-2

It seems that we are close to a 3rd World War ,the sides being NATO(except Turkey)vs Asia. Whether it will be done with nukes or not is for another question.The question is:why do countries go to war with each other cant we just live peacefully?It seems that in 2022 most of the nations in the world have their own country so this is out of the question.

1 of the reasons wars still happen is because people are greedy and they want more and more until they control everything .Does this mean wars will always happen?What is the UN doing for it?UN doesnt seem to work at all...Are wars built in the human nature?Are there any more reasons wars happen besides the points I have already said?I am once again very dissapointed in humanity...

7
  • Many justifications for war exist. Some are arguably nonsensible. From some religious perspectives, war is an inevitable result of the fallen state of humanity, Humanist perspectives on a "just war" vary. A google search on this will give you a large number of perspectives to consider,
    – doneal24
    Sep 22 at 19:38
  • 2
    You could write multiple books on the reasons for wars in this day in age.
    – Joe W
    Sep 22 at 19:41
  • "why do countries go to war with each other cant we just live peacefully" Yes we could. Answer must be then that we don't want to, right? At least not all of us. For example, either Russians simply want to live where Ukrainians live or Ukrainians do not want to give up where Russians want to live or both so they both cannot live in peace. Maybe as an idea, we should get rid of nations somehow. Then they couldn't be at war with each other.
    – Trilarion
    Sep 22 at 20:50
  • 1
    Why do you think NATO vs. Asia is likely? The only countries in Asia that might conflict with NATO are China and North Korea. NATO vs. Russia is much more likely, as a possible escalation of Russia vs. Ukraine.
    – Barmar
    Sep 22 at 21:52
  • 1
    Note that while wars still exist, they're far fewer than in past centuries. Almost all modern wars are civil wars, mostly due to ethnic/tribal conflicts over control of the nation. You might want to read Steven Pinker's "Better Angels of our Nature".
    – Barmar
    Sep 22 at 21:56

2 Answers 2

-1

War is a business of arms dealing.

It also reshuffles the old business landscape and creates new business and ownership opportunities.

1
-1

Still???

What a priori reason do you have to believe that we should war less today than we did 50, 500, 5000,... years ago?

MLK poetically delineated the issue: We have guided missiles and misguided men

A more precise mathematical rendering of the above would be: Science/Technology progress is a multiplier not an adder. If we start with a negative we get a significantly larger negative.

Who is there today with the stature of Einstein, Russell jailed at 89 for pacifism, Gandhi writing to Hitler?

The only peculiarity of the situation we find ourselves in today is that when the nuclear warheads head for Moscow and St Petersburg (and NY and DC respectively) the collateral 'friendly fire' shrapnel on the side will also happen to wipe out the rest of the planet.

While Hitler, Stalin and Churchill all wanted to eliminate each other, their 'inaccuracies' added up to some 75 million. Today it will reach closer to 7½ billion.

So while the mad wish to exterminate the other plus entourage remains the same, the scale of associated MAD destruction that must inevitably accompany is new.

IOW your question is good though unanswerable.

So long as we are exercised with this war whichever it might be but are ok with war as such wars will continue. [Vijay Prashad: Dont talk of war-crimes when war itself is a crime]

Because wars beget wars:

7
  • Too many details to dispute here, but for instance ISIS was started in 1999, a few years before Shock & Awe. WWII killed 75M out of the total world population of 2.3B yet you expect a new war to kill 7.5B of the world's total of 7.8B. Why the huge percentage increase?
    – doneal24
    Sep 25 at 20:39
  • @doneal24 I cant get whether your comment is serious. Have you heard of nuclear weapons? And followed their proliferation and increased power from Hiroshima? Anyway if you dont find some unknown Indian guy on the net credible maybe you'll hear William Perry -- link added to the 7.5 billion. Note he says not so probable (4 minutes) for Russia and US »blundering« into nuclear war. Note that was 5-6 years ago. Compare to situation today. Once again I don't hear your tone of voice. It only makes sense if its sarcastic/sardonic
    – Raveesh
    yesterday
  • It is unlikely that the 1.2B population in Africa or the 500M population in South America will be targeted. Will the 1.4B people in India be bombed in a war between US & Russia or between US & China? Many of the 1.4B people in China are outside of cities. Yet you expect that virtually all of these people will perish in a nuclear war. Most estimates of even an all-out war, which is much less likely than targeted strikes, don't have 95% of the population dying.
    – doneal24
    yesterday
  • ISIS preceded Shock & Awe. al Qaeda was a response to the Soviet Afghan war, not CIA activity. Your conclusion may be correct but two out of your three examples are incorrect. The 7.5B number is never mentioned in the Bill Perry video.
    – doneal24
    yesterday
  • @doneal24 Perry says that if India-Pakistan were to go into nuclear war and use only half their arsenal the result (apart from incinerating India-Pakistan) would be a blocking of the sun for years that would result in crop failures that would kill millions round the world. The nuclear warhead stats I get from google are India:160, Pakistan:165, US:5428 Russia:6300. So those millions are at 1% of the worst case scenario... You still wish to indulge in self-calming??? Your prerogative
    – Raveesh
    yesterday

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .