It's a simple question with several opinions. What is your opinion? What is the primary cause of war? Even going back to the tribal days.
War
- Thread starter Ludlow
- Start date
I think that the origin of war, in our deepest past, is the biological imperative of having OUR genes survive, thrive and ultimately dominate.
Need a more precise definition, Lud. American and Celtic "wars" were pretty much what we'd call gang fights. Not quite the same as vaporizing a city from 30,000 feet.
Yeah. The aboriginals of North America and the British Isles maintained what were essentially vendettas, probably for thousands of years.
It made us strong.
... and stupid-stubborn.
War changed forever in 1861. Strategy, tactics, courage, heroism, skill don't count any more. Since then the ONLY question is who can put more heavy metal on bad guys. It's an industrial process.
"best industrial process" is not a skill?
If the best manufacturer wins every war, Then the strongest are still surviving as intended
The two basic fundamental factors in war have always been
Kill more opponents then your own casualty.
&
Birth more population then your opponent.
Women & children have always been part of war.
The argument that war has changed is false.
Technology has changed, but war has stayed the same.
As it says in the Christian Bible, you have wars "because of greed" - James 4:1.
NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON
NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON
It's pretty much the same in the Middle East. The sectarian violence of today is drawn up among many of the same tribal lines that were fighting each other in their days of internecine warfare.
Kinda like the west against the east, just bigger tribes. People are stupid. We haven't learned a damn thing in one million years.
But they don't win every war. Look at Vietnam. The US had an insurmountable industrial advantage, never lost a major battle against the NVA and still lost the war.
Nah, unless you're invading the country next door, or at least one that's relatively close to you, the advantage will usually go to the defender regardless of industrial capacity/process.
In the case of a long distance invasion the defender has a few X-factors including a silent, ever present ally called time. They also have an intimate knowledge of the terrain than you don't. As a result of that, it's usually the defender that dictates where a battle will be fought.
The invader meanwhile, has substantially longer supply lines where weather is far more likely to affect them than the defenders, especially if those supply lines are by sea. The storms along Normandy shortly after D-Day are an example. Although most of the beaches were flat enough to land supplies by landing craft, the loss of one Mulberry and damage to
the other seriously hampered the Allies supply efforts. And if the German army hadn't been controlled in minute detail by a madman who didn't understand tactics, they probably would have been able to use the respite to better advantage. Although it still would have only prolonged the inevitable.
Power and greed. Generally tied to land and resources. I'm sure ancient bands of nomadic hunters battled each other over hunting grounds. I'm also sure even after humans started to settle, if food became short, they'd raid on other settlements, kill the inhabitants and maybe even take a few prisoners, and loot their food stocks.
Face it, human history is the history of conflict. That's why, while I feel bad for those that live in remote, northern communities that are like a piece of the third world, I refuse to feel guilty about the conquest of these lands simply because of my skin colour. What happened here was just another instance in the long tale of human conquest. It's not special or unique. I have no doubt that no matter who arrived here instead of Europeans, the result would have been much the same. Every empire in history was built on the blood on the conquered.
Unwilling to finish it out. There are three victorious ends to war: surrender of the opposing government, genocide, and occupation. In Vietnam, the other side refused to surrender, the U.S. didn't have the stomach for genocide, and it never wanted to occupy in the first place. Same thing in Afghanistan: there is no government to surrender to us, we don't want to occupy, and genocide's not really possible unless we do Pakistan too.
As I wrote many times on this forum, the USA imperialists lost Vietnam as well as Afghanistan & Iraq because it failed to get the majority of those people on its side. These wars of treason are not about spreading good American values but about generating war profits for the wealthy elites. They have all been lost from Day One. Nothing will change that truth.
Acquisition of land and treasures on said land. The 2nd reason is money, lots of money for just killing the locals.