Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can men live without war? (1956)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 237 posts

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#91

Post by pixl97 »

jemmyw wrote: post #82
imtringued wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider it an economic problem. War costs money, therefore war will be conducted when its benefits exceed its costs. What makes war profitable? For that you need to know the benefits of war. The most obvious benefit is the changing of borders and conquering of new land. Now you might say that it always makes sense for a country to try to conquer the enire world, because having the land grants you access to its riche…

Sure that calculation might have worked when it was purely about the land. But now the land itself is only one small part of the value production. Even for agriculture, there's all that infrastructure, and the knowledge workers to make it viable and competitive. War destroys those, and a war of attrition like the one in Ukraine also has a destructive effect on the land itself. Internal strife shows this. In Africa wh…

Never underestimate the stupidity of someone that wants a bigger piece of a smaller pie.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#92

Post by pixl97 »

squigz wrote: post #58
imtringued wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider it an economic problem. War costs money, therefore war will be conducted when its benefits exceed its costs. What makes war profitable? For that you need to know the benefits of war. The most obvious benefit is the changing of borders and conquering of new land. Now you might say that it always makes sense for a country to try to conquer the enire world, because having the land grants you access to its riche…

I think one of the most obvious, major benefits of war is the trillions of dollars that's put into the military-industrial complex every year. Whether war actually breaks out is irrelevant, if the interests involved can make people believe it's always inevitable, so let's keep pumping money into it.

So everyone is just going to get along? Like that drunk neighbor that started fighting everyone and you had to call the police on them?

The thing is if as few as 1 in 1000 have ill intentions we'll quickly find ourselves back in a system with a MIC.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#93

Post by pixl97 »

okasaki wrote: post #35
graeme wrote: post #23

The thing is without force your stuff gets taken. We haven't got a good way around this. Our current peace is heavily based on nuclear weapons and the implied threat of force. Don't like the status quo? Use force to try to change it. Do like the status quo? Use force to try to keep it that way. We don't have a stable equiliubrium where no force exists in the system. Many in this thread effectively say "You can do wha…

Why doesn't Texas wage war on Oklahoma?

You do realize US territories have fought each other before, right?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_War

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#95

Post by XorNot »

akira2501 wrote: post #76
XorNot wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you think scarcity is artificial? Have you tried growing your own food lately? Do you have an army of robots who are doing it for you?

No. I go to the grocery store. Where an army of robots controlled by farmers has already done it for me. We're so good at this more than 1/3 of it goes to waste. We export so much food it literally disrupts world markets. The question you want to ask is there ever a point where population's psychical space demands overcome the space required to feed those people? We are nowhere near this limit.

Right, so you are claiming you are entitled to the productivity of land worked by the labor of someone else, managed by someone else. What are you contributing to the process?

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#96

Post by mu53 »

rhelz wrote: post #12

Fascinating article...written not that long after it looked like men or anybody else could never live with war again. But, those fretting about the necessity of war need not have worried, as subsequent events proved. War between nuclear powers doesn't happen any more, but instead we've had endless proxy wars. Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine....

Ukraine is uncomfortably close. Nuclear armed combatant on one side, and proxy on the other.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#97

Post by snowpid »

mu53 wrote: post #96
rhelz wrote: post #12

Fascinating article...written not that long after it looked like men or anybody else could never live with war again. But, those fretting about the necessity of war need not have worried, as subsequent events proved. War between nuclear powers doesn't happen any more, but instead we've had endless proxy wars. Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine....

Ukraine is uncomfortably close. Nuclear armed combatant on one side, and proxy on the other.

It must be repeated: Ukraine is it's own nation and Ukrainian people fight because their own decision.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#98

Post by pixl97 »

dymk wrote: post #72
khazhoux wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every culture in every corner of the world throughout known history.

So far. Hence, education / culture issue.

There is a particular amount of hubris in your statement that reeks of ignorance. Violence is an innate behavior of all mammals. We can choose to do it less, but it will always be an option. Take people that get brain damage and are otherwise functional but have issues with violence.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#99

Post by nradov »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #74
Aerroon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you aren't physically strong enough to defend yourself then you shouldn't be able to defend yourself?

Are firearms the only way for people to be defended?

To a first approximation, yes. Other means of defense either require significant physical strength, or are barely effective at all.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#100

Post by squigz »

pixl97 wrote: post #92
squigz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the most obvious, major benefits of war is the trillions of dollars that's put into the military-industrial complex every year. Whether war actually breaks out is irrelevant, if the interests involved can make people believe it's always inevitable, so let's keep pumping money into it.

So everyone is just going to get along? Like that drunk neighbor that started fighting everyone and you had to call the police on them? The thing is if as few as 1 in 1000 have ill intentions we'll quickly find ourselves back in a system with a MIC.

I don't believe I made any implications about how the world should act, or whether peace is possible. I made a point about a major motivating factor. That isn't to say it's the only one.
Post reply on HN