An End To War?

[VAE VICTUS]

is it possible for their to be an end to war?or should i say an end to conflict?(im assuming that we have the def.s of each word for the sake of not over complicating this post..lol)plato said only the dead have seen the end of war.
if war ends would conflict continue?of course.so then would it not seem logical that war and conflict while related,are two different things?and if so what separates them?
i do not believe that we can stop war short of a world govt.;but even then i would hold the opinion that massive "cleansings" or brainwashing by propaganda would have to happen.(orwells 1984?)
anyway im getting off subject,to many philosophy books haha.

but could there be an AFFECTIVE way to end war,without mass killings or the such?or are we doomed to fight,bleed,and die continually?

sorry if i got off topic or if this didnt make sense,sometimes it makes sense when the author reads it because he knows the background of everything he wrote.ok enough of me.POST!(please) (where will it end)

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I doubt it. People are too different from each other for there to be an end to war. Many people are also too hot-headed for there to ever be an end to war. War may become a much smaller scale affair than before, but it will continue in one form or another.

[Blackguard_]

Not this side of Doom's day. There will always be war and conflict its human nature. A world government could eventually fracture and have rebellions right? And war does not have to be between States, there could very well still be gang wars and the like under a worl government.

[PittBull260]

as long as their is mankind, there is war
it's just human nature not to get along with others

[IliaDN]

Maybe in the far - far future there will be no wars , but not now!

[sapi]

In my mind, no war would just lead to civil war because the govenment would be deemed too weak

I doubt it. People are too different from each other for there to be an end to war. Many people are also too hot-headed for there to ever be an end to war. War may become a much smaller scale affair than before, but it will continue in one form or another.

[Franconicus]

This has to be the goal. Mankind cannot accept that wars are going on and on.
I think to end war you need
a very strong central force to secure peace and strengthen law
a common idea, so everybody can identify with this central force
a very good constitution that allows changes of law according to changes in society without war

[Templar Knight]

As long as there is two people on this planet there will be conflict - peace is just a dream.

[sapi]

As long as there is two people on this planet there will be conflict - peace is just a dream.

Maybe if those two people were zen buddhist monks.....

[Templar Knight]

Maybe if those two people were zen buddhist monks.....

good point - maybe we should all become buddhists

[Duke Malcolm]

Shave my head and beg and ... I dread to say it ... become vegetarian? Never! Never, I say! I just bought 6 pounds of beef, and I shall eat it!

If we have peace between mankind, it will only be because there are aliens to kill

[Franconicus]

Why so pessimistic? Man could reach the moon and even invent quartz watches.

[Adrian II]

I think as long as people have different interests, desires and perspectives there is bound to be conflict. In other words: forever. But conflict does not necessarily take the form of war. Due to nuclear proliferation and the spread of sensitive (and vulnerable) technologies underpinning modern societies, classic war between nation states will become too costly and therefore obsolete. New forms of conflict, less tangible, more open-ended and ought with new tactics, will take its place. Al Qaida's 'spectaculars' are merely a foretaste, and so are the 'smart' and (future) 'non-lethal' weapons and cybertactics of advanced nations.

[Gregoshi]

This topic isn't really tied into history as your other thought-provoking posts were VV. It is more a philosophical question, so I'm moving this to the Backroom.

[ichi]

War, or armed conflict, will continue until such time as a single powerful group controls the entire planet AKA One World Government.

Then there may be minor rebellins and such but soon those would quiet down. All that would be left would be criminal activity and individual resistance, until the system collapsed, when it wouldall start over again.

So to answer the question, no.

ichi

[LittleGrizzly]

If we have peace between mankind, it will only be because there are aliens to kill

this is the only way i see mankind stopping killing each other, a common enemy to unite against.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If we have peace between mankind, it will only be because there are aliens to kill

this is the only way i see mankind stopping killing each other, a common enemy to unite against.

nah - cuz you know some societies will be pro/con aliens

and well spend our whole time killing the alien sympathiser humans rather than the aliens

[LittleGrizzly]

nah - cuz you know some societies will be pro/con aliens

and well spend our whole time killing the alien sympathiser humans rather than the aliens

well i was thinking physco killer aliens who just wanted to wipe out humans, if they were in any way reasonable humans probably wouldn't unite...

[PanzerJaeger]

Were quickly moving toward a time when there will be no war. Global economics being what they are - its not very profitable to have a war.

Now of course there will be holdouts that must be dealt with like Saddam, but full scale world war is quickly becomeing an extinct possibility.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Remember, in Europe after 1815, there were no major wars. That blew up in 1914, and then again in 1938, Death toll? Well over 75 million. I think after WWII we started that calm-before-the-storm phase, and it'll soon end with another series of bloody wars.
History repeats itself.

[Templar Knight]

Well the congress of Vienna (1814-1815) did give Europe 40 years of peace until 1853 (Crimean War) and 1864-1871 (German wars of Unification) - or 100 years of peace in terms of large scale conflict. I seriously doubt that there will ever be another major war in Europe.

[kiwitt]

Until mankind see a threat that will effect everyone (whatever that may be), so that people can see the similarities as more important then the differences, then we will continue to fight.

Don't agree with me. * BANG *
I want that thing. * BANG *
You lied to me. * BANG *
I feel bad. * BANG *

We haven't evolved very much. Violence is still given as the solution.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Well the congress of Vienna (1814-1815) did give Europe 40 years of peace until 1853 (Crimean War) and 1864-1871 (German wars of Unification) - or 100 years of peace in terms of large scale conflict. I seriously doubt that there will ever be another major war in Europe.

Europe was 'the world' back then, as in the most important part of the world, politically speaking. Now the US and China are. See what I mean?
I'd say, in a good 15 years WWIII will start. Kaisers estimated Casualties? Over 1 billion.

[Templar Knight]

Europe was 'the world' back then, as in the most important part of the world, politically speaking. Now the US and China are. See what I mean?
I'd say, in a good 15 years WWIII will start. Kaisers estimated Casualties? Over 1 billion.

So you think that in the future there will be armed conflict between the US and China?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

So you think that in the future there will be armed conflict between the US and China?

Yup.
Sad thing is, if I get to chose how I'd die, I'd die during it. I don't want to live through the aftermath of it. Even if it doesn't decimate the whole world, it'll be bloody and it will definatly hurt everyone envolved in any way.

[Templar Knight]

I don't know if you remember my post from over a year ago about the future war between the US and China. According to some guy who can see the future, 200,000 Chinese troops will invade North America across the Bering Strait when the US are heavily involved in the middle east - so watch out

[kiwitt]

Stretch yourself out too thin that scenario is possible as it MTW. I think the US is stretching itself, by sending "reservists" to combat zones.

I still don't see China attacking the US mainland. It is earning too much money from all those consumers at the moment. If however, the US restricts China's access to oil and other resources that it needs, then watch this space.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Striclty theoretically speaking if humanity lasted forever there could never mathematically be an end to war. This is because with enough time war will crop up again due to the right circumstances coming around again. Humanity is not likely to last forever so you could say there was an end to war if the sun blew up during a long period of peace or another galactic disaster wiped us out in one swift blow. However, I think if we had warning we would have riots and quite possibly war.

[Adrian II]

I don't quite understand why several posters think war is inevitable because violence is somehow in the 'nature of the human animal'. Couldn't it be the nature of society that determines both the need for and the character of war? One thing we know for sure is that the aspect and mechanics of war have undergone tremendous changes along with other changes in society (which have, in part, themselves been the result of war): changes of scale, of political, economic and social complexity, of technology, language, education and belief systems.

To name but one example: the division of 'labour' in warfare has made tremendous strides, just like the division of labour in all other fields. During the Stone Age, war took on the aspect of brief confrontations between entire villages, clans or extended families of hunter/gatherers, with practically everyone involved in the effort of killing enemies. Nowadays, complex societies of millions of peope are engaged in extended efforts to wage war whilst only very few of them do the actual killing.

To name another example: a main purpose behind the modern drive toward new technologies of warfare is the aim to reduce the actual killing of enemies during war. If killing is in the nature of the beast, why this effort to reduce it? One thing this seems to tell us is that humans don't have a genetic make-up that simply induces them to kill. They enjoy winning, that's for sure, but they do not necessarily enjoy killing.

I'm fascinated by the question whether certain human behaviours are merely an expression of the nature of the beast, or the result of a complex interplay of human nature on the one hand, and contingency and man-made social circumstances on the other.

Historical psychologists have tried to 'subtract' all historical circumstances from certain human behaviours in the hope that they would be left with some sort of residue constituting 'pure' human nature. I don't believe they have succeeded.

So let me ask the 'naturalists' a question.

If you say that violence is an attribute of human nature, your statement presupposes a concept of human nature as an immutable disposition to act in certain ways. On the level of elementary evolutionary biology, I understand man has certain immutable reflexes. There is a proven neural substrate for those reflexes. Is there one for a complex behaviour such as war? If so, what is the neural substrate for it?

[ichi]

Rather than saying that violence is a human attribute, I'd rather go with the idea tha humans are readily capable of violence. They just need a reason, and since the world is full of reasons to fight I think we will always have conflict.

Since envy and jealousy are human attributes, people will always want want others have. Same with greed, people will always want more and be willing to use others to achieve that. So some will always be trying to use others, and the others will always resent that.

As long as some have more than others (more time, more freedom, more stuff, more messages from God telling them they are right and everybody else is wrong, more power, more whatever) there will be tension between humans, and from tension will come conflict, and conflict will, on occassion, be violent.

ichi