Are wars a net positive for humanity? (wage, deaths, revolution)

[Jester2138]

Bear with me:

The possibility of having to defend ourselves in a very direct sense is a catalyst for many beneficial things. For example, much of our most important technology was originally developed for or simply matured into a useful idea during or as a precursor to warfare: computers, the internet, cars, much of medicine from blood transfusions to plastic surgery to painkillers, aviation, nuclear power, spaceflight, RADAR/SONAR, etc. I would argue that nearly every major innovation of the past century or so has come directly or indirectly from the need to wage warfare.

Of course, you might argue that none of this is an acceptable return on so much death. But:

1) how many lives have been saved by this technology? If 60 million people died during WWII, could it be argued that more than 60 million people are alive today who would not have otherwise been simply because of technology developed for/during the war - thereby offsetting the cost of the war?
2) Could it be argued that many wars, even outside of technological issues, are a net benefit due to the cultural, political, or demographic changes that occur during/after the war? For example, despite nearly 100,000 deaths the American Revolution is largely considered a good thing, at least by some of the world, as it spawned the USA and the ideals of the USA were enabled to endure because of the rebels' victory.
3) For the spiritual ones, might you say that the co-existence of wars and a benevolent, omnipotent greater power is at least partly explained by war not actually being a bad thing as it would otherwise intuitively seem to be?

Then, 4) do the clearly terrible and inexcusable wars that certainly exist offset any benefits gained from the net positive wars?

Discuss.

[Maryjane55us]

Originally Posted by Jester2138

The possibility of having to defend ourselves in a very direct sense is a catalyst for many beneficial things.

Technological influences? My thinking is that technological advances would have come about with or without any involvement in war.

You really think that was the force driving Bill Gate's and other garage "techies" minds decades ago? I seriously doubt it. Gov't involvement wouldn't come along until they saw advantages that might help them and were willing to pay top $$ for it.

Most politicians use war for economic advantages... we would have been a heck of a lot better off if we'd followed the Canadians and stayed neutral and uninvolved. We screwed up with our over-agressive attitude in Vietnam. Look how many thousands of young mens lives could have been saved by not getting involved. What exactly was accomplished there?

For the spiritual ones, might you say that the co-existence of wars and a benevolent, omnipotent greater power is at least partly explained by war not actually being a bad thing as it would otherwise intuitively seem to be?

If you're trying to say wars are "God-ordained" these days, I have to say I totally, emphatically disagree. I doubt seriously that God has any say in what any of our political systems decide to do. That's all strictly man-made decisions.

Once again, I'll bring up Canadian politics.. I think if God were on anyone's side it would be theirs.. the non-violent approach to life. Live a quiet, simple life and take care of your own business.

Our aggressive, Top-dog behavoir has brought us a lot of death and bad reputation in the world.

[Jester2138]

Originally Posted by Maryjane55us

Technological influences? My thinking is that technological advances would have come about with or without any involvement in war.

They would come - eventually. And that "eventually" is key.

Originally Posted by Maryjane55us

You really think that was the force driving Bill Gate's and other garage "techies" minds decades ago?

The commercial aspirations of Bill Gates, etc. were enabled by the U.S. military, who developed most of the basic components of computers in the 40's and 50's. The first digital computer in the world, developed at U Penn between 1943-5, was specifically funded by and for the U.S. Army. Its first major job was to calculate factors involved with the building of a hydrogen bomb. The first commercial computer, IBM's Model 701, was designed specifically for military use during the Korean War of the early 1950s. DARPA's research into linking separate computer systems to endure a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, of course, famously resulted in the internet which we are using now. Our very means of communication now is a result of the military's desire to survive nuclear attacks!

Originally Posted by Maryjane55us

We screwed up with our over-agressive attitude in Vietnam... What exactly was accomplished there?

Perhaps Vietnam falls under point #4 of my original post? Or do the many advances made as a result of the competitive drive during the Cold War ultimately still leave us better off today? I'm guessing you're arguing the negative, but I was interested in more substantive arguments than just "yes" or "no".

Originally Posted by Maryjane55us

If you're trying to say wars are "God-ordained" these days, I have to say I totally, emphatically disagree. I doubt seriously that God has any say in what any of our political systems decide to do.

I am certainly not trying to say wars are God-ordained... I'm an atheist. I was asking if, for those who believe in God, the traditionally competing facts of constant war throughout human history and yet God being all-powerful and "good" could be explained by war being as deliberately part of the human condition as love and fear.

[rogead]

There's no denying that wars have been incubators for a significant amount of technological and medical development. However, those advancements would likely have not occurred were it not for the vastly disproportional amount of economic resources devoted to war efforts. In other words, if resources had been put directly into non-military research and development to begin with; in all probability, we'd have seen the same results.

Every war results in a set of residual economic costs. Among them are the replenishment of military equipment and infrastructure, support for surviving families, medical treatment for injuries, and the glaring absence of domestic social and public works programs that never happen because of the accumulated war debt.

Perhaps most importantly, there are the human costs. I'm not old enough to have been in Vietnam, but I am old enough to have interacted with numerous veterans of that war. Many of them obviously dealt with their experiences and went on with their lives, perhaps keeping their emotional pain in check. But there are so many others who experienced unfathomable psychological damage, which manifested itself in a manner that was destructive to themselves, those close to them, and to society in general.

In the end, war is always a net loss, on both an economic level and a human level.

[Chango]

I think there is a little bit of "burned field this year will be more fertile next year" going on, but if we truly were intelligent beings instead of dumb, self-serving hairless bipedal apes we would be able to reap the benefits (like technological advancement or societal shakeups like abandoning outmoded cultural behaviors) without the horrific costs of war.

[LordSquidworth]

Advances are a result of competition.

War is a type of competition.

The advances from wars were probably inevitable, just would take a little longer. The more competitive the environment, the more likely you are to see advances. Hence, during war we see more advancements because of the high level of competition.

Look at the space program. We accomplished great things in the need to reach the moon before the Russians. Once that was accomplished, it's sorta really slowed down. If the Chinese were trying to get to Mars, we'd be there by the end of the decade.

[Prairieparson]

Wars a net positive???. MM, lets see. Thousands or millions of people lose their lives, money spend on guns, bombs etc. that serve no useful purpose other than to kill and destro. Cities, property, businesses destroyed, children orphaned, unspeakable suffering. Does the OP actually think that everyone who suffered in this way was glad to lose their life. What a dumb question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by Prairieparson

Wars a net positive???. MM, lets see. Thousands or millions of people lose their lives, money spend on guns, bombs etc. that serve no useful purpose other than to kill and destro. Cities, property, businesses destroyed, children orphaned, unspeakable suffering. Does the OP actually think that everyone who suffered in this way was glad to lose their life. What a dumb question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think he is arguing that scientific, technological, and medical discoveries and inventions are often the direct result of war or at least the threat of it.

Technology developed for the military often ends up in civilian hands. Radar, the microwave oven, mass produced antibiotics, reconstructive surgery (the need to rebuild faces happens when you have thousands of men who are burned or missing noses), nuclear technology in almost all its forms, and so on are the result of military research or the needs of the military (like finding a way to prevent thousands of men in a jungle with limited sanitation from dying of dysentery).

Now, I am not completely sold on this argument. While I do believe that war is not the worst thing possible (I would rather live in a war zone than under the Khmer Rouge); it is very wasteful in regards to lives and material and although there aren't always winners in a war, there are always losers and it is not like there isn't a demand for "peaceful" technology either.