War - Are there benefits?

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 21 - 39 of total 39 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Aug 19, 2014 - 07:53am PT

I thought we went over this in freshman history?

MikeL

Social climber

Seattle, WA

Aug 19, 2014 - 08:13am PT

Marlow: I have to admit - I don't like the OP question.

survival

Big Wall climber

Terrapin Station

Aug 19, 2014 - 08:24am PT

I thought we went over this in freshman history?

I must've been skipping that day.....

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Aug 19, 2014 - 08:40am PT

Read The Arms of Krupp. It should answer all yer questions.

Paddy, here's a book idea for you on this topic: my first university roomie
was from Los Alamos. He more than once mentioned how many of his friends'
dads offed themselves. This would have been during the late 50's and early
60's so many of those guys would have been involved in weapons projects. I
also had a climber friend who had been instrumental in the development of
the Paveway laser guided bomb first used in Viet Nam. He was all twisted up
over that.

guyman

Social climber

Moorpark, CA.

Aug 19, 2014 - 08:42am PT

Guyman doesn't know the Irish supported the Germans, that's all.

Ho Ho Ho... Gary, wrong, please don't assume.

The main benefit is that we went to war, and we didn't get conquered, cause we won.... so we are still "free".

simple answer to a simple question.

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Aug 19, 2014 - 09:03am PT

Does anybody actually ever "win" a war ?

Nice troll, Tami, but as a rhetorical question I aver that modern societies,
at their peril, have eschewed the proven tenets of Genghis Khan. Curtis
Lemay tried to enlighten the US government as to their benefits during
Viet Nam but his pleas fell on deaf ears.

survival

Big Wall climber

Terrapin Station

Aug 19, 2014 - 09:11am PT

He more than once mentioned how many of his friends'
dads offed themselves. This would have been during the late 50's and early
60's so many of those guys would have been involved in weapons projects.

There should be some numbers on that shouldn't there?

PhilG

Trad climber

The Circuit, Tonasket WA

Aug 19, 2014 - 09:14am PT

Patrick,
I just finished a very interesting book that might answer your question:
War, What Is It Good For?. After a anthropological/historical look at war and it's effect on humans, the book makes a solid argument that (for most of us) the world is a less violent place and we are more prosperous because of war.
After reading this book it was hard for me to imagine our modern world (science, religions, politics, economies) without wars influence.

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Aug 19, 2014 - 09:34am PT

Survival, I'm sure there are but as you likely know back then everything
having to do with Los Alamos was tightly controlled so I'm not sure how
accessible such figures would be even given the Freedom of Info Act. Back
then it is highly likely that many of those suicides would have been labled
as natural deaths.

Marlow

Sport climber

OSLO

Aug 19, 2014 - 09:58am PT

I believe 4-5% of the inhabitants of Europe are carrying the genes of Genghis Khan. I don't know if that's a measure of war's success, there's other factors involved, but it's said to be a fact.

Some of the other factors involved:

Khan's empire at the time of his death extended across Asia, from the Pacific Ocean to the Caspian Sea. His military conquests were frequently characterized by the wholesale slaughter of the vanquished. His descendants extended the empire and maintained power in the region for several hundred years, in civilizations in which harems and concubines were the norm. And the males were markedly prolific.

Khan's eldest son, Tushi, is reported to have had 40 sons. Documents written during or just after Khan's reign say that after a conquest, looting, pillaging, and rape were the spoils of war for all soldiers, but that Khan got first pick of the beautiful women. His grandson, Kubilai Khan, who established the Yuan Dynasty in China, had 22 legitimate sons, and was reported to have added 30 virgins to his harem each year.

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Aug 19, 2014 - 10:05am PT

Marlow, in answer to Tami's question about the Great Khan's tenets I'm
sure Vegard Ulvang is one of those with the sainted genes. The proof of
which is that he took no prisoners.

Ken M

Mountain climber

Los Angeles, Ca

Aug 19, 2014 - 10:19am PT

But why can't they do it in peace time? Not to sound naive.

I was once a certified EMT1. Didn't last long.

It seems, appears, that at times in order to kick human beings into "progressive" mode, that is finding new solutions to injury comes out of "war".

Just looking at World War One and the field medical/medicine advances… but why wait until a war?

I do not mean to be simplistic. But in my latest research on conflicts and war, medical advances for traumatic injury seem to "abound".

I could be wrong.

It doesn't quite work that way.

To judge whether a potential new approach should be used, you end up needing to try it, repeatedly. War produces mass casualties, with many, many chances to try things out, and see how they work compared to the "standard approach".

For example, one of the latest advances has been tourniquets. This had long been discarded as dangerous, and even now the Red Cross teaches not to use them. But in the most recent conflicts, the number one cause of treatable deaths is extremity bleeding. The use of tourniquets has reduced the death rate by something like 10%---which is a huge change.

But it took thousands of wounds to realize this.

Byran

climber

San Jose, CA

Aug 19, 2014 - 10:46am PT

Benefits? For sure there are some, though greatly outweighed by the evils. Red wine has trace amounts of antioxidants which are good for your health, but that's hardly an excuse to pop the cork on a third bottle.

Some good words from Wells' "Outline of History" on the great destroyer:

"However complicated the origins of currency, its practical effect and the end it has to, serve in the community may be stated roughly in simple terms. The money a man receives for his work (mental or bodily) or for relinquishing his property in some consumable good, must ultimately be able to purchase for him for his use a fairly equivalent amount of consumable goods[...]When everyone in a community is assured of this, and assured that the money will not deteriorate in purchasing Power, then currency and the distribution of goods by trade is in a healthy and satisfactory state[...]But under the most stable conditions there will always be fluctuations in currency value.

The sum total of saleable consumable goods in the world and in various countries varies from year to year and from season to season; autumn is probably a time of plenty, in comparison with spring; with an increase in the available goods in the world, the purchasing power of currency will increase, unless there is also an increase in the amount of currency. On the other hand, if there is a diminution in the production of consumable goods or a great, and unprofitable destruction of consumable goods, such as occurs in a war, the share of the total of consumable goods represented by a sum of money will diminish, and prices and wages will rise.

In modern war the explosion of a single big shell, even if it hits nothing, destroys labour and material roughly equivalent to a comfortable cottage or a year's holiday for a man. If the shell hits anything, then that further destruction has to be added to the diminution of consumable goods. Every shell that burst in the recent war diminished by a little fraction the purchasing value of every coin in the whole world. If there is also an increase of currency during a period when consumable goods are being used up and not fully replaced (and the necessities of revolutionary and war-making governments almost always require this), then the enhancement of prices and the fall in the value of the currency paid in wages is still greater. Usually also governments under these stresses borrow money; that is to say, they issue interest bearing paper, secured on the willingness and ability of the general community to endure taxation[...]Consequently we presently, discover the state encumbered by an excess of currency, which is in effect a non-interest-paying debt, and also with a great burthen of interest upon loans. Both credit and currency begin to fluctuate wildly with the evaporation of public confidence. They are, we say, demoralized."

Marlow

Sport climber

OSLO

Aug 19, 2014 - 11:15am PT

Tami.

Ok. It was a question concerning history a long time back and not meant as an insult. I'll delete.

Patrick Sawyer

climber

Originally California now Ireland

Topic Author's Reply - Aug 19, 2014 - 02:09pm PT

Marlow and MikeL, I didn't mean to offend with the question. But as I mentioned, I am doing research on wars and conflicts and noticed certain issues/matters.

FRUMY

Trad climber

Bishop,CA

Aug 19, 2014 - 02:31pm PT

There are certainly no benefits to those that are maimed & killed.

But as Guy said we don't speak German.

& most of the technical advances the war brings would have come anyhow. Sometimes war speeds things up, but more than most people think, as often as it speeds one thing up it end the development of many other things.

Humans can't help ourselves. We are creative even in a vacuum. Not all of us but enough.

Sometime there is no choice but to defend yourself & or others that are under attack.

The problem with war is that NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE OUT COME WILL BE. Or what the benefits or deficits will be going in.

Mark

CrackAddict

Trad climber

Canoga Park, CA

Aug 19, 2014 - 05:25pm PT

I just finished a very interesting book that might answer your question:
War, What Is It Good For?. After a anthropological/historical look at war and it's effect on humans, the book makes a solid argument that (for most of us) the world is a less violent place and we are more prosperous because of war.

The whole idea of war making us prosperous seems absurd to me. It is a Keynesian idea, and it makes about as much sense as the "Broken Window" theory, or paying someone to dig a hole so someone else can fill it. The only data point I have ever heard to back it up is the US during/after WW2. But nobody ever mentions the economies of the European countries, where war took place - they were completely ravaged. And the US is a special case anyway- we borrowed heavily during the war to build factories, which were not destroyed, and were in fact used to rebuild much of the world.