War Never Changes

Good article just a few questions/points "War is sometimes necessary; World War 2 was one of the few wars where it was absolutely necessary for the English to fight, it was also one of the few wars where there was definitive good and evil" How can there have been a definitive good and evil when the vast majority of people fighting for/voting for the Nazis been considered evil when its well known many of them were acting under duress/pressure. How can an army be considered evil if the people fighting for it are fighting against their will? 'From studying early modern warfare and war in ancient history, I have noticed that not much has changed apart from the ways in which we kill each other' What about the decleration of human rights/Geneva convention. While im not saying conditions for prisoners of war are favourable, even in the western world, they are a far cry from simply being killed. War is still war, bloody and horrible as it is, however it would be wild not to understand the improvements in certain conditions and the process of war. 'You also speak of modern weapons as if they are not awful: "Without technology, people would fight each other with horrific weapons, such as axes and swords". Surely radiation sickness from nuclear weapons and mustard gas along with other forms of chemical warfare are horrific?' While it is easy to see the problem in the advancement in technology of weapons it is also important to see the benefits. Deterrence is used by all leading nations, through effective brinkmanship and leadership large scale war can be avoided. MAD actually avoids conflict as every state knows there will be destruction if they fire, it keeps the world stable. Its not a nice way of keeping peace, but unfortunately due to interstate relationships without them it is easy to point to recent conflicts over the last 50 years and say without nuclear weapons/effective deterrence there would have been alot more blood spilt.

I have stated several facts throughout the article and of course emotion comes into it, this is war. You say that I ramble on from an irrational, emotional point of view which I don't believe I have, you do have to realise this is an article from an individual and therefore I will display my own opinions on the matter. I find words like "gibberish" and "ramble" quite unprofessional when it comes to somebody's opinion. You are also talking realistically in a world where war will probably always exist and I respect that but the point I was trying to make is that there are other options instead of war. We can advance in many ways without having to fight and you are wrong about factions always joining larger ones because they have "bigger weapons". In Ancient Rome, many smaller tribes in Italy joined the Roman Empire as they believed that their well being and lively hood would be better. You also speak of modern weapons as if they are not awful: "Without technology, people would fight each other with horrific weapons, such as axes and swords". Surely radiation sickness from nuclear weapons and mustard gas along with other forms of chemical warfare are horrific? Sorry for the previous 2 comments, they were rushed as I was on my way out and therefore there may be some grammatical mistakes!

Hi, thanks for your input. I didn't really think I was quoting Phantom Menace at the time of writing this but it doesn't mean the point is any less valid does it? Also, you are talking from a point of ratios, there may be less chance to die in a war nowadays but the point I am making is that humans haven't changed in their leniency to war and that it is still part of our nature. Also, with the creation of nuclear weapons, the potential for mass genocide has become more likely. The middle ages was obviously very violent on a larger scale, in the early modern period, the culture was extremely violent and people were often indifferent to what we would view as horrific violence. As a society we have become more peaceful on an individual basis, it doesn't mean that powerful men and women can't still instigate war just like they did hundreds of years ago. My point is that on a grand scale, not much has changed.

Actually, if you had read Steven Pinker's most recent book, you would understand that we have never seen so little war casualties (as a percentage of living humans) as now. While war definitely is a tragic thing that should be avoided at all costs, complaining about how bad wars in the 21st century seem to be compared to what they used to be, is irrational and actually undermines the science of what governments can do to pacify people. Without technology, people would fight each other with horrific weapons, such as axes and swords. And they would do it out of fear for each other, or the conflicts that often arise in stateless tribes. Without military technology, there can be no state power which in reality eliminates tribal thinking, and actually pacifies people. If you were a man living in an average hunter-gatherer tribe, your chances of dying by violence would be almost 30 percent each year that passes by. If you count all the war casualties including every country on earth, even the bad ones, your chances of dying because of war would still be ten times less than that. In the Middle Ages, people were almost as violent as hunter-gatherer tribes. In China and Japan, warring clans wreaked havoc and killed a great deal of innocent people. The only way they could attack each others power, was to kill peasants and rape women. Only after military technology arised, it became possible to fight wars with less casualties, because only then it really became possible to just have a look at your enemy's weapons and realise that it would be pontless to fight anyway. The consequence in our Middle Ages and feudal China and Japan was this: more and more warring factions stopped fighting and joined the biggest guys with the biggest weapons. Eventually, this superpower faction essentially transformed into decent, democratized state powers (although China lags behind because of communism). What this really means, is that the combination of state power and technology are actually the greatest pacifiers in the world. Basically, what I am saying is this: your article is written from a loathing of violence, something which I identify with, but instead of thinking rational about how violence by war could decline, you ramble on from an emotional irrational perspective without mentioning any real facts, quoting Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and saying gibberish such as violence is in our nature. Having sex is also in our nature but we don't waste time having sex all day. The reason we don't is something you would find in a basic psychology course: certain human behaviours only arise in certain situations. What your article should be about, if you hate wars, is to say something useful about which situations provoke pro-war decisions and which don't. Then you are getting somewhere.