4 ms·

How about you just stop with the pointless wars and chemical weapon development instead? Wouldn't that be a whole lot cheaper and safer, and give rise to way fe

How about you just stop with the pointless wars and chemical weapon development instead? Wouldn't that be a whole lot cheaper and safer, and give rise to way fewer ethical dilemmas? Essentially all wars in recent history have led to widespread devastation, no benefit to any people, insane numbers of deaths, and a LOT of profit for corporations for whom war is a business. See: War is a Racket (1933): https://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket https://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012255

wildduck 7y ago
Maybe these countries are just dealing with prisoner's dilemma.
Accujack 7y ago
>a LOT of profit for corporations for whom war is a business. This is one major reason for the wars - they aren't pointless to certain highly influential wealthy people.
levosmetalo 7y ago
> How about you just stop with the pointless wars and chemical weapon development instead? Wouldn't that be a whole lot cheaper and safer, and give rise to way fewer ethical dilemmas? Well, there haven't been any significant chemical weapons usage since at least WW1 and occasionally in WW2, but to much lesser extent. All recent supposed usage of chemical weapons appeared to exist just as an excuse for the USA government propaganda to make an attack and destruction of the country they don't like more acceptable.
- itamarst 7y ago
  Iraq used chemical weapons in its war against Iran. But the US was supporting Iraq at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against...
- samatman 7y ago
  Would that the last paragraph were true: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack No reputable source denies that this happened.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  I think U.S. policy of using open burn pits from iraqi freedom onwards qualifies as chemical weapons usage. Our boys and girls were dying of cancer after serving fairly short and uneventful tours. I remember Joe Biden's son had died of brain cancer after serving 2 years at camp victory from 07 to 09. We get to go home, but all that crap is going to linger in the air waters and soils of iraq and afghanistan for a long time.
refurb 7y ago
Ending war means changing human nature. Good luck with that!
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  Ending war means exploiting human nature, not changing it. We are inherently averse to violence, danger and suffering.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- teh_infallible 7y ago
  We are so often told that war is human nature, but how many people in your life use violence as their go-to solution to problems? I bet none of them do. Violence and aggression are glorified in the media, but when people get into a fight in a public place? Does it make them more attractive to bystanders or raise their prestige? Clearly not.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  For me, the greatest hope of reducing the incidence of war may come from the widespread use of psychedelics. Use of psychedelics can result in a profound increase in empathy, division of boundaries between oneself and the world and between oneself and others, an increase in care about others, a healing of traumas within oneself that might have hitherto caused one to lash out against others who you projected your own demons on to, and an increase in a sense of the sacredness of all things. In conjunction with this, widespread psychedelic use might result in another great religious awakening, with the resulting religions reflecting in their values the peaceful and unifying effects described above. This won't happen overnight. It'll probably take one or two hundred years for psychedelic use to become really widespread, and it can be aborted once more if there's another major backlash against them from the powers that be who are wedded to the status quo.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

wildduck 7y ago

Maybe these countries are just dealing with prisoner's dilemma.

Accujack 7y ago

>a LOT of profit for corporations for whom war is a business. This is one major reason for the wars - they aren't pointless to certain highly influential wealthy people.

levosmetalo 7y ago

> How about you just stop with the pointless wars and chemical weapon development instead? Wouldn't that be a whole lot cheaper and safer, and give rise to way fewer ethical dilemmas? Well, there haven't been any significant chemical weapons usage since at least WW1 and occasionally in WW2, but to much lesser extent. All recent supposed usage of chemical weapons appeared to exist just as an excuse for the USA government propaganda to make an attack and destruction of the country they don't like more acceptable.

itamarst 7y ago
Iraq used chemical weapons in its war against Iran. But the US was supporting Iraq at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against...
samatman 7y ago
Would that the last paragraph were true: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack No reputable source denies that this happened.
jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
I think U.S. policy of using open burn pits from iraqi freedom onwards qualifies as chemical weapons usage. Our boys and girls were dying of cancer after serving fairly short and uneventful tours. I remember Joe Biden's son had died of brain cancer after serving 2 years at camp victory from 07 to 09. We get to go home, but all that crap is going to linger in the air waters and soils of iraq and afghanistan for a long time.

refurb 7y ago

Ending war means changing human nature. Good luck with that!

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
Ending war means exploiting human nature, not changing it. We are inherently averse to violence, danger and suffering.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
teh_infallible 7y ago
We are so often told that war is human nature, but how many people in your life use violence as their go-to solution to problems? I bet none of them do. Violence and aggression are glorified in the media, but when people get into a fight in a public place? Does it make them more attractive to bystanders or raise their prestige? Clearly not.
pmoriarty 7y ago
For me, the greatest hope of reducing the incidence of war may come from the widespread use of psychedelics. Use of psychedelics can result in a profound increase in empathy, division of boundaries between oneself and the world and between oneself and others, an increase in care about others, a healing of traumas within oneself that might have hitherto caused one to lash out against others who you projected your own demons on to, and an increase in a sense of the sacredness of all things. In conjunction with this, widespread psychedelic use might result in another great religious awakening, with the resulting religions reflecting in their values the peaceful and unifying effects described above. This won't happen overnight. It'll probably take one or two hundred years for psychedelic use to become really widespread, and it can be aborted once more if there's another major backlash against them from the powers that be who are wedded to the status quo.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]