War may have been worth it in the past.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Groups may have fought each other for scarce resources as a matter of individual life or death. Also, they may have done so due to the lack of even the possibility of a broader view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But in the 21st<\/sup> century? There are many means and paths to prevent war. Therefore, eventually, wars are always failures of diplomacy<\/a>. Broadly seen, there is no beating around this bush.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First thought experiment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Imagine going to another galaxy for once and forgetting all about human societies. After a while, you come back, and you see huge numbers of people waging some war \u2015 killing, destruction, lots of despair, immense distress, and deepest sorrow for the loss of loved ones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why? One party finds the other party terrible enough to inflict all this harm \u2015 and vice versa. If one party is rational, the other certainly isn\u2019t. Probably, to most of them on both sides, the bad ones are the \u2018other ones.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n Typical \u2015 yet to you, coming from afar, this may look as insane as it is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No weakness<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n My deduction is purely the result of common sense \u2015 no weakness. Weakness may lie in not daring to use one\u2019s common sense, for instance, if group pressure hinders one from doing so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Weakness may lie in fear of being seen as a coward. It may lie in killing innocent people for a small chance they might be dangerous or as a means to put pressure on the enemy. Weakness may lie in just doing without any thinking about it at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A hero is a hero<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The previous should not detract from individual worthiness. A soldier who risks his life for \u2018the good cause\u2019 is praiseworthy. He absolutely deserves the medal and the awe of his community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, this is not contradictory to the insanity of the war as a whole. The hero operates in a setting worth zero.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Into a whirlpool of revenge<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Much of the drive of individuals in war is revenge. The enemy kills our people; therefore, the enemy needs to pay dearly \u2015 making new cases for which there is a need for revenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This way, prolonged wars frequently come in an escalating form. Take, for instance, the decades of war in Vietnam. I believe the weapons industry \u2013 knowingly or not \u2013 makes damn good use of this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second though experiment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Imagine going 50 years into the future after ending some war right now. Will there be any big difference in the situation depending on who wins the war?<\/p>\n\n\n\n For instance, 50 years have passed since the end of the Vietnam war. Would things be very different now if the US had won? Probably not. That war wasn\u2019t even about Vietnam, but a proxy between the US and \u2018communism,\u2019 as is well known, even though communism was not the immediate goal of Ho Chi Minh. [His goal was to unite the country as an independent region.] If the parties could have communicated in-depth \u2013 and as they at a high level agreed much later \u2013 there wasn\u2019t any need for waring. Certainly not to the people themselves in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Over 50 years, cultures can change \u2015 for instance, in China and Taiwan. Therefore, isn\u2019t it better to give full attention to the cultural thing and make it worthwhile so that \u2018the enemy\u2019 will gladly take over many cultural elements? That way, \u2018the enemy\u2019 becomes us \u2015 problem solved. I do not see myself as the na\u00efve one in this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No more war<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n We go to a future in which war will be unthinkable<\/a>, for sure \u2015 hopefully without first destroying ourselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, \u2018no more war\u2019 is a striving of plain common sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n See also: Giving Peace a Chance (Animated Video)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n