but rather "testing the big guy" and "watcha gonna do about it". If you are free to act in any way that you like regardless of giving offense then you are more apt to do so. "Wacha gonna do about it?" Further, if you are the big guy then everyone else is going to strive for parity with you since, as was said before, the purpose of war is to prevent others from asserting their will on you while leaving yourself able to do so. This invites retaliation.

I do think that often times one is acting in a way that causes someone else to attack you. If by "Blame the Victim" this is what you mean than partially yes. It's stupid to go around wanting others to attack you, isn't it? When does pushing the guy with the gun and insulting his mother/sister/daughter go from mere liberty to instigation? Are you a victim if you're the non-violent instigator?

Do rational states go about attacking countries randomly? If not, then what's the purpose of a standing military? That there are irrational entities seeking to do you harm for the mere joy of doing so? This seems unlikely to me. Violence entails risk and that risk is only taken when there is something to be gained. Generally, there is something that they want and some weakness in you that they seek to exploit. Eliminating the weakness prevents them from attacking you. Exagerating it invites attack. Eliminating what they want prevents them from attacking you. Exagerating it invites it.

With respect to your cost analysis: a) the old guns-or-butter argument is inapt. you can have both, and the military is a far smaller part of the budget than other social programs. and of course the military is a significant social program itself beyond the obvious protective role.

It's not just guns-or-butter, but also using those guns. In any endeavour you have to factor in not just the cost of doing what you want but also the cost of not doing other things. I agree that the military is a significant social program, and perhaps that is a very valid reason for keeping one around. It just seems like a minor one to me.

b) not true. the more effective your military, the less costly it is in lives and materiel to achieve a given objective.

Yes and no. You're talking technology here, right? That improvements in intel, targeting and precision reduce the number of human and structural casualties on both sides while still destroying the will to resist, correct? I would argue that this only applies when you have massive force superiority. If the forces are of parity then it just results in *more* death, destruction and wastage as both sides blunt the other.

c) not true. excessive force is not what creates deterrence, it is effective force that does so. targeted precision bombing for example is more effective than carpet-bombing, and cheaper, and far less devastating.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I buy the cheaper argument. If I drop 1 precision guided 500lb bomb, how many dumb munitions do I have to drop to achieve the same end? I would suspect that the difference in effectiveness is less then the difference in cost.

It is certainly less area devastating but certainly *more* locally devastating. The point of dropping a big bomb through a building window is that it will cause more damage (and so you need to drop fewer of them) to the building but less to outside.

Carpet bombing and precision strikes are also two different types of fish. Sometimes you need carpet bombing (ARCLIGHT anyone) and sometimes you need precision. Depends on the mission. Technology generally makes up for skill, so essentially less proficient troops (less effective people) can achieve more with less risk (more efficient military).

Your assertion though I think is valid: that it is the ability to cause precise damage that weakens an enemy's will to resist, not general damage. And it is the ability to affect the enemy's will which creates the deterence, not the ability to cause general death and destruction that does.

Just some thoughts.

[damion18d]

Quote: [Hmmm, I'm not sure I buy the cheaper argument. If I drop 1 precision guided 500lb bomb, how many dumb munitions do I have to drop to achieve the same end? I would suspect that the difference in effectiveness is less then the difference in cost.

It is certainly less area devastating but certainly *more* locally devastating. The point of dropping a big bomb through a building window is that it will cause more damage (and so you need to drop fewer of them) to the building but less to outside.

Carpet bombing and precision strikes are also two different types of fish. Sometimes you need carpet bombing (ARCLIGHT anyone) and sometimes you need precision. Depends on the mission. Technology generally makes up for skill, so essentially less proficient troops (less effective people) can achieve more with less risk (more efficient military). ]


The initial technology for smart munitions was expensive not any more. Cost is not the difference nor is the ammount of dumb ammunitions. Carpet bombing has never worked. Vietnam may be the only time it came close. WW2 it was a miserable failure. U.S. and British pilots bombed for years and never effectively slowed production of any part of the German war machine. Also the cost of planes and crews comes into the picture. The more crews you put in the air the more you will loose. Planes can be replaced, lives and experience can't. So the real benifit of the smart munition is accomplishing the mission. If you are trying to hit a hardened facility with dumb munitions you will have to drop dozens of bombs before getting the desired affect. A single smart munition can do the job the first time.

BTW Arclight refers to B-52 strikes, not carpet bombing. It simply implies that, that plane was involved whether 1 bomb is dropped or many. The "need for carpet bombing"? When was the last time a modern nation carpet bombed anything anywhere? Vietnam? Also there are probably three countries on the planet with the logistical capability to carpet bomb. I think you may be confused by the term or something. Simply dropping bombs that aren't "smart" isn't carpet bombing.

[telkanuru]

Carpet bombing has never worked. Vietnam may be the only time it came close. WW2 it was a miserable failure.

Tell that to the people dead in Dresden and Tokyo.

Hitler would have occupied England and Europe would be speaking Russian right now if he had allowed the Lutwaffe to continue bombing the British airfields and not switched to the cities. Airpower and daylight bombing raids unequivically won WWII.

In Vietnam, on the other hand, it did nothing. No industry to attack. Also, we lost.

Speak only about things you know from now on.

[damion18d]

Daylight bombing raids were never very affective. Yes many people may have died but the mission accomplishment rate was dreadful. Not to mention the people you killed that had nothing to do with the war, the lives and aircraft lost. Ya you are making a real educated stance. My appoligies carpet bombing was much more effective than precision munitions you twerp.
As for vietnam they came right out and said had we continued to bomb the north we would have won in short order. You run your mouth about talking about what you know. What do you know about war. See much combat in elementary school did you. Even the thought that carpet bombing is better is absurd. I don't think you know the difference between a simple bombing sortie and a carpet bombing. They are two different worlds.
As far as WW2 without ground forces you could have bombed for 30 years and never won. The conventional bombs of the time didn't have the capability to destroy hardened facilities without a direct hit. Even with a DH it was questionable. It was a massive waste of resourses, men, and machines.
If you want to throw what ifs out there, what if Hitler had listened to his generals and not invaded Russia. The war may very well have turned out different.

[Gav]

The purpose of the carpet bombing of German industrial towns was not to halt industrial production it was to enact a policy of total war. Churchill sanctioned the bombing folowing a German bombing London - which as it turned out was an accident as the pilot had gotten himself lost. It was initially tit for tat but escalated to the destruction of the Blitz or the horror of Dresden. Both of which I would consider to be atrocities.

Funnily enough this error probably saved Britain in the long term. If the Germans had continued with their bombing of military targets then I don't see how Britain would have won the Battle of Britain.