TED Conversations

Tinashe Shamhu

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is war a necessity or something that should be avoided at all cost?

War can be an unpleasant experience but sometimes it seems like it is tool which can be used to bring about peace. In the same way it can be a tool used for tyranny and greed. Is it a good thing for people to desire eternal unquestionable peace or is war a means of bringing about that peace?

+1
Share:
progress indicator

  • Shokrullah Amiri 10+

    • 0
    Jul 30 2011: POLITICIANS SAY, WE HAVE DECIDED TO GO INTO WAR. This is not true.

    Politicians don’t go into WAR; the innocent soldiers do. That is why politician takes this decision of war as an ultimate option easily.

    As long as people not suffering from it, they will continue to have WAR as an ultimate option. This is not fair.

    It is easy to say WAR is an option, BUT YOU WILL AVOID IT AT ANY COST IF YOU’ RE TOLD TO TAKE PART physically, or if you are suffering from its geographic coverage.Why the family of soldiers demonstrate against WAR, because they have sent their loved ones into WAR.

    Can you dare?Ask the parents of any late soldier “Can war be an ultimate option?” I am sure he/she will answer by action.

    We should value the life of soldiers and civilians the same as our own and loved ones even while debating about it.With Respect

  • Clint LeClair

    • +1
    Jul 28 2011: War is as necessary as peace. Without the other, these concepts are incomplete. The notion of attaching morality to either is simply justification for our perspective.
    But when all is said and done, war is a transition from one state of a society's being to another. And that transitional act is much faster when the opposition is no longer present (whether as exiled refugees or exterminated).

    Peace, however, is a slower, more controlled, transitional chaos. It is a socially acceptable amount of internal turmoil. Because regardless of the statement that your society is at peace or at war, it is in turmoil towards maturity or dissolution.

    So how committed are you to your ideals? And what is justifiable to see them to fruition? Maybe those questions will define your rationalizations towards peace or war...
  • thumb

    Oren Robinson

    • +1
    Jul 27 2011: War is not necessary but justifiable for the oppressed. If you're not oppressed you have no right to war. Often two sides have no right to war.

    It is ok to kill people if that's the only way to stop them doing irrepairable damage to your long-term chances of survival as an individual or a collective. If they have forced a "you or me" situation you can force the outcome. Divisions come depending on where people set the boundary for their collective:Themselves (individual)/ Their culture/ Their race/ Their nation/ Their species/ Their phylum etc. War will happen as long as people set their boundaries too close, excluding other people from their notion of collective.
  • thumb

    Alexander Shand

    • +2
    Jul 26 2011: "If you want to make peace don't talk to your friends, talk to your enemies" (Moshe Dayan 1915-1981)

    I thinnk that this quote agrees with the idea that negotiation should be a tool that is used before conflict ensues. I do however also agree with Flavius Vegetius Ranatus when he says "Let him who desires peace prepare for war".

  • Jason Burnett

    • 0
    Jul 26 2011: In having thoroughly enjoyed this thread, I realized that it is probably best to focus on the topic as presented.

    IS WAR A NECESSITY?
    The answer is clearly "NO". There are almost always ways to avoid war.

    SHOULD WAR BE AVOIDED AT ALL COST?
    Again, the answer is clearly "NO" for me. When all other avenues have been explored and the situation is such that you are faced with the choice of war or perish, than war it is, for better or worse. If faced with certain death, it is better to go out fighting with some glimmer of hope of survival than it is to just sit there and be destroyed.

    IS IT A GOOD THING FOR PEOPLE TO DESIRE ETERNAL UNQUESTIONABLE PEACE?
    For me the answer is "YES". I desire it and if everyone desired it enough it might even be possible to some extent. But is it practical or logical to presume that we can/ever will be able to achieve this desired state...I'm afraid that it simply is not.


    IS WAR A MEANS OF BRINGING ABOUT THAT [ETERNAL UNQUESTIONABLE PEACE]?
    Without a doubt, the answer is "NO". Peace is never the end product of any formula that involves war and it is not something that anyone (except for possibly those who have little to lose and billions to gain, like Dick Cheney) actually wants. And while it may be presented in such a way that we are lead to believe that it will bring about a lasting peace, that is never the case.

    I believe that it is good and righteous to strive for peace on every level--starting with yourself and extending outward. And while it is admirable to strive for peace, it is equally admirable to strive for survival--which sometimes may mean that you have to go to war.
  • thumb

    Muhammad Afif Idris

    • 0
    Jul 26 2011: To me, it's simple because war does not help in any aspest since war cost money which involves economy, war cause international reltionship to be damaged. So, in definitely would believe that war is not a kind of solution. Instead, it is more problem-making situation.

    War is totally negative and it should be STOPPED...

  • Lisa Vaitkevicius

    • 0
    Jul 26 2011: I believe in passive ressistance first. However, tyranny exists in our world. If one of my children were to sacrifice their own life to save a nation of people from suffering I would feel grief for my lost child but pride for the genuine reasons behind that sacrifice. That said, we must hold our leaders accountable for the reasons we go to war.

  • Catherine Drall

    • 0
    Jul 26 2011: I think it depends on how you will use it. If the goal is to protect one's country & its people from outside invasion, then that war is for defending & for peace. But if the goal is to use war for greediness, then by all means it should be avoided. But remember, there are no winners in war.
  • thumb

    Eun A Jo 10+

    • +1
    TED Translator
    Jul 26 2011: While I believe that peace is idealistic and that we should try our best, individually and together, to make peace, I would also like to acknowledge the fact that war can be unavoidable at times (note, i'm not saying it's necessary, just inevitable.)

    When North Korea shelled South Korea's yeonpyeong island, there was an immense arousal of war setiments amongst south korans. And when the government thought best to avoid the war, people even went on protesting. Although these pro-war sentiments were highly influenced by grief and anger of the people, their primary reasons were fear-based - we needed to make an action so as to tell the north koreans that we will not tolerate these kinds of violence.

    Eventually, our government only asked for a "sincere apology." But the next time north korea does something like this, war would become inevitable. And this fear-based reaction would not a "wrong" reason to go for war but a human one.

    Like Tim mentioned earlier, there are wars to stop genocides and support the freedom of people. There are also wars that protect our people from being constantly abused. If we were to stay put and let it all happen, the world would end up in a massive tyranny under those who are greedy and violent.

    There is no perfect way of solving this. But we cannot generalize in such broad terms. We can only try our best to find a solution that is the least bloody, hurting, and most peace-seeking.

  • Tim Capes

    • 0
    Jul 26 2011: Peace is certainly a necessary desire. Whether or not one is able to always follow that desire is a complicated and murky question. I think the vast majority of wars in human history have been completely unnecessary, having been fought for all the wrong reasons. But what about fighting wars to stop genocides? Admittedly, WWII was not fought for this reason, and the west has very seldom committed troops to stopping one successfully. I'm wondering do the individuals holding anti-war positions agree with this idea, and just label such wars as "peacekeeping" or do they think that protesting while allowing a genocide to take place is a real solution? My personal view is that the dichotomy presented by the original speaker is a bit misleading, because I'm inclined to say "both" avoid war at almost all costs, and only when faced with a problem that has no other solutions, a problem of such magnitude that the negative consequences of the war are smaller, should one even consider initiating a war. Such a problem in my view would just about always involve genocide or warmongering, although I'm inclined to make an exception for issues like slavery or other situations where there is no genuine alternative and a massive level of human suffering that needs to be dealt with expediently. That being said, most wars are about resources, power or ego; causes that are never just.
  • thumb

    Phillip Holgate

    • 0
    Jul 25 2011: War can be classified as a natural disaster, and is therefore inevitable. The tectonic forces that are built up years or sometimes centuries are released suddenly to cause catastrophic destruction of life, and property. Because we are not a homogeneous population, but have vast ideological, and ethnic differences, we are doomed. The tectonic conditions that are in place for human conflict, are differing behaviors, ideas, the need to exert their dominance over others.
    The idea of racial or religious superiority is one of the dominant causes of conflict; one group will try to spread its religious message insisting that it is the only true way to think, act, and worship.
    Another group may feel that they deserve a large share of the planet's resources, and exploit other groups to this end. So it seems like we don't have the currency to avoid war, but we can for now, mitigate the damage it causes.
  • thumb

    Alexander Shand

    • 0
    Jul 25 2011: What if that cost is a regime murdering it's people (Libya) or causing it's people to starvy (North Korea) should we sit back and watch or is war the only tool we have to remove the powers that are causing so much pain and suffering?
  • thumb

    Debra Smith 200+

    • +3
    Jul 25 2011: OK, this conversation seems to be becoming polarized based on two perspectives. One perspective is that killing people is wrong and that wars happen most of the time for reasons that are not as extreme or not as noble as they are represented to be. The other perspective appears to be that war is a reality of human nature and that it is unavoidable because people in many societies seem to be able to impose their violent will others and must be stopped. If I have encapsulated the two positions- NOW WHAT? How do we have a constructive conversation with each other? Isn't it worth acknowledging that many times wars are not fought for the reasons that the public is told? Isn't is worth acknowledging that there are people who are williing to fight for the oppressed? Now how do people of good will work to ensure that war is minimized and truly fought to put the Hitlers and Idi Amins of the world out of business?
  • thumb

    Jimmy Strobl 30+

    • +2
    TED Translator
    Jul 25 2011: Watch http://www.ted.com/talks/tags/peace and/or
    http://www.ted.com/talks/tags/war and make an informed statement about the topic! I dare anyone to still think that war is a necessity after Watching the 67 Talks on the topics war and peace!

    • Luis Marin

      • 0
      Jul 25 2011: Jimmy, there are informed statements that can be made from each side of the argument. War is an incredibly complex topic that can be argued against and in favor, no need to dare people on this.
      • thumb

        Jimmy Strobl 30+

        • 0
        TED Translator
        Jul 25 2011: I see what you mean and I'm rarely this forward about something... It's just that I don't think that anyone can maintain their pro-war viewpoint after watching all or a bunch of the Talks!
        Pro-war statements or opinions are one of the few things that make me less humble when indeed the opposite is needed...

        Also I'd like to add that I see a dare as something innocent, it's not an attack of any sort... I'm against attacks...

        • Luis Marin

          • 0
          Jul 25 2011: Thanks Jimmy. Adam's point however is to be considered and it is the essence of the 'pro-war' position.

          Quick stop here: Have you considered that the people here that argue war is in fact sometimes needed are not 'pro-war', as in "Yeaaaah let's kill some people especially women and children!!!"? The arguments go more into the view of not being accomplices by inaction or by taking action to defend a perceived higher moral purpose.

          Anyway, back to the point. We can all fundamentally agree that war is bad for all parties involved, we only disagree on the necessity of it. You say never, I say sometimes, and granted, someone is likely to say always. Adam makes his point by basically putting the same argument, if a group uses or is willing to use violence against yours what do you do? Do you sit idle and let them have at you or do you take action (that is violent action)?

          The majority of people that argue against war seem to be oblivious to this argument and respond by citing philosophical concept or ideas but nothing that approaches reality or that it is practical.

          I promise I'll watch the talks, but promise me this... read the first book on Winston Churchill's "The Second World War" and get a feel for how incredibly complex events that can cause a war unfold.

          Cheers

        • Jason Kather 10+

          • +1
          Jul 25 2011: It's great to look at the world and see what it might become, but it is much more important to see it as it really is.

          "The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

          This quote is probably already stated, but I will add anyway.
      • thumb

        Jimmy Strobl 30+

        • +1
        TED Translator
        Jul 25 2011: I've considered Adams and your views and had them myself for a very long time... I believe action is required against war but that it should be non-violent... At the most opponents should be pacified.

        • Luis Marin

          • +1
          Jul 26 2011: I have given thought and consideration to non-violence and came to the realization that peace has to be guaranteed and protected by any means necessary, including but not limited to violence.

          "It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war" John F. Kennedy

  • Ahmed Gates

    • 0
    Jul 25 2011: After invading Iraq in 2003, do you think we have less terrorists now? That would definitely answer your question.

  • coy benning

    • 0
    Jul 25 2011: war is just like anything else-pointless invigorating crude and life-changing

    if we could all make love and be happy in a world free of problems, what then?
    • thumb

      Adam Leeson

      • 0
      Jul 25 2011: I disagree with these notions.
      Life without disagreement would, I think, be incredibly dull. But I think there is a possibility that the human race can mature to a state where violence is unnecessary.
      However, as I have said in another reply, I don't believe we will reach that maturity in my lifetime.

  • coy benning

    • 0
    Jul 25 2011: what is peace without war? no war, no more humanity as we know it. war is essential to life and death
  • thumb

    Jimmy Strobl 30+

    • +1
    TED Translator
    Jul 25 2011: I've encountered all kinds of questions on TED. To the obvious ones I often choose not to elaborate or even to comment at all, but here I will comment but I won't elaborate!

    WAR SHOULD BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS!
    • thumb

      Adam Leeson

      • +1
      Jul 25 2011: By what do you mean 'at all costs' though?
      If you mean 'only when it is completely necessary', then we see eye to eye.
      But if you don't...
      Even when a group jeopardize the freedom, future or quality of life of another group? No, I disagree. Some people/movements need to be stopped, and a group with extreme views won't back down easily, for all kinds of reasons. And while there are still evil/greedy/power hungry/intolerant/closed minded/violent people in the world, war will be necessary. And to be honest, I don't think those traits will be eradicated during in my life time.
      I for one am certainly glad that the world didn't submit to Nazi rule.

      If it was the former that you were saying, then I apologise for the rant. But if it was the latter... I disagree, very strongly.

      • Luis Marin

        • 0
        Jul 25 2011: I agree with you very strongly. When people make all encompassing statements like this they clearly forget their history.

  • Helen Morgan

    • +1
    Jul 25 2011: That is like asking is domestic violence a necessity or something that should be avoided at all cost? Violence is NOT okay no matter how large or small the scale.
  • thumb

    Adam Leeson

    • 0
    Jul 24 2011: I think you answered your own question - "War can be an unpleasant experience but sometimes it seems like it is tool which can be used to bring about peace."
    Surely it all depends on the specific conflict?
  • thumb

    Richard Parker

    • 0
    Jul 24 2011: In my opinion, you can't group all wars together! Revolutionary Wars and Civil Wars are not the same as wars between an Aggressor and a Defender! War is not a necessity but from time to time becomes necessary.

  • Jason Burnett

    • 0
    Jul 24 2011: It is interesting to consider the notion that we have a choice in the matter of war. While I refuse to go so far as to say that we are genetically programmed for/against war, I will say that we are probably the only species that has the luxury of considering whether our species should or shouldn't participate in such actions. The details of which do not necessarily affect the outcome, in my opinion. That is to say that whether war is a necessity to compensate for our inability to effectively manage population, or whether war is a side effect of greed and tyranny of a small portion of our species, the point remains that war exists and will continue to exist as part of our struggle to survive with limited resources. And even in places where the outside resources are plentiful, you'll find that war exists over other precious resources such as women. Unfortunately, when we opened the door labeled "war" in the hallway of our history, we had no idea that the door opened in only one direction. Now that we have war and have had it for so long, it is rather unfortunate that those who blindly stand by the door waiting for it open, or even for those who wildly scratch at the door hoping that we can return to a time of peace will be the ones who fall prey most easily to those who have accepted war as an inevitability. Our best option, in my opinion, is to acknowledge and embrace the fact that we have and always will have war. From that more reasonable perspective, it can be surmised that the only thing we can hope for is a way to make war have less of an impact on the quality of our lives. And depending on your perspective, it makes sense to align yourself with the party with the best, if not biggest, war skills if you want peace. Of course, I'm at luxury to make such a compassion-less statement because I live in the US where the biggest inconvenience I experience from the wars we have been in for years now is the occasional pre-empting of "South Park". Shameful I know.

  • Austin Abel

    • 0
    Jul 24 2011: War is the natural state of life... All living things fight, and their fighting makes them great. Trees fight to reach the sun and drown all those that can not keep up in their shadow. Coral on a reef fight an aggressive war for territory on which to grow. Song birds and wolves both war among themselves in-order to mate. Tribes/Groups of monkeys often war in brutal conflicts filled with pillaging and rape. All nature shows war to be a natural state... We humans fight for land, resources, mates, and plunder. We are the same as the trees and the birds in this respect and I believe it is natural, if unpleasant. Where we differ from the rest of nature is our willingness to war over ideas and beliefs... War for life is natural. War for ideas is folly.
  • thumb

    Ali asghar Mazinanian

    • 0
    Jul 24 2011: That’s right but we should not be disappointed unless we believe that humanity has completely vanished. I am sure that any sound wisdom accepts rules and regulations of any play, considering War as a disastrous play on the benefit of superpowers, but I count on ordinary people not the governments. Sometimes ordinary people are able to cause a butterfly effect which will one day affect the world. Any system in this world has a beginning and end; where does the human being system stand? Is it really declining? Or we need some better sub-systems to cause it to grow for maturity. Humans must learn how to live together in peace not by war and if they are forced to begin the war they must respect the war regulations or be punished so that they do not dare to fight again.

  • A A 20+

    • +2
    Jul 24 2011: War is a byproduct of too much testosterone which feeds aggression and dominance.

    • Jason Burnett

      • 0
      Jul 24 2011: Or is it the logical notion that those who don't have as much testosterone, aggression, and or desire for dominance either deserve to be or are asking to be subjugated?

      • A A 20+

        • +1
        Jul 30 2011: "Deserve" and "asking to be subjugated"
        The same self justification also used for murder, rape, robbery, etc.
        Outstanding Jason. The definition of evil, exploiting power simply because one can.
        There is nothing logical about it, it's lack of self control.

  • Anthony Murray

    • 0
    Jul 23 2011: Sadly, I think warfare is not just a necessity but an inevitable product of Human existence. For our entire time on this planet we have found almost every conceivable reason to take up arms against our fellow man. Religion, Race, Control, Fear, Oil, Power, Dominance! Key drivers throughout the centuries albeit I accept "Black Gold" is a more contemporary driver.

    Can war really bring peace? I think not, especially when considered over time. An example would be civil war. These have always ruined societies for centuries. People may start out with the need to go to war as a means of freeing themselves from political or religious persecution but at what point does liberation give way to revenge. There have always been cases of mass killings in retribution for things done before these civil wars began.

    In all, War cannot be a means of obtaining peace. Prima facie, the very need for warfare would suggest that peace is unobtainable. What this means then based on my earlier concept of humanity being inevitably warmongering, is that "world peace" is a ludicrous notion. It cannot and will never exist. No matter how many people truly want this, there will always be many more who see war as a more direct, profitable or necessary means to an end.

    It is much more likely, as much as it worries me to concede, that far from unquestionable peace we will find our very nature comes to destroy us. Nowhere is this more lucid than in the acronym MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. This is a military policy designed purely to present the threat of "you hit us we'll hit you" but on an unimaginable scale. Total annihilation. I admit, as Tom Clancy coined, "It is not the thousands of nukes pointed at us that worries me, its the guy with the one", that the liklihood of mass destruction is minimal.

    We have entered a new existence of warfare. Terrorism. This exists not for peace or control but only to induce fear. It is this concept that scares me more than anything. Not war.
  • thumb

    Ali asghar Mazinanian

    • 0
    Jul 23 2011: We must write the war regulations again and force the united nations organization to guarantee the implementations of the war rules as no one feel any responsibilities on the death of the innocent people who are forcefully involved in the bloody war, Children who mistake a mine with a doll and many civilians who do not want the war but can’t leave the war scene. Even animals are not safe and have no security because these are the characteristic of the war done by the ones who call themselves human beings. How have we improved our societies by inventing modern technologies?
    Early men were more secured than modern men. They had no bombs, no war chemical instruments.
    They battled face to face but today we do not see our enemies. Therefore Toddy’s wars must be avoided.

    • Shokrullah Amiri 10+

      • +1
      Jul 24 2011: We have fought enough over the history of human, it didn’t work. We have availed long time for WAR as solution. Rules of WAR will not work either; everybody will interpret it to his/her favor.

      Let’s stop war and debate for some time and see its implications.

  • Yan Yuhtman

    • 0
    Jul 23 2011: I see a lot of posts here talking about self defense, human nature, wealthy countries etc.

    1. We are way passed the age of tribes where one tribe attacks another because of resources. Now day’s war is a materialistic thing not the thing that critical for survival. Now day’s war is a thing that makes some people - parties reached. The simplest thing to do is to take several of wars and see who gained more money and power out of it, is it an ordinary citizen of that or other country - no it's a companies that creates weapons, a companies that bay resources after the war finishes on low costs and finally - the banks that loan money for everyone.

    2. What considered as a wealthy country? Probably US are the wealthiest country - yes of course it would if it won’t be in a huge debt to a federal bank. The same picture can be seen in other countries. How can it be that financial wealth of a company can be greater than country’s (for instance – General Motors vs. Poland)? Does a company have more ‘citizens’ or may be it has more resources than a country? If not where this wealth came from?

    3. The defense – every human has a right to defend his life, that’s right, it’s true it seems right it feels right and I also would kill in order to defend myself or my family, the only thing is: Are you absolutely positive that some particular war is a defense, or it’s only because you were said so? And if not a defense, other good reasons can be found – land, religion or political views, etc.
    P.S
    I think the Zeitgeist movement demonstrates those aspects very well, and also tries to give a solution.
    http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
  • thumb

    Phillip Holgate

    • 0
    Jul 23 2011: Short answer, yes it should be avoided at all cost. But we sometimes want have the other guy pay the cost, so it ends up costing us more than we anticipated. Another more effective method of conflict resolution would be nice, but we don't seem to have one.
  • thumb

    Ali asghar Mazinanian

    • 0
    Jul 23 2011: It must be avoided unless when we are defending our borders. . I mean when invasion occurs we have no way other than pushing our enemies away in the most appropriate possible way, especially when dialogue does not work. War has more bad consequences than its benefits.Superpowers may apparently get some benefits out of war but they can't compensate their lost human beings and cant not justify or answer public opinions or future generations.
Load more comments…