J.R. XI - - Pro - - [Conclusion].

This is coolbert:

Extracts taken from the original article of J.R. found here.

Regarding the pros of war:

"War, what is it good for?? Absolutely nothing!!" Edwin Starr. Lyrics from a popular song, circa 1970.

"The pros.

There's really only two pros:

One, the host society may often enjoy overwhelming military superiority should an old-fashioned war involving it break out, or some other nation is foolish enough to invade or attack the host.

And two, deterrence (such as may have prevented both the USA and USSR from ever engaging in all out nuclear war during the Cold war). That's it for the clear and obvious pros."


May I offer some other possible "pros" to war!!

* The greatest literary works of mankind have been inspired by war and warfare. The genre of the epic poem. I am thinking here of such great epic poems as the "Iliad", "Beowulf", "The Mahabharata", "Manas", "The Battle of Kosovo", "The Great Cattle Raid of Cooley". Indeed, the entire genre of the epic poem in the most part seems to be built around struggle of some sort. Struggle in a sense as represented by war, and struggle in the sense of temptation or moral dilemma. Dante's "Inferno", and "Pilgrim's Progress" being just two examples of the latter.

* War offers a solution to a number of mankind's intractable problems.

I am thinking here of such conflicts as the one existing between the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs for control of what is now Israel.

Does anyone believe that in that situation, an intractable problem if there ever was one, an amicable resolution could be reached by the parties involved? The two groups sitting down at a bargaining table in 1948 and reaching a compromise satisfactory to all?? I think not. War was the only solution. NOT a final or permanent solution as has been seen. But a solution nonetheless. Without war, there NEVER would have been an Israel. I think this can be said with a very good degree of certainty.

These intractable problems are found all over the world. What was once Yugoslavia, Lebanon, and even places as far afield as Sri Lanka. Does anyone believe that Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia would exist now as independent nation-states without war? Again, I think not.

And does anyone even for the foggiest moment believe that without the American Civil War, the slaves held by the southern planters would have EVER been freed in a peaceful manner by their masters?? Consider this, slavery existed in Brazil until around 1888. And contrary to southern apologists, slavery WAS NOT on the way out as an institution in the south. Quite the opposite. After the Dred Scott decision, there was even talk among southerners of resuming the African slave trade!!

In these cases, war does seem to offer a solution to an intractable problem.

* War has also contributed to the biological diversity of mankind the world over.

Mankind has become simply a more robust species, with greater genetic diversity, through warfare. I am thinking here about the women of the vanquished being impregnated by the soldiers of the victorious. NOT a pleasant thing. But, nonetheless, something positive, of unintended consequences [??], has come of something that is considered to be inherently evil [rape]!! The Mongols, for instance, spread their genetic base literally almost all over the world. Genghis Khan is the one person who has the most living descendants [16 million].

[the jury is still out on this last contention of mine. I have consulted with a more appropriate authority on the subject of genetic diversity. I will tell you later what the final conclusion of the expert is!!]

* Finally, war has acted as a stimulus for innovation and technological advancement. Sometimes resulting in concepts that did not have fruition and applicability until maybe a century later.

"Some would list as a pro the often accelerated advances in military-related technology niches which may be spawned by lavish expenditures in this area. However, in regards to ever offering net benefits to society-at-large, such advances are far from certain in their value."

Maybe not for a century or so??!!

A perfect example of this was the development of the vacuum bottle. First invented by French scientists at the behest of Napoleon. Developed as a means for preserving perishable rations for armies on the march [an army marches on it's stomach - - Napoleon]. The vacuum bottle, when developed, did provide a means for preservation, but was not used extensively at the time. Over one hundred years later, at the advent of rocket exploration of space, the vacuum bottle was found to be the perfect way for both storing fuel and cooling the rocket upon ignition.

NOW, with regard to the above pros to war that I have mentioned. One might ask:

"Well, how much better will it be when we can write epic poems NOT inspired by war?

How much better will it be when we can solve intractable problems without resorting to war?

How much better will it be when we have greater genetic diversity of the human species without resorting to war?

How much greater will it be when we are able to create inventions that benefit all of mankind without creating the invention in the context of war??"

And this is all true!!

How much better will it be??

I would suggest that this is JUST NOT how the human species works.

"In light of all the above, it would be very difficult indeed to derive a wholly positive net benefit from excessive military spending in the area of technology advances-- or, for that matter, many other fields as well."

Again, I would generally agree with J.R., but, with as I have said before, qualifications, sometimes serious qualifications.

coolbert.