View Full Version : Why do countries go to war?

10-09-2001, 08:09 PM
Personally...I think they go to war because they get bored. That's why I go to war whenever I play Civilization 2...and look at me. I have conquered the Souix, Japanese, 90% of the Persians, 90% of the Vikings, part of the Aztecs, and 50% of the English. My navy consist of 17 battleships, a cruiser, and about 3 submerines. I have 2 aircraft carriers with full of fighters and bombers. And I have an ample amount of transports to carry around my armor, cavalry, marines, paratroopers, etc.

Its all because I get bored with peace in that game. I think it is the same reason why people go to war in real life.


President: "What to we have to do today?"
Secretary: "Well, the budget needs a little work...The senate wants a bill passed...and some people are protesting the building of that new road..."
President: *SIGH* "Hey...Lets go to war! :)"

See?!? Thats how it is...

10-09-2001, 11:27 PM
yeah, war is great for the economy... i actually remembered that much...

10-10-2001, 04:52 AM
because we live in a stupid world, filled with stupid people, doing stupid things to each other all the time.

10-10-2001, 08:02 AM
War is not always great for the economy. Ask any German who lived in Germany after WWI or WWII.

People go to war to use physical force to meet political objectives. It is a very efficient (and sometimes the only) means to exert a political bodie's will.

Why do people use screw drivers? To focus physical energy towards a goal.

The military is the 'tool' of a government.

No other tool has had as much impact on the history of the world.

10-10-2001, 11:42 AM
Many times the citizens of one country do not respect the culture of another country and subconciously view them as some how disfunctional or fiendish.

Organized religion, patriotism, and/or resistance to these two things, when either one is taken to extremes, frequently starts wars.

10-10-2001, 01:33 PM
surely most wars are fought because people would rather die/send their children to die than change their attitudes or beliefs.

inertia: reistance to change of velocity
war: resistance to change of belief

10-10-2001, 05:19 PM
>War is not always great for the economy. Ask any German who lived in Germany after WWI or WWII.

oh, that's actually a good point... hmmm... but they lost, and put, in my opinion, a large extent of their resources into their military...

>war: resistance to change of belief

i agree... but to believe is to be believed against...

>because we live in a stupid world, filled with stupid people, doing stupid things to each other all the time.

thyimble... here, there, everywhere... but i'm not leading a crusade here am i? same with the behold! thread... [demo pending...]

10-10-2001, 06:42 PM
"They think it could boost their science rate"

last time i checked, the world wasn't just one of God's bad games of Civilization 2.

10-10-2001, 11:18 PM
>"They think it could boost their science rate"

that is a good point... the space race and big science led to the cold war didn't it? i for one would hope that science and war were independant... but, after all, i and we are predicting a world war 3.0... right?

10-10-2001, 11:40 PM
1) Life is not a game of Civ 2. I've played that game. I love that game. But the way I act in real life is completely different then the way I play in Civ.

2) Countries go to war for a multiple of reasons. They range from economic to political to (in some cases through out history) religious.

3) War is a tool, threat, and a bargaining chip.

And war is good for the economy if you "win."

What is happening now is a redefining of the word war. Before war used to be fought between two countries. Yet in most people's eyes this is a war, yet its being found against groups of citizens of a countries and not againt the country itself (though this may change).

By the way, does anyone know who said the following (and the complete quote)

"Freedom is not free, it is paid in blood of..."


10-11-2001, 12:10 AM
something like:

"war is inevitable, it can only be postponed to the advantages of others..."


anyone read The Prince?

[oh, and this was also put in the C&C:Red Alert manual, btw]

10-11-2001, 09:32 AM
Waging a war was economically advantageous to the U.S. in the case of WWII.

This one instance should not lead people to believe that war in general is economically beneficial.

The nation of afghanistan has been at war for 20 years. They beat the Russians. The place is a mess.

The Vietnamese 'beat' the U.S.-- it did not do them much good economically.

War was good for America in the case of WWII because this country had such incredibly vast resources. This was accompanied by the fact that the war never directly impacted the United States. (Other than a couple of Aleutian islands we virtually gave away for a short period of time). It the third reich had been bombing New York every night things would have been very different.

Our European allies won the war-- and then needed the U.S. to bail them out economically. Russia was a winner, but did not get our full aid and never has recovered.

Israel is constantly at war w/terrorists and hostile arab nations. This inhibits their ability to invest in infrastructure and as a whole is more damaging to their economy than helpful.

Usually in war some individuals or companies may profit. But to generalize and say that war is good for the economy is not historically or rationally accurate. This is just a little generalization that has become an easy excuse to apologize for our dominance in WWII. This drive for an excuse is the result of our liberal and faulty public education system. (I know I was part of it as a History teacher)

There will be some defense contracting companies who will benefit to some extent from what is going on right now. But as a whole this situation has been hurtful to our economy and will continue to do so.