Is war the solution for peace?
-
-
War is not always evil. Ultimately, war is nothing but change.
Humans have conflicts with each other, not merely because of selfishness, but because of scarcity, error and miscommunication. Normally, the system by which these conflicts are resolved peacefully is the law, whether national or international. However, if the law is unjust, then conflicts are not successfully resolved and efforts are made to change the law. Many systems exist for peacefully changing the law, such as democracy for national laws, and diplomacy for international law and treaties. However, if these systems fail or prove inadequate, the law or political system is changed by war, whether civil, international or terrorist. The purpose of war, therefore, is to correct laws and political systems that one or more parties believe to be unjust. Ultimately, injustice, perceived or actual, is the root of war. The object of war is new law and a new political system which is more just than the last, and therefore a more perfect peace.
The close connection between war and law is self-evident. The bedrock of civilisation is the threat of force and violent death. In a civilised country, if one does not obey the law, more and more force is applied until he does or is killed, otherwise it ceases to be civilised. If the police cannot stop a criminal or gang, the STAR team is called. If they are beaten, commandoes will come. If they are defeated, the army will be mobilized, then the airforce and navy. Ultimately, the force of the law is the force of the gun. The law derives its power from its authority and threat to kill, and from the law emerges peace. Ultimately, peace between men depends on the existence of the law to mediate conflicts peacefully, and the law is upheld by the threat of war. Peace within a nation is therefore dependant on the threat of civil war, and civil war is the guarantor of civil peace.
In the same way, peace between nations is maintained by a balance of power. This is nothing more than a fancy way of saying that they threaten each other with force and violent death. International law and cooperation is built upon a pyramid of deterrents, with the ultimate deterrent being war. If a country does not fulfill its treaty obligations to lower tariffs, it will be sanctioned, then embargoed. If it tries to force the embargo, coast guard, then naval ships will enforce the embargo. If it tries to sink the naval ships enforcing the embargo, war erupts. Ultimately, even the benign trade treaties between nations have devastating military force behind them. International cooperation therefore is guaranteed by the threat of war, and war is the spectre whose threat ensures peace. -
War doesn't determine who is right, war determines who is left
-
War is always unpredictable, you would hardly guessed that the next war is when. Taking ying and yang concept as an example, war cannot exist without peace, neither can peace exist without war. What is peace? Prosperity? Countries like ww2 USA can achive prospersity, better life and advance in technology and wealth while in ww2. We can only define peace as a period without war. Yet, we can only define war when we know of peace. Imagine a world where war are fought NON-STOP. would the people know what is a war? War has become something so familar with them that they would hardly know what is peace. Would people under peace if war never existed? War define peace and vice versa, there is time war should be avoided, yet there is time that war is the only way to peace, or techincally, better lives. We fought for a war because we wanted peace, or at the least, better life.
Let's say a totally barbaric country wanted to take over singapore and enslave all of singaporean,and we have no way to escape, what would you do? Give the enemy some benifit of what they wanted? Like a good portion of singapore, or willingly be slaves? Is it not better to fight for freedom and the peace we will get than avoid a war by all means and getting a very bad life? Which will you prefer? -
Thanks guys! I can use a majority of the points u all brought up for my writing. Hah. Eventually, I got hold of a simple document written by some proffessor on the sociology of war to base my writing on. Pretty good stuff, but i like the points brought up here better, simpler to understand.
-
If you are kiasu enough you might want to try read out on Carl von Clausewitz's "Vom Kriege"(On War) or more contemporary ones like John Keegan's "A history of Warfare".Originally posted by Shotgun:Thanks guys! I can use a majority of the points u all brought up for my writing. Hah. Eventually, I got hold of a simple document written by some proffessor on the sociology of war to base my writing on. Pretty good stuff, but i like the points brought up here better, simpler to understand.
If you are writing for JC project or below i dont think it is necessary,if it is uni then better play safe~~~
"Let him who desires peace prepare for war."
-Vegetius -
Yeah, was reading a couple of books on the subject, one quote which i liked was... "A people which neglects its defense puts its freedom at risk", a Dutch Historian Louis de Jong.
Another one is Bismark, "A failed policy of national defense is its own punishment."
Oh its good book btw, its called "The Blitzkreig Myth" by John Mosier. -
Sounds like you are doing fine on it,btw is the last book you mentioned about the WW2 German Armoured warfare?Originally posted by Shotgun:Yeah, was reading a couple of books on the subject, one quote which i liked was... "A people which neglects its defense puts its freedom at risk", a Dutch Historian Louis de Jong.
Another one is Bismark, "A failed policy of national defense is its own punishment."
Oh its good book btw, its called "The Blitzkreig Myth" by John Mosier. -
By starting war....u've already have the intention of 'not having peace'
-
Give the thread-starter a break for the misnomer of title of this thread.Originally posted by Zephris™:By starting war....u've already have the intention of 'not having peace' -
Its about the entire "blitzkreig" being over "glorified".
The author examined both the allies, and Germany pretty thoroughly.
In fact, there was even one mention in the book regarding the french being not as useless in the uses of armor as claimed by historians later.
In the Battle of Gembloux Gap, the author cited it as the first and only large scale tank-vs-tank battle, the French under General Prioux had routed German Third and Fourth Armored divisions, destroying more than 150 german vehicles, and damaging many more. They effectively took down an entire armored division.
However, instead of allowing Prioux to advance against the retreating Germans, he was ordered to Withdraw instead. If he had continued his route, the entire German front at Belgium might have been crumpled.
The allies later claimed that it was a ctrap by the germans to bait the allies in rushing into the centre of belgium while the germans redeployed to the south. A trap that cost 300 over vehicles to be damaged is kinda expensive. -
Read " Warrior Politics" by Robert Kaplan and "Just and Unjust Wars" by Michael WalzerOriginally posted by Shotgun:Yeah, was reading a couple of books on the subject, one quote which i liked was... "A people which neglects its defense puts its freedom at risk", a Dutch Historian Louis de Jong.
Another one is Bismark, "A failed policy of national defense is its own punishment."
Oh its good book btw, its called "The Blitzkreig Myth" by John Mosier. -
Oh yeah, I read up a bit on the Just Wars and Unjust wars theory. Somehow I feel it might actually contradict position.
A more accurate description I'd say is "Just Peace." It questions if the kinda "Peace" that is present is "just" or not? Are people treated fairly and well. Are is there mistreatment, like ethnic discrimination going on. Then followed by questioning whether War would bring about liberation from this kinda peace, to perhaps something thats better.