It's a simple yes or no question. I'm aware that there's much, much more to it than that, but for now, I'm just looking for yes or no answers. Though, feel free to defend your answer. Also, this is about the fundemental nature, reason, or result of war, not specifics or examples of it.
In a novel with a medieval setting there’s nothing more fun~~ But I’ll have to pray for a large scale War to never again come to fruition in our reality...
That would be an ideal answer if the question was "Was it worth it." That's very selective, though. Note what I said on the original post. Hmm. I see what you mean.
Worth what? I personally usually view it as an inevitable process in history and development and life of any society, like getting old. Is getting old worth it?
Generally, no. Sometimes, yes, such as in self-defense or ideals (the actual betterment of humanity kind, not the “I dislike your beliefs kind”) or to stop atrocities like genocide.
War is a way to solve problem with force. And this is usually ends up with more losses to the majority, rather than the one who had interest in it.
yes, because theres a reason why it happend mostly on treasured ground of the one who wage/defend countries. war without reason is nonexisting.
The inevitability of it doesn't affect as to whether or not it's worth it. Also, if someone asks "is aging worth it?" and you answer "well, it's inevitable" it doesn't really answer the question. As for worth, I speak of the potential gain of territory, wealth, religion, ideologies, and other driving forces of it, not to mention the potential in technological and societal progress.
Fundamental reason: war itself is a last resort, a bitter solution for both parties when one party is trying to convince the other while the other refuses. It is just like when you are young and tried to talk to a kid about whatever, then a fight/ duel broke out because words no longer work and higher forces are required to step in to advance the situation. Reason: I can give you a shit ton, both bad and good, but I am lazy and will condense down to What I want VS What You Want. Results: depends really, if one side is significantly more powerful than the other, a swift knockout is attained and lost of collaterals is low. But to be honest, when a war broke out, both sides are sure that they can topple the other so it becomes a wrestling match, drawn out and spilled over to other third parties, resulting in a messy playground and all sides looking like idiots and bullies. Conclusion, if it is worth, if what I want is genuinely what I want, then yes.
Then probably yes. Not as much for the potential gain of material resources or even societal or technological progress, but because no war comes out of nowhere and preceding it, one must expect some sort of reasons, internal or external, that needed to be, if not addressed or dealt with, then at least somehow managed. Things like possible social unrest, the dissatisfaction of the masses with the current way of life, lack of resources of a country, dissatisfaction of a nation with the current world affairs in respect to it, ideological conflicts - problems requiring war to handle if not handled in some way could become cancer to the society and shake its foundation. War is an extreme regulatory measure the society takes to handle the problems, similar to a fever of an infected organism. While it may severely hurt the organism as a whole, kill it in the worst case even, it's still better for a sick organism to suffer through a fever than just succumb to illness. At least this is my take on the question. I'm no sociologist nor historian, so this view may be, and likely is, not very accurate
I think that's a reasonable reply, though. If you ask "is war fundamentally bad" then the answer is "no, here are some counterexamples to prove war isn't necessarily bad". The truth is that the answer depends on the circumstances of each war. Some wars are worth it, some are not.
I'm not against the answer or the reasoning, but answering "yes" with the reasoning of something specific or selective goes against what I said on the original post. When I asked "yes or no," I was speaking in general terms. It would have been fine if he said "yes in some situations," or something of the like, then continued with said reason(s).