Jump to content

If you want peace, prepare for war


Guest

Recommended Posts

"The only way to prepare for peace, is to prepare for war."

 

We discussed this in class recently. What do you guys think? Is war and peace mutually exclusive? Or should a country have an army to be at peace?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. Warmongering just increases tensions and people start to justify war over disagreements that could have been just solved diplomatically. I'm not saying that all problems can be solved diplomatically and I do think every country should have an army to protect the nation if violence threatens to break out.

 

Let's use an example I'm sure many may have heard of : Pakistan and India. Ever since the two countries parted ways, there have been calls to buff their respective nation's army as "Pakistan/India can attack us anytime." To get votes, a good number of politicians threaten to start a war against the country to "teach them a lesson." People are raised thinking that the neighboring country is their "enemy."

 

And the result of preparing for a counterattack? Just ask the people from Kashmir or the people living along the Line Of Control (their border).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This mostly relies on idea that if a country is very hard to conquer possible attacker might not attack at all, as it would be either impossible or too expensive to conquer the country, and its not simply worth it. That seems like it would work, but of course a trust between neighbors to an extend where army is not needed is preferable.

Secondly some kind of forces (police usually) are needed to maintain internal peace and order in most of societies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I am not taking a History course, I believe this quote is historically accurate. Throughout the history of human civilization, not a single community (at least not a dominant or relevant one) has been able to maintain peace without going through a barrage of conflicts. Peace is simply a momentary lack of human nature. I'm sure we are biologically driven to seek out dominance over others, whether it be as individuals or societies. Just looking back in time proves this; the greatest of civilizations have constantly been under the threat of war by those who compete against them. War is virtually inevitable until we, as an advanced society, are able to transcend our illogical motivations that derive from our illogical nature. I say illogical because conflict between nations, from an objective point of view, seems completely unnecessary with no positive outcomes besides personal satisfaction; the feeling of pertaining to a successful community that prevails over others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this question has to be answered in a "To what extent" fashion,

I take HL History and have been a fan of History for an extended time. Now, my favourite topic is Nazi Germany - and surprisingly World War Two. I also enjoy studying the Roman Empire and World War One. 

 

War and Peace

 

hmm, good question, it definitely gives my brain something to grind on. Let's go back to the caveman age, shall we?

 

The communities lived in peace or rather in harmony, they protected one-another and developed with time. Interestingly conflicts could be solved by one community moving away in a different direction when they were challenged, sometimes they settled their disputes by hunting together and sometimes through a fight between their strongest members. Just now as I wrote this I realised that this example can not be used to explain today's world. There are many people in the world and really no free space to move with countries populating all continents. We can't just move away and evade conflict also who wants to evade conflict when we have guns and bombs - not just clubs and spears.

 

The Roman Empire, conquered a very large territory and did this with their fearsome giant army. And in peace time, this army was used to maintain borders and put down uprisings so in a way I feel that a country does require an army to maintain peace. However, back to the Nazis - they just had a war out of anger for the unfairness of Versailles and for the sake of achieving a 1000 year old Reich. btw well done! 1933-1945, 12 years are just a couple short of a thousand.

 

War is said to be inevitable. It is not. Fighting is inevitable. Fear, aggressionm hatered and disagreement are inevitable but War can be avoided. Just look at the time of the Cuban Missile crisis. The USA and the USSR almost blew it and killed everybody on earth but they realised how close death crept and pulled back on their horses. I support Leonid Brezhnev's idea of Peaceful Coexistence because that is doable. It isn't peace and it isn't war. It is basically living together in tranquility and mostly without war-causing-conflict.

Link to post
Share on other sites

reminds me of a quote i heard a few years ago, "fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity". we will never achieve peace through war because the existence of war immediately destroys peace. we will also probably never achieve a completely peaceful world because as long as their is fear, their will be  people who will want to go to fight to protect what they believe is theirs 

 

peace and war don't need to be mutually exclusive because life isn't black and white like that and really most of the world is grey around these things

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

As of right now, I'd say it's impossible to achieve world peace.
I'm convinced that the path to peace is to understand each other, but that dives into TOK and "how much you can understand another person and how much do you NEED to understand".
Preparing for war is correct. I believe that a nation should be strong to protect itself, and that is a majority of the nations right now. The real cause of war is the unbelievably huge inflation of competition. With other nations seeing the need to create weapons that could instantly destroy another nation, they feel the need to have their own, to stand on the same ground. But there will never be a "same ground". All technology will do is enhance our weapons until they destroy the world in a second.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I mostly agree with the statement. Our human nature is to fight and conquer, always be "on the top". In fact, there hasn't been a single period in our human history ever since writing was invented, where no war was occurring. That's just the blunt truth.

 

Personally, I am a pacifist. I believe that a pen is mightier than the sword - but that's just me. See, the thing with society is that it is just too complex. There will always, always be someone who will disagree with the rest of the group, and will cause an uprising or a conflict. We cannon, per say, "prepare for peace" as it will never exist. By preparing for war we do do not necessarily say we are ready to fight (and lose so many precious lives, which could've been spared if it wasn't for a piece of paper called "money") but we are ready to defend ourselves in case of an attack. 

It is also important to add that peace is something everyone can define for themselves. The definition of peace is "freedom from disturbance", but that disturbance can be a type of oppression which someone has to stand up to in order to achieve this "peace". 

 

Many factors contribute to war, and will do so until the end of our time. Money, culture, religion - all these things are the small spark which cause huge wildfires. We are all different, have different goals and standards, and as long as every single one of us is unique, there shall be no peace. That's the sad truth, I'd assume, but the thing about truth is - it can be denied but not avoided. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only taken a year of HL History, however, what I have noticed is that it is human nature to feel the desire to be the "alpha" male in a sense and show off any sort of power and leverage that we have. War is a simple yet complex way to flex one's muscles and become known across the world. Even back when primitive cavemen times there were wars between native groups. There will always be an aggressor in the world, whenever a conflict is solved another one arises. Take the conflicts in Africa and the Middle East for example, it is not something that has magically sprung up in the past decade, it has been a problem for several decades to a century but there has always been a bigger conflict to distract from it, such as the case with the Second World War in a sense hiding the pressure building between the United States and the USSR. There will always be another and another conflict. In my opinion, peace tends not to exist in this world, it is a sad concept to grasp but if we learn from history that has been gathered, it is a valid statement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On 1.6.2016 at 8:27 PM, mac117 said:

I mostly agree with the statement. Our human nature is to fight and conquer, always be "on the top". In fact, there hasn't been a single period in our human history ever since writing was invented, where no war was occurring. That's just the blunt truth.

 

Personally, I am a pacifist. I believe that a pen is mightier than the sword - but that's just me. See, the thing with society is that it is just too complex. There will always, always be someone who will disagree with the rest of the group, and will cause an uprising or a conflict. We cannon, per say, "prepare for peace" as it will never exist. By preparing for war we do do not necessarily say we are ready to fight (and lose so many precious lives, which could've been spared if it wasn't for a piece of paper called "money") but we are ready to defend ourselves in case of an attack. 

It is also important to add that peace is something everyone can define for themselves. The definition of peace is "freedom from disturbance", but that disturbance can be a type of oppression which someone has to stand up to in order to achieve this "peace". 

 

Many factors contribute to war, and will do so until the end of our time. Money, culture, religion - all these things are the small spark which cause huge wildfires. We are all different, have different goals and standards, and as long as every single one of us is unique, there shall be no peace. That's the sad truth, I'd assume, but the thing about truth is - it can be denied but not avoided. 

I think the problem that I have with the statement is the use of the word "only". 

This is quite a sweeping generalisation in the sense that he/she actually believed that war is the only resort to find peace. It is like saying... Any disagreement, however small, any difficulty, however tiny, can only by resolved by means of violence and barbarism. 

It is against everything that democracy and liberty stand for. 

Yes in some cases we need to be confrontational and fight for what we believe in. But "war" is a whole different level. Millions of death, years of suffering, and the feeling of hopelessness.

That is why we should always try to resolve differences by understanding and accepting them. In many cases we can, but we just don't, because people believe in crazy statements like this.

History sparkles with examples that aggression does not pay. And I think we can do better than this. War is always the last resort. It is not the only resort.

The person who wrote this statement did not know what peace means. He/she had not experienced wars and the death of the loved ones. They have no respect for lives.

 

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

On January 6, 2016 at 0:38 AM, Guest said:

"The only way to prepare for peace, is to prepare for war."

 

We discussed this in class recently. What do you guys think? Is war and peace mutually exclusive? Or should a country have an army to be at peace?  

 

This is a very interesting topic to discuss. I sadly agree with this statement. I think we should be realistic about this war-peace issues. Being quixotic and saying that if there were no country having an army, then there would have been no war, is preposterous. At least now, this is not even a case.

I believe that every country should have an army in case of any threat. 

(Although I would love to extend my argument and bring some facts, I need to study :) ) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...