I have one question for you. Do you think human life is more worth, than anything else and I seriously mean ANYTHING (freedom, religion, justice etc.). Yes? Congratulations. War will never be worth it, no matter the circumstances or benefits you get. This is also the only mindset, which will prevent wars forever, but is it worth it to sacrifice ANYTHING for it?
When you speak about War i am assuming you are referring to the more traditional and easily categorized type of war, being a war of conquest for territory or resources as opposed to the more ephemeral kind of war like the "War on Christmas" or other things of that nature, though the same logic will still apply. In short, yes. Always yes. War is always worth it be it the aggressive side or the defensive side. It is largely a matter of perspective or Necessity. You could wage war because the lands you have aren't enough to feed your people... worth it. Waging war over resources that make it easier to expand or research... worth it. War to get rid of thought that you deem dangerous or heretical... worth it. Same applies to the defensive side. Examples just to say that for the parties engaged in a war of any kind... it is always worth it or they would not be in it. They may all have different reasoning as to why it is worth it, why they must participate... but it always is. Now the part where people get confused and say no. Is the value of what is being fought for worth the cost of war? Whatever way that cost may become manifest? That is where you must delve into the specific example of the War, the context behind it and ultimately the end result. This is what people who say no to this proposition get confused over. TLDR; Yes, always yes. If it weren't, one side would not participate and just give up before there ever was a war. So for there to be War at all, it must be worth it to all parties involved in some way shape or form or they would not be involved thus making it so there is no war.
It depends. Before industrial revolution countries' wealth are concentrated in rare materials, gold, grain harvest, and lands, most which can be looted, so wars with expansionism in mind can be lucrative for military-centric countries. Post-WW II was different, as automatons and machineries from industrial revolution became more sophisticated, world economy more and more relying toward innovation and trade to make progress unlike the old-world, as wealth mostly concentrated in corporated, executives, stock markets, intellectual properties, etc, things that can't be easily looted in case a country is invading another one. This makes war less desirable, as another big war might destroy world economy significantly, especially when there's nukes to be feared, thus nowadays conflicts usually resolved by diplomatic ways--though there are some exceptions like ideological reason during the cold war (which already passes after Soviet Union collapsed), regional conflict over natural resources like in the middle east, and some border skirmishes. On the other hand, participating in war, even in modern days, isn't that disadvantageous as it seems to be. Back during the Great Depression economies are in dire strait because businesses don't have enough capital to absorb widespread unemployment, which resulting low purchasing power which then resulting even more economic troubles. Countries like USA rapidly stood up from the Great Depression not only because they won the war, but they save their economy beforehand by employing the unemployed into the army, thus keeping some purchase power of average citizens back in their home countries relatively decent (the concept is about the same as today's pandemic relief funds, but with much larger scale). Also, it is worth nothing that countries that lost WW II, such as Germany and Japan, became rich on post-war era not by coincidence. Liberal west countries (winner of the war) believe that a country will less likely to form authoritarian regimes again and start another war if their countries are rich, as wealthy countries will prefer political and economy stability over gambling their sophisticated economy on conflicts, and therefore WW II losers are getting generous investment instead of their countries looted and their citizens threated as slave-like workforces (this is why west Germany, handed to west countries, became much richer than east Germany, which handed to Soviet Union until it collapsed in 90s). The only country that doesn't affected by this rule is China, which still an authoritarian regime despite no matter how big their economy is, defying western policymakers' and experts' expectations ever since Zao Zedong's era, and Russia, which most of their wealth was grabbed by oligarchs as soon as the Soviet collapsed. Even after saying that, I'd say, it's unlikely for another world war to start in today's world. Regional conflicts like middle-east and south china sea might still happens, but to go all out in war, there would be no going back if today's world economy truly collapsed and countries start attacking each other with nukes.
Honestly, there are time that war was worth it because it caused a technological and medical advancements in the modern world. But I wouldn't completely say it is worth it as there's little benefit on those things that could have more or less invented later than sooner on the cost of innocent human lives.
Yes, war is always the answer... because the other side is wrong and deserve to die for opposing your viewpoint and or actions.
As a wise salary man deep inside the body of a prepubescent blonde girl once said, Wars are nothing but a waste of materials and human resources. But it isn't as if humans will finally grow to use reason over feelings anytime soon. So, to me at least, if I am in the winning side, fucking yes it is worth it. Who cares about a war crime or two.
1984 has a compelling reason for "no" Transcript: "The book is a pretty solid rundown of the real history of the world, as well as a comprehensive study of why exactly the Party is at war all the freaking time. The answer is, as it always is, cheap labor and free resources. But more importantly, we learn why this dystopia happened, and you're gonna love this: It's because the vision of the future that was held in the wake of WWI was that the future would be bright and luxurious, and every citizen would be educated. And that is what inspired the Party to make such a grody, dystopic world. If the people become educated, they're gonna realize they don't need the bourgeoisie. A hierarchical society can only be maintained by keeping the majority of the population both poor and ignorant. Poverty wasn't enough, and just strangling the economy wasn't working, so they started the wars, because nothing keeps a population more poor and more ignorant than the routine devastation of their entire world. War destroyed supply and therefore creates demand. And when your citizens are overworked to the point of insanity just to break even, they don't have time to do inconvenient things, like learn or think. War is a socially acceptable method of wasting absurd quantities of material and resource in a way that also directs the dissatisfaction of your citizens outward, at some evil, foreign party, so they never question why the war is happening and who started it for what reason. They just embrace the certainty that their government is protecting them from the greater evil. They embrace the far off victory with a religious zeal, and in the meantime, will accept any sacrifice to see it through, even though the Party has a vested interest in keeping the war going forever in order to maintain their status quo."
It's a hard question to answer and you'll get many different opinions based on people's beliefs. A humanitarian will say it's a horrid thing, war, and that all it causes is more suffering, whilst a nationalist and patriotic individual would tell you that 'War' is needed as it's what keeps the world in check. We can thank 'War' for many technological leaps, like the computer, first invented during the war. Likewise, we can also attribute war to millions upon millions of lives lost and innocent families losing the ones they love. You weigh up the pros vs the cons, and there's your answer.
is it ever worth it? For some it is a blessing, for most it is a curse. it will destroy many lives but at the same time, blessing breeds in chaos.
I suppose it could be considered that. Mind you, I dislike war greatly, and I am personally against it but that's just me. I can't deny that war in the first place is a horrid thing but I also can't erase the existence of those who fought valiantly in the past for the freedom of individuals whomst needed it, if you get what I mean? Still, if our race wasn't so focused on weaponry and war, then maybe we'd have had a brighter future set for ourselves. Maybe we'd have flying cars, peace amongst countries and would be inhabiting the stars by now? I don't know. Just some food for thought.
It's not a matter of worthiness, but it just happens. War can be personal or impersonal, but war tends to make people think and feel it's personal. You can delay war, but you can't stop war. It will happen and whether that war is meaningful or not, people will die regardless. So yeah, it's worth it from my viewpoint.
Nope nope nope. There's too many resources lost in wars, and the one who reap the most benefit might not necessarily be the one who "won" the war. War is horrible, and when you count the aftermath (e.g., unreported civilians casualty, rapes, hungers, economic slumps, poverty) it's not worth it, especially for the ones who actually live through the war and directly experiences the aftermath. Maybe it's worth something for the people who coldly see it from afar, and be as far away as possible from the actual casualties; those who live in a relative comfort when others's world burns. Some people might say that war is not personal. But hell, it's personal for those who have their parents killed in war, their mother raped in front of their eyes by the enemy's army or even those on their side, and their little brother buried alive inside of a building because of a detonated missile. Distance, and seeing casualties as a mere number made us desensitized to the horridness of it all. Wait till you're thrusted in the middle of one, unprepared, and you'll wish for a stroll in asphodel instead. War is a last resort. It's sad to see that the ego of some people on the top costing billions of others.
Counter Points War is the time is which Human Technology in all sectors has gained the most growth. Our greatest leaps in technology have occurred during war time or as a result of military research. The question was "Is" not "Was". For this question i feel you can't take into account what only becomes clear after the war has occurred. I'm not heartless and saying you are wrong. You are right in most all cases, i just feel you are answering a different though similar question. That isn't the case with all wars. Not every person or group that leads their people into war is like Hitler with the goal being an ethnic cleansing or world domination or even lining their pockets. Plenty of War throughout Human History has been done for all the right reasons.
Indeed. At the cost of life. Thank god it's not ours. It's not unrelated. A war is waged for something, a certain "satisfaction", that can only be satisfied by having that war being set in motion. Casualties like what I've mentioned above is not merely something that's going to be "clear" until after the war. Histories and countless of wars that we have waged before have given us a lesson about it. When one wage war, and with the current development in governance, casualties, poverty, economic implications, has at least been estimated to happen. That aside, i believe that the OP's question also mentioned the result of war as a discussion material.quoting the OP in their first post : Right from which perspective? Right is such a tricky word to use, cause it's tied with a certain justification. The question is, whose justification is used for this "right"?
"Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war.. becomes Justice!" - Donquixote Doflamingo
There is always a cost to everything. I'm not arguing whether the gains were/are worth the cost, merely saying in our history the gains have pushed us forward decades ahead of the normal technological rise. I was more going off the specific poll question but i see your point. I never meant to say it is unrelated, just that they are 2 different questions concerning more the planning phase and the hypothesized cost for gain as opposed to the end result and what the cost for gain if any actually was. I just think it important to draw a line between intended result and end result in a question of whether or not war is/was worth it. I'm not saying this is the right thing but we will always fight to benefit ourselves and those we care about be it family, country or whatever. As humanity is we will never be objective about these things. When i said "right" i was thinking along the lines of. Starting a war so your citizens don't starve. Not, their leader didn't show me respect... send the armies kind of thing.
One problem with the question, most people on this forum likely have no experience with war, even if they had mandatory military service they likely didn't have to fight. It's like asking a virgin if having a 10 year career as a porn star was worth it. You can find plenty of autobiographies of people who actually fought in wars (lost friends, family, etc.) who discuss if they felt it was worth it or not. As for some of the answers above, I don't think being on the attacker or winning side would always agree it's worth it and the same for the other side.