4 ms·

That said, isn’t the point of war also that it’s horrible and barbaric? Of course - that's precisely the point. The idea that any technical innovation can mak

That said, isn’t the point of war also that it’s horrible and barbaric? Of course - that's precisely the point. The idea that any technical innovation can make it less so (or make war less likely) runs counter to all historical observation.

InexSquirrel 3y ago
I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't think the _point_ of war is to be barbaric - that's a by-product of forceful expansion of power. Regardless of how killing another human is done in the context of conflict, it will always be considered barbaric, but the _point_ of the conflict isn't be maximise barbarism. I think (and know very little, so could be wrong), that the purpose of war is to expand influence. This can take the form of access to new resources (whether that be land, access, air space, whatever) or to form a buffer between one country and another. There's probably other reasons, simply like ego in some cases. There are other ways to expand powerbases too - such as China's heavy financial and infrastructure investment in Africa and South Pacific nations, or attempting to undermine another country's social structures. These are longer and harder to implement, but yield better results with practically no blood shed.
- lisasays 3y ago
  I stand corrected. The point (in nearly all cases) is to win at any cost. From which the practice of limitless barbarism naturally follows.
sebzim4500 3y ago
>The idea that any technical innovation can make it less so (or make war less likely) runs counter to all historical observation. Does it? WWII was less bloody than WW1, and nothing since has had anywhere near as many deaths.
- ojbyrne 3y ago
  “Less bloody” is nowhere close to true. World War II casualties: 70-85 million https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties World War I casualties: 40 million https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

InexSquirrel 3y ago

I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't think the _point_ of war is to be barbaric - that's a by-product of forceful expansion of power. Regardless of how killing another human is done in the context of conflict, it will always be considered barbaric, but the _point_ of the conflict isn't be maximise barbarism. I think (and know very little, so could be wrong), that the purpose of war is to expand influence. This can take the form of access to new resources (whether that be land, access, air space, whatever) or to form a buffer between one country and another. There's probably other reasons, simply like ego in some cases. There are other ways to expand powerbases too - such as China's heavy financial and infrastructure investment in Africa and South Pacific nations, or attempting to undermine another country's social structures. These are longer and harder to implement, but yield better results with practically no blood shed.

lisasays 3y ago
I stand corrected. The point (in nearly all cases) is to win at any cost. From which the practice of limitless barbarism naturally follows.

sebzim4500 3y ago

>The idea that any technical innovation can make it less so (or make war less likely) runs counter to all historical observation. Does it? WWII was less bloody than WW1, and nothing since has had anywhere near as many deaths.

ojbyrne 3y ago
“Less bloody” is nowhere close to true. World War II casualties: 70-85 million https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties World War I casualties: 40 million https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties