I have just finished reading Starship Troopers, by Robert A. Heinlein, and typically, an anti-Draft song starts playing.

Despite having a blackbelt in a martial art, and playing violent videogames for the majority of my life, I am a pacifist. I whole-heartedly believe that war and killing are the absolute darkest parts of humanity.

The thought of Vietnam, knowing just how many people died, and for what cause? is actually physically sickening, and although I have the chance to go there this Christmas, I don't want to if I'm going to see a spectre of such a disgrace. To quote Bruce Springsteen, "A lot of folks went there, and a lot of folks didn't come back."

I'm scared of what's happening in the world today. I'm scared of how Bush/Cheney/any right wing American clamouring for war is going to act. Condeleeza Rice is blaming Iran for instigating a lot of the protests of the Muhamed cartoons. I'm scared at how easily the flames are being fanned across the world. The 'Freedom of Speech' appeal is nearly a straw man, and it's framing Islam as over-reactionary and intolerant.

I'm afraid for the world, because we're all too deaf to each other, and we demonize and ostracize each other, without thinking that they too, are human beings. I'm scared that we're starting down a road that we're all going to come to regret.

Is anyone else worried about the world?

You think it's bad now, just you wait. Inevitably, small arms technology will get to the point where one man with a gun can obliterate skyscrapers. When that starts happening, I intend to turn on the news and laugh all day long.

Terrorism will only get worse, because technology continues to make it more and more viable. They didn't have C4 and jumbo jets 100 years ago, and as such there was a lot less terrorism 100 years ago.

And remember, Americas weaponry is usually a few decades ahead of what's publicly known. Powered armor = few American causalties = no holds barred invasions!

War is inevitible as long as seperate, equal sovereign states exist with no power above them. Terrorism is really just a sideshow compared to what is coming next, be it in 10 years or 50 years. Eventually a nation will emerge which is strong enough to challenge the global dominance of the US. The US will attempt to defend it's position, and we'll have WW3. The cycle will go on untill something changes the fundamental rules interstate relations, ie either one nation extinguishes the sovereignty of all others and unites the human race, or the earth becomes uninhabitible and we all die.

A better way would be to create a world state through co-operation. Nations could voluntarily cede their sovereignty to a world state which would have a monopoly on all legal military force on earth. The state would act for the good of all mankind, favouring no particular race, colour or creed. This however, I find unlikely to happen. Certainly suicide by competition is a more probable outcome.


War! Huh, yea. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Huh!

War is just another form of population control by the all mighty.

Bring back the Roman Empire!

^^ Fuck yea!

But the Roman Empire never could have ruled the world. For a central government to be viable it needs to be in constant communication with every region under its control. It needs to be able to project military force quickly and reliably to the remotest locations. The Roman empire reached it's peak in the 2nd century AD. It was so unweildy that the legates of the frontier provinces were basically kings themselves, independent from Imperial authority. If central directives conflicted with their own designs, they felt free to disobey, even levy war against Rome itself. Now that technology has progressed sufficiently, a world state is feasible in a practical sense.

We need to find some habitable planets, pack everyone into massive colony ships and send each religion to its own world.

Then nuke all the holy cities of Earth from high orbit.

Why does war have to be inevitable?

Because weapons are like computers: they keep getting cheaper, smaller, more numerous, and more powerful.

Does that mean that they have to be used?

Some crazy people will always use them, and crazy people don't look like they're going away any time soon.

Or if you prefer, replace 'crazy' with 'oppressed and misunderstood', whatever floats your boat.

Well, I subscribe to the Hobbesian school of thought that nations are basically people in the state of nature writ large. Leave them alone and they will conflict because of three elements which are always present: competition, diffidence, and most importantly, the desire for glory. But if you put someone above them to keep them in line, issues (most of the time) can be reasolved peacefully.

YAAAAAAAAAHEEEEEEEE!

If you take several thousand rational people and place them in an empty piece of land I gauruntee you will wind up with a large raving lunatic with borders and a national anthem.
Throw in military spending and you have a recipie for disaster.

because, to quote you, "most people are cunts"

So we're all agreed then: everybody's fucked.

just woke up post, but oh well.

Hobbes had it down. he says every human is selfish, all motives behind any behaviours are for gain for the individual. i believe this is true when human get into groups, crowds, towns, nations. When you strip it down the only actual difference in humans is ability, stronger faster smarter humans control the power, until money is created, then those with the most money rule, those who have the ability to make money recieve the power.

the only way to stop wars and end power struggles is to equalise ability, every human is equal to the next in every way. Kurt Vonnegut wrote this shortstory about equlaising ability.



I also believe the only way humans will ever find true peace is with a shared consciousness, privacy, secrets, lies are all impossible when every human consciousness is conected. I first came across this concept in Deus Ex Invisible war, which has some great philisophical view points on capitalism and "invisible" polictical wars. in Deus ex they had an artificail intelligence as the administrator of this shared intelligence, the AI conducted govermental issues, and every human voted, but not consciously. the AI had an in dept and intimate knowledge of every persons life. there was a single city state and no enforcement of any kind, government simple need not exist.

Technology is heading towards this level, 20 years ago you could either fone your friends land line or send them a letter in the mail. If they were'nt at home you couldnt speak to them until they got there to answer the fone. 20 years on if they dont answer their land line we drop them a text message, a page or sign in to MSN to chat. we email from our computers, from our mobile telephones our laptops even public terminals on the street/train/aircraft. now you have to make an effort to stay out of contact, and an even bigger effort to stay undetected by CCTV, credit card and eftpos usage and mobile telephone calls. if we are this connected now, where will we be in 20 years? implants, computer controlled environments? and i agree with the technology of weapons, they only get smaller more powerful and more readily available.

Hobbes' analysis of the human machine is more true of states than of individuals. While humans can let feelings like love, loyalty, honour etc get in the way of what is best for them, states are under no such restraints. States are perfect creatures of rationality-they know what they want and if on the ballance of things they stand to gain from taking something, they will do so.

To paraphrase Bullet Tooth Tony, "States have drive and clarity of vision. They're not clever; they smell pussy and want a piece of the action."

I don't quite follow. If a state taking what they want is a facet of rationality then war is a rational thing. This line of reason may not be of love, honour or loyalty (although I'd argue that they often are, if a collective is simultaneously swayed into doing something based on these emotions), rather it is defined by greed, malice and selfishness. I think any presupposition of rationality is an abstraction.

Here's something else to consider: A lot of people claim to despise war, yet why do so many of these people get enjoyment from watching war on film or engaging in war simulations in video games? I think it’s entirely possible that a desire for war might just be part of human nature. Even particular ant colonies go to war – we’re not the only species that does it. When you look closely enough it seems war never has an intellectual grounding. I think it’s war for wars sake. If this is the case then the only question remaining is whether or not we can evolve above it, can a human collective become so intelligent that it can quench this apparent desire for war?

For an entity which has an inherant need to grow stronger and become more secure against internal and external threats, war is a perfecfectly rational means for the attainment of those ends.

The moral universe of the state revolves around what is good for it. What makes the state stronger is good, what makes it weaker is bad. To a degree, this is true for people as well. However, this system of reason is clouded by human emotions. The state has no such emotions. Policies are formed by various groups of people who are paid to devise ways to make the state more powerful, more secure, and more glorious. If you accept (as Hobbes does) an inherant selfishness to be the center of gravity of reason, then you find that the state is far more rational than the individual.

Agreed here to a certain extent, SDR. States themselves are not rational by the fact of their existence, but they are rational when you are debating a form of social organisation of a territory when other states have formed.

When you mix a natural human drive for resources, for working in groups (plus linguistic, racial and cultural differences) alongside geographical factors and high population densities, state-like entitites are likely to form. Thus, not all presuppositions of the rationality are abstractions, because it would be rational to form a state and to use war to perpetuate the states existence of the state guarantees you a higher quality of life than it would be to living outside a state.

Despite my yearnings for a conservative, militant nationalist society build on discipline and readiness of defense, I've never had an expansionist mindset. I believe that militarism is best served for defending one's nation in case of foreign aggression; preservation of your nation's territorial integrity is a sacred duty!

Despite constantly watching war movies, reading on military history and playing violent war-related games, I personally would only fight in a war for the defense of NZ. (I have a rather isolationist approach to foreign affairs.)

You seem to describe a society that is perpetually ready for war, yet you don't plan on engaging in active expansionist military conquest? You simultaneously overestimate yet underestimate your enemies, just like the Fascist movement in Europe did, and that was the key to their downfall, they were incapable of winning a war.

Coming from nation that has sufferred so much at the hands of aggressors, I believe that it is necessary to learn from their enemies, become militaristic but only act defensively. Vigilance will always be the price of nationhood.

In a previous thread, I've mentioned how society should be build on discipline, compulsory military training should be no exception that rule.

The trick is to do what the yanks do: be perpetually ready for war, and hone your skills on 'trap and release' countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. They win most of the time and learn from the times they lose.

Thus, while the United States may piss everyone off and blow billions on wars which become public relations nightmares, it could never be occupied by an outside force.

I don't think my 'ideologies' have anything in common with the Fascists on this matter. The fascist war machines of Germany, Italy and Japan were build on expansionist goals, while my support for militarism is purely for defensive purposes.

I support my argument through historical references cited by Hitler and Mussolini. Mussolini argued that Italy shall become and "new Roman Empire" and referred to the Meditteranean as the "little Roman lake" (translated from "Mare Nostrum" in Italian). Hitler actively preached hatred against the "Untermensch" Slavs and believed that it is the noble birthright of the superior "Herrenvolk" to take "Lebensraum" off the inferior peoples.