war good

[Pangloss]

Fast forward to WWII, the US emerged as the remaining world power because (i) our economic basis had been mobilized but and was undamaged and (ii) we alone had the bomb.

 

For thousands of years, wars help a nation become and stay "great" by garnering and maintaining territory and resources essential to their economic and military. Wars also can preserve the "nation" or, in Greece's case, a collection of city-states.

 

first i said Macedonia not Greece they were separate entity's second men fear death to much to use nukes in any large scale maybe a few rouge bombs but

not all out war

 

1) The US was not the only remaining world power at the end of WW2.

2) Neither of the reasons you listed (which I agree are valid reasons why the US was a world power at the end of WW2) have anything to do with why the US became the first "superpower" or retained that status over the latter half of the 20th century. The reason for that was purely economic, and had nothing to do with war; in fact one can make the argument that it was the absence of war that allowed that status to be obtained and maintained.

 

The point being that you can certainly make an argument that war can vault a country out of a predicament or on top of a geo-political situation. But what we call success today is effective participation in the global economy. War cannot get you that participation, nor can it put you ahead of other nations in that game, or keep you out in front.

 

This is not the ancient world, and many of (if not most of) the rules that worked in the ancient world no longer apply. Certainly there are lessons to be learned, but one of them is not "every nation needs an enemy".

[Haezed]

I think you've mixed posts from Andrew and me. I'll respond to your response to my points.

 

1) The US was not the only remaining world power at the end of WW2.

 

True, that was imprecise wording on my part, although not critical to my point.

 

2) Neither of the reasons you listed (which I agree are valid reasons why the US was a world power at the end of WW2) have anything to do with why the US became the first "superpower" or retained that status over the latter half of the 20th century. The reason for that was purely economic, and had nothing to do with war; in fact one can make the argument that it was the absence of war that allowed that status to be obtained and maintained.

 

It was purely economic and our economic systems were fully engaged and intact compared to a devastated world.

 

The point being that you can certainly make an argument that war can vault a country out of a predicament or on top of a geo-political situation.

 

Which, of course, is the only point I made.

 

But what we call success today is effective participation in the global economy. War cannot get you that participation, nor can it put you ahead of other nations in that game, or keep you out in front.

 

Which, also of course, is very much like the point I made - what used to work won't work in the coming century. The days of war being used to extend an empire or for economic advantage have passed. The risks are too great.

 

This is not the ancient world, and many of (if not most of) the rules that worked in the ancient world no longer apply. Certainly there are lessons to be learned, but one of them is not "every nation needs an enemy".

 

Which, again, was exactly my point. The survival of the species may depend on disengaging from modes of behavior and tribal instincts which were once valid. To quote M. Rees quouting Winston Churchill's Finest Hour speech Churchill spoke chillingly about the threat of the world sinking into "the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science".

[Rasori]

Japan had some help starting off, but the US has not aided Japan in a long time. The Japanese rely on us solely as consumers, which is not nearly the same thing.

 

The US is not nearly omnipotent militarily. If we were, the war in Iraq would have long been over. Similarly, we are not completely in control of the world's influence--if we were, no one would attack us, nor would anyone not aid us in our wars. It's also arguable whether we are the most culturally important nation, as our culture is mostly a hodgepodge of other cultures--we don't really have our own. But, admittedly, that's a hard point for me to argue.

 

Wars create more money than you put in, eh? France and Britain won WWI, but afterwards they were in severely depressed economies. How can that relate?

 

I do agree that morality has very little role in economics.

 

Edited, as I stopped reading at the end of page 1 originally. These are the remaining points that I felt were useful.

[Haezed]

The US is not nearly omnipotent militarily. If we were, the war in Iraq would have long been over.

 

I certainly would not think the US is omnipotent. However, we are rarely in a military role now in Iraq. We are in a policing capacity which makes our troops particularly vulnerable. We won the military battle and are now there to provide security while a political solution is cobbled together. In the meantime, we have suffered 3,500 deaths, many many more injuries, relative to thousands of enemy dead. The only real way to kill us en masse is to kill yourself.

 

Make no mistake, the US has the most lethal military in the world in a stand up fight. No military charged with the current task in Iraq could get away without taking casualties.

 

None of this is to say that we should assume our current strength will continue into the future. The battlefield is ever changing.

 

I agree that on balance war does not produce wealth. That was different in ancient times as was proven by the Roman empire. Today, war does not provide a competitive advantage but is fought as a matter of defense.

[andrewr5]

Japan had some help starting off, but the US has not aided Japan in a long time. The Japanese rely on us solely as consumers, which is not nearly the same thing.

 

The US is not nearly omnipotent militarily. If we were, the war in Iraq would have long been over. Similarly, we are not completely in control of the world's influence--if we were, no one would attack us, nor would anyone not aid us in our wars. It's also arguable whether we are the most culturally important nation, as our culture is mostly a hodgepodge of other cultures--we don't really have our own. But, admittedly, that's a hard point for me to argue.

 

Wars create more money than you put in, eh? France and Britain won WWI, but afterwards they were in severely depressed economies. How can that relate?

 

I do agree that morality has very little role in economics.

 

Edited, as I stopped reading at the end of page 1 originally. These are the remaining points that I felt were useful.

 

who says we want to win the war in Iraq and they didn't attack us a small sect did i didn't mean complete control if that were so every one would be the same what i meant was that we produce more developing culture than most countries we also I should have been more specific a war that is opportunistic is better than a forced one we were forced into ww2 but it was at a turning point which put us into a place do dominate the axis without attack on our home soil and and as a cultural melting pot you cant say that the white Christian male is what i meant perhaps i meant the black Jewish man we are all the classical cultures built upon by generations of hardship and

war