See if you can justify war... - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  See if you can justify war...

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   See if you can justify war...

Q Cubed posted 12-11-98 07:59 PM ET
Now, it's time to play devil's advocate...i want to see you people try and advocate war by saying that it's good and stuff. :-)
i eagerly await your answers
Imran Siddiqui posted 12-11-98 08:13 PM ET
War can be good! Like the Englsih fighting Hitler to save themselves. To save democracy in Europe! Anyway, I believe a defensive war is just, and an aggresive war is just with good reason (not just taking land, a just reason would be to prevent the spread of Communism). Korea was a just war. The US defended the South Koreans who were totally outmatched by Chinese-supported North Koreans. Also it stopped the spread of Commmunism (you know, that EVIL government), so it was just. Thank you.
Imran Siddiqui
Gilgamesch posted 12-11-98 08:33 PM ET
War is NEVER good. But there can be things that are worse.
Gilgamesch
SnowFire posted 12-11-98 11:01 PM ET
It's very simple. War is bad. But if I buuild this lovely peaceful little utopia with no weapons and everyone loves their fellow man, any crazed fanatic from next door can come in with an army and subjugate us utterly and make us slaves.
In other words: There will always be those who would take power for themselves, and through violent means. Without war there is no way to stop them, and when they succeed the resulting state created is far worse than war.
Challenege: Who had the moral advantage in various wars. I'll do some, then it'll be your turn (and you can change mine of course).
War: Moral Advantage
Civil War: Union (fought to free the slaves.)
Spanish-American War: Leaning toward Spain (they tortured and used concentration camps to bring the Cubans in line, but after declaring that this wasn't a war of conquest we take the Phillipines, and when they revolt we use... concentration camps. With almost public uproar at all. What hypocrites. And let's not forget that Spain aceded to our demands for a peaceful end to Cuba, we just went to war anyway for the heck of it.)
WWI: Morally neutral (Serbian revolutionaries fired on Austria, but the Austrians pulled a USA: after laying down demands that seemed impossible, Serbia agreed. Austria decided they didn't care and set off the whole powder keg of Europe. But both sides did some evil things, like Belgium or Galipolli.).
WWII: One of the few NOT morally neutral wars. Take a stab at who the good guys were.
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 12-11-98 11:35 PM ET
War is capable of bringing out the best in men......& the worst in men.
On the plus side. Wars have been sort of vehicles of progress. They have promoted human evolution, accelerated the development of nations, & stimulated production growth. They have also brought out some of the more noble human emotions, as self-sacrifice, & heroism.
On a negative side. Wars ultimately end in horrid destruction. Massive losses of life, natural resources, materials, diversion of materials from other areas to the war machine, & they have contributed in the downfall of some of the greatest civilizations ever.
War can have its good sides, but overall it's counter-productive. Some nobler human traits, like heroism & self-sacrifice, are rarely seen outside of warzones. Men are brothers in war. There was a case where one soldier, in WWII, was afraid, & didn't fire his gun, but instead cowered in his foxhole, dodging bullets & shells. But he saw his best friend in serious trouble, so he picked his gun up & charged out of his foxhole & saved his friend. Therefore my theory is, for the country overall, war can be counter-productive, but for the individuals of the faceless army war can bring out the best in them, but can also destroy thier lives.
The 'All Quiet on the Western Front' opening fits here again(I wrote it down):
"This story is neither an accusation, nor a confession, and least of all is it an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face-to-face with it. It will try simply to tell the story of a generation of men who, even though they excaped the shells, were destroyed by the war..."
Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general,
YYYH
Abdiel posted 12-12-98 12:10 AM ET
I urge you all to take what I say carefully, because it is not saying what you might think it is saying, I promise you. . .
SnowFire, I have to object to your overly simplified notion of the American Civil War. It was not a war fought over slavery, at least not at first, and never exclusively.
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 12-12-98 12:51 AM ET
The Civil War was mostly fought for the purpose of re-uniting the union of America. In fact, probably 1 in 100 soldiers were actually fighting to free the slaves. Racism was as bad in the north, as in the south. The only difference was the south had slavery. The only reason slaves were freed, was probably to discredit the Confederates in the eys of European assistance.
Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general,
YYYH
SnowFire posted 12-12-98 01:06 AM ET
But reuniting the union is morally nuetral, which is why I didn't mention it. Freeing the slaves isn't. Commiting treason against the United States isn't.
My challenge remains to take other wars and say who was morally right in them.
Larry Boy posted 12-12-98 01:38 AM ET
Alright, for my own sake, I would know what defines a war. Is it the number of people that die, the reason for the deaths, the combined power of weapons fought, the desire of land by one or more parties or what? Is fighting terrorism a war? Is the "war agains crime" a true war or just an "inspirational" slogan? And is it possible to have a war that no one dies in. For instance, two countries get ticked at each other, aim their nukes, prepare their subs, etc... and then cancel at the last moment. Would that be a war? Yeah. Can anyone help me here? Thanks! Love 'ya! -Larry Boy
jdwells posted 12-12-98 03:59 AM ET
A different slant on the Civil War - Southern style. (Note: I don't agree with this point of view, but it was the topic of one of my Poli Sci seminars)
While the War of the Northern Aggression was about slavery, it was first and foremost about a breach of faith. The Southern states viewed the federal system as a group of states (almost nation-states) joined together for political advantage and security: weak federal government. The North took the opposite view: the Union was a nation state unto itself made up of smaller subdivisions loyal to the whole: strong federal, weak state.
The Confederacy was formed because the Union broke faith with Southern ideals. Slavery was simply the issue that started it. The argument began when the Founding Fathers started thinking about the type of government they wanted. It continues today.
From this perspective: morally neutral.
For the record, I'm a Federalist, the good of the nation is more important than the good of a constituent part (probably why i'm drawn to the Peacekeepers :-))
Is an offensive war always bad? I struggle with this one. Scenario: My nation is dependent on a commodity for its survival. The commodity has become scarce. The nation next door has the commodity in abundance, but places onerous conditions on its purchase. Can I justify beginning a war against my neighbor to gain the commodity my nation needs to survive?
Careful, there's some curves in this one. You historians keep quiet for awhile and let's see what happens.
Jeff Wells
Roswell, NM , where the only aliens are illegal!
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 12-12-98 03:02 PM ET
Larry Boy,
I'll give you a dictionary definition of war:
war:1. armed conflict between countries & factions within a country 2.any active hostility or contention; fight; conflict 3. profesion or science of armed conflict 4. AT WAR, in a state opf open hostility; engaging in war 5. TO GO TO WAR, to start or enter into a war
[Dialectal old French werre hostility, from Old High German wera discord]
So, by the dictionary definition, all the examples you gave would be classified as a war. Where a country aims its nukes at eachother, but no hostilities because of a last minute decision, I believe, would be a #2 conflict, just like the Cold War. The war on crime is open hostilities on crime, so that can be a war, & a catchy slogan at the same time.
Hope that helps,
Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general,
YYYH
Spoe posted 12-12-98 03:22 PM ET
Quite the curve, jdwells. I would say it might be acceptable if the following conditions are met:
I) You make it abundantly clear that this is an absolutely vital resource, and that war will come if neccesary
II) You make all possible attempts to resolve the problem diplomatically.
III) The other country's "onerous conditions" are not the result of your own dispicable acts.
IV) You declare war before attacking, and give the other country a chance to acceed to your demands before fighting begins.
Calculus posted 12-12-98 04:16 PM ET
Is that book "All Quiet on the Western Front"
about a German and his friends in WWI? With a guy named Tjaden and anoher named Kemmerich, and another named S********wicz or something?
DHE_X2 posted 12-12-98 04:40 PM ET
War breeds destruction and death, Peace breeds apathy and complacency. Frankly, I don't think that any war is ever justified, unless they start it first. One must remember, however, that there is a reason that war is one of the "horsemen" of the apocalypse...
Mertz posted 12-12-98 06:13 PM ET
Not that I am a warmonger or anything, but there are A LOT of technological benfits that have come out of various wars (or the threat of war, as in the Cold War):
Naploeonic wars: canned food
Crimean war: basic modern surgeory, Red Cross
WWI: evolution of bi-plane to mono-plane, evolution of surgeory
WWII: jet aircraft, first computer, radar, nuclear weapons (leading to nuclear power),
further evolution of surgeory
Cold War: GPS navigation, spaceflight, satellites, Internet (partly a DoD project)
Of course, these techonological discoveries might have been made EVEN WITHOUT ANY WARS, but they would probably not be at the current states. Surgeory is one field that has (obviously) benifitted a lot from the various wars. Then again, one of those guys who died in the trenches in France in WWI might have grown up to become some big scientist.....you never know. Any comments on this?
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 12-12-98 11:40 PM ET
Calculus: I got the 'All Quiet' quote from the movie actually(made in 1930). But it is a book. I haven't read it though.
I agree that a lot of technology advances have come from war. I doubt they'd be as far without it being developed from neccesity in war. War, on the whole tends to be more counter-productive. But industries do benefit from increased production in wars. That's actually one of the reasons WWI was continued by the Germans.
Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general,
YYYH
DHE_X2 posted 12-13-98 01:09 AM ET
In today's world, we cannot risk a war simply for economic gain. With most major countries already housing quite an arsenal of genocidal weapons, and some minor ones housing them(but having less reservations about using them), a war between, say, the U.S. and China would have catastrophic effects.
Plasmoid posted 12-13-98 01:32 AM ET
A war between the US and anyone would be catastrophic.
DHE_X2 posted 12-13-98 01:47 AM ET
usually the other side, though. With China, the shear size of their army would be formidable. They are the closest thing we have to a match in military power.
SnowFire posted 12-13-98 04:22 PM ET
Nope, because quality beats quantity every time. If China ever got the money to modernize and upgrade their army to eqipment with techs higher than the 1970's they'd be very formidable. The closest match to us right now would be Britain. Don't even suggest Russia.
Wars for economic gain can be profitable if the other side is weak enough, witness the Gulf War.
Spoe posted 12-13-98 04:39 PM ET
You forgot a few for WWII, Mertz.
Add: Ballistic missile(V2, and planned V5(so add ICBM), guided bombs, surface to air missiles, the ballistic missile submarine(Germany tested operations of the V2 off of submarines and had, IIRC, the first successful submerged launch of a ballistic missile), bombers with intercontinental range(B-36 and German Condor(?, they had one that flew to within 10 miles of NYC), neither went into serial production before war's end), infantry antitank weapons(Panzerfaust, Panzerschrek, Bazooka)
For that matter, cold war:
Nuclear propulsion, LGBs, Air to air missiles(may actually have been WWII)
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 12-13-98 06:02 PM ET
I'll quote Stalin for SnowFire on this one,
"Quantity has a quality all its own"
-J Stalin.
I don't know if you can trust a madman like that, but he still has a point. You send enough men against someone, odds are, you will win. The casualties would be horrendous though. I'd go for quality any day, personally.
Spoe,
I think Mertz was talking things used in peacetime that were developed in wars
But, I guess I'll add a couple
WWII, The assault rifle. (The Stergewher[something like that], which a Soviet tank mechanic, Kalyshnakov, based the AK-47 on)
WWI, Everyone's favorite tank! Or machine gun on wheels, whichever. Poison Gas, (illegal, but still developed in WWI, first used in Ypres IIRC). Huge mines, storm trooper infiltration, so many things.
Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general,
YYYH
Hothram Upravda posted 12-13-98 06:03 PM ET
We are still able to win a war with China. But give them a few more years. They are really upgrading there tech and equip. In 20 years we might not be able to take them with out a little help. Which is why it would be nice to have them as friends
Hothram Upravda
TB
DHE_X2 posted 12-13-98 06:20 PM ET
and lets not even talk about nuclear weapons. If they can massacre their own people like at Tienamen square, imagine what they would try to do to us.
DHE_X2 posted 12-13-98 06:23 PM ET
Oh, and Snowfire, Britain isn't even close to a match for us. Their tech is somewhat on par with the U.S., but their quantity is what is lacking. Anyway, we don't have to worry about Britain, since we've been friends with them since WWI.
SnowFire posted 12-13-98 06:38 PM ET
Yes, their quantity is lacking. But they do have an island base, and we'd take some serious navy and air force losses trying to storm it, assuming Frnce/Iceland/Ireland/Denmark etc. stay neutral. Just sneak a sub on our carriers and we'd be powerless to take over Briatin.
Gilgamesch posted 12-13-98 07:11 PM ET
I think you are wrong. Technology does not come from war. It may appear there first, but that is due to the fact that military often gets most money for research and it is much easier to destroy things than to do something productive. Take fusion power for example. They can use it to build a bomb, but they can't use it for anything else.
Calculus, Yo-Yo-Yo-Hey, yes it is that book. The author is called Erich Maria Remarque. You should read it if you haven't done already. It is brilliant. Like all books it is better than the film made of them.
Gilgamesch
Jeffery posted 12-13-98 09:09 PM ET
My Justifications for war:
1. War is expensive, but if the economic gains can off set that, this can be justified
2. War to back up diplomacy, diplomacy based on empty threat doesn't go anywhere, an example from Star Wars, blowing up Alderaan while destorying a potential resource, quieted many other planets which would've been otherwise expensive to subdue, so war to prevent war is justifiable
3. War to maintain stability, if war is nessessary to keep the people happy, then they wouldn't mind dying for it
4. Yes, war does speed up research out of nessessity
5. War is just another way of disbanding your useless units, I forgot who said this, but "If you kill one, it's a tragedy, if you kill a million, it's a statistic"
6. War is sometimes needed to show commitment in an alliance, because it will absorbe hugh amounts of production capacity
7. Lessons are learned through wars, it's an art, since it's unavoidable, you might as well have more fo it, because the more you fight, the better you get at it
That's all I've got to say about that, quote from Forrest Gump paraphrased to fit this subject, "War is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get" (I could start about a million and a half of those), hehe
Can't wait for Multiplayer SMAC.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: See if you can justify war...
Q Cubed	posted 12-11-98 07:59 PM ET Now, it's time to play devil's advocate...i want to see you people try and advocate war by saying that it's good and stuff. :-) i eagerly await your answers
Imran Siddiqui	posted 12-11-98 08:13 PM ET War can be good! Like the Englsih fighting Hitler to save themselves. To save democracy in Europe! Anyway, I believe a defensive war is just, and an aggresive war is just with good reason (not just taking land, a just reason would be to prevent the spread of Communism). Korea was a just war. The US defended the South Koreans who were totally outmatched by Chinese-supported North Koreans. Also it stopped the spread of Commmunism (you know, that EVIL government), so it was just. Thank you. Imran Siddiqui
Gilgamesch	posted 12-11-98 08:33 PM ET War is NEVER good. But there can be things that are worse. Gilgamesch
SnowFire	posted 12-11-98 11:01 PM ET It's very simple. War is bad. But if I buuild this lovely peaceful little utopia with no weapons and everyone loves their fellow man, any crazed fanatic from next door can come in with an army and subjugate us utterly and make us slaves. In other words: There will always be those who would take power for themselves, and through violent means. Without war there is no way to stop them, and when they succeed the resulting state created is far worse than war. Challenege: Who had the moral advantage in various wars. I'll do some, then it'll be your turn (and you can change mine of course). War: Moral Advantage Civil War: Union (fought to free the slaves.) Spanish-American War: Leaning toward Spain (they tortured and used concentration camps to bring the Cubans in line, but after declaring that this wasn't a war of conquest we take the Phillipines, and when they revolt we use... concentration camps. With almost public uproar at all. What hypocrites. And let's not forget that Spain aceded to our demands for a peaceful end to Cuba, we just went to war anyway for the heck of it.) WWI: Morally neutral (Serbian revolutionaries fired on Austria, but the Austrians pulled a USA: after laying down demands that seemed impossible, Serbia agreed. Austria decided they didn't care and set off the whole powder keg of Europe. But both sides did some evil things, like Belgium or Galipolli.). WWII: One of the few NOT morally neutral wars. Take a stab at who the good guys were.
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 12-11-98 11:35 PM ET War is capable of bringing out the best in men......& the worst in men. On the plus side. Wars have been sort of vehicles of progress. They have promoted human evolution, accelerated the development of nations, & stimulated production growth. They have also brought out some of the more noble human emotions, as self-sacrifice, & heroism. On a negative side. Wars ultimately end in horrid destruction. Massive losses of life, natural resources, materials, diversion of materials from other areas to the war machine, & they have contributed in the downfall of some of the greatest civilizations ever. War can have its good sides, but overall it's counter-productive. Some nobler human traits, like heroism & self-sacrifice, are rarely seen outside of warzones. Men are brothers in war. There was a case where one soldier, in WWII, was afraid, & didn't fire his gun, but instead cowered in his foxhole, dodging bullets & shells. But he saw his best friend in serious trouble, so he picked his gun up & charged out of his foxhole & saved his friend. Therefore my theory is, for the country overall, war can be counter-productive, but for the individuals of the faceless army war can bring out the best in them, but can also destroy thier lives. The 'All Quiet on the Western Front' opening fits here again(I wrote it down): "This story is neither an accusation, nor a confession, and least of all is it an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face-to-face with it. It will try simply to tell the story of a generation of men who, even though they excaped the shells, were destroyed by the war..." Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general, YYYH
Abdiel	posted 12-12-98 12:10 AM ET I urge you all to take what I say carefully, because it is not saying what you might think it is saying, I promise you. . . SnowFire, I have to object to your overly simplified notion of the American Civil War. It was not a war fought over slavery, at least not at first, and never exclusively.
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 12-12-98 12:51 AM ET The Civil War was mostly fought for the purpose of re-uniting the union of America. In fact, probably 1 in 100 soldiers were actually fighting to free the slaves. Racism was as bad in the north, as in the south. The only difference was the south had slavery. The only reason slaves were freed, was probably to discredit the Confederates in the eys of European assistance. Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general, YYYH
SnowFire	posted 12-12-98 01:06 AM ET But reuniting the union is morally nuetral, which is why I didn't mention it. Freeing the slaves isn't. Commiting treason against the United States isn't. My challenge remains to take other wars and say who was morally right in them.
Larry Boy	posted 12-12-98 01:38 AM ET Alright, for my own sake, I would know what defines a war. Is it the number of people that die, the reason for the deaths, the combined power of weapons fought, the desire of land by one or more parties or what? Is fighting terrorism a war? Is the "war agains crime" a true war or just an "inspirational" slogan? And is it possible to have a war that no one dies in. For instance, two countries get ticked at each other, aim their nukes, prepare their subs, etc... and then cancel at the last moment. Would that be a war? Yeah. Can anyone help me here? Thanks! Love 'ya! -Larry Boy
jdwells	posted 12-12-98 03:59 AM ET A different slant on the Civil War - Southern style. (Note: I don't agree with this point of view, but it was the topic of one of my Poli Sci seminars) While the War of the Northern Aggression was about slavery, it was first and foremost about a breach of faith. The Southern states viewed the federal system as a group of states (almost nation-states) joined together for political advantage and security: weak federal government. The North took the opposite view: the Union was a nation state unto itself made up of smaller subdivisions loyal to the whole: strong federal, weak state. The Confederacy was formed because the Union broke faith with Southern ideals. Slavery was simply the issue that started it. The argument began when the Founding Fathers started thinking about the type of government they wanted. It continues today. From this perspective: morally neutral. For the record, I'm a Federalist, the good of the nation is more important than the good of a constituent part (probably why i'm drawn to the Peacekeepers :-)) Is an offensive war always bad? I struggle with this one. Scenario: My nation is dependent on a commodity for its survival. The commodity has become scarce. The nation next door has the commodity in abundance, but places onerous conditions on its purchase. Can I justify beginning a war against my neighbor to gain the commodity my nation needs to survive? Careful, there's some curves in this one. You historians keep quiet for awhile and let's see what happens. Jeff Wells Roswell, NM , where the only aliens are illegal!
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 12-12-98 03:02 PM ET Larry Boy, I'll give you a dictionary definition of war: war:1. armed conflict between countries & factions within a country 2.any active hostility or contention; fight; conflict 3. profesion or science of armed conflict 4. AT WAR, in a state opf open hostility; engaging in war 5. TO GO TO WAR, to start or enter into a war [Dialectal old French werre hostility, from Old High German wera discord] So, by the dictionary definition, all the examples you gave would be classified as a war. Where a country aims its nukes at eachother, but no hostilities because of a last minute decision, I believe, would be a #2 conflict, just like the Cold War. The war on crime is open hostilities on crime, so that can be a war, & a catchy slogan at the same time. Hope that helps, Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general, YYYH
Spoe	posted 12-12-98 03:22 PM ET Quite the curve, jdwells. I would say it might be acceptable if the following conditions are met: I) You make it abundantly clear that this is an absolutely vital resource, and that war will come if neccesary II) You make all possible attempts to resolve the problem diplomatically. III) The other country's "onerous conditions" are not the result of your own dispicable acts. IV) You declare war before attacking, and give the other country a chance to acceed to your demands before fighting begins.
Calculus	posted 12-12-98 04:16 PM ET Is that book "All Quiet on the Western Front" about a German and his friends in WWI? With a guy named Tjaden and anoher named Kemmerich, and another named S********wicz or something?
DHE_X2	posted 12-12-98 04:40 PM ET War breeds destruction and death, Peace breeds apathy and complacency. Frankly, I don't think that any war is ever justified, unless they start it first. One must remember, however, that there is a reason that war is one of the "horsemen" of the apocalypse...
Mertz	posted 12-12-98 06:13 PM ET Not that I am a warmonger or anything, but there are A LOT of technological benfits that have come out of various wars (or the threat of war, as in the Cold War): Naploeonic wars: canned food Crimean war: basic modern surgeory, Red Cross WWI: evolution of bi-plane to mono-plane, evolution of surgeory WWII: jet aircraft, first computer, radar, nuclear weapons (leading to nuclear power), further evolution of surgeory Cold War: GPS navigation, spaceflight, satellites, Internet (partly a DoD project) Of course, these techonological discoveries might have been made EVEN WITHOUT ANY WARS, but they would probably not be at the current states. Surgeory is one field that has (obviously) benifitted a lot from the various wars. Then again, one of those guys who died in the trenches in France in WWI might have grown up to become some big scientist.....you never know. Any comments on this?
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 12-12-98 11:40 PM ET Calculus: I got the 'All Quiet' quote from the movie actually(made in 1930). But it is a book. I haven't read it though. I agree that a lot of technology advances have come from war. I doubt they'd be as far without it being developed from neccesity in war. War, on the whole tends to be more counter-productive. But industries do benefit from increased production in wars. That's actually one of the reasons WWI was continued by the Germans. Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general, YYYH
DHE_X2	posted 12-13-98 01:09 AM ET In today's world, we cannot risk a war simply for economic gain. With most major countries already housing quite an arsenal of genocidal weapons, and some minor ones housing them(but having less reservations about using them), a war between, say, the U.S. and China would have catastrophic effects.
Plasmoid	posted 12-13-98 01:32 AM ET A war between the US and anyone would be catastrophic.
DHE_X2	posted 12-13-98 01:47 AM ET usually the other side, though. With China, the shear size of their army would be formidable. They are the closest thing we have to a match in military power.
SnowFire	posted 12-13-98 04:22 PM ET Nope, because quality beats quantity every time. If China ever got the money to modernize and upgrade their army to eqipment with techs higher than the 1970's they'd be very formidable. The closest match to us right now would be Britain. Don't even suggest Russia. Wars for economic gain can be profitable if the other side is weak enough, witness the Gulf War.
Spoe	posted 12-13-98 04:39 PM ET You forgot a few for WWII, Mertz. Add: Ballistic missile(V2, and planned V5(so add ICBM), guided bombs, surface to air missiles, the ballistic missile submarine(Germany tested operations of the V2 off of submarines and had, IIRC, the first successful submerged launch of a ballistic missile), bombers with intercontinental range(B-36 and German Condor(?, they had one that flew to within 10 miles of NYC), neither went into serial production before war's end), infantry antitank weapons(Panzerfaust, Panzerschrek, Bazooka) For that matter, cold war: Nuclear propulsion, LGBs, Air to air missiles(may actually have been WWII)
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 12-13-98 06:02 PM ET I'll quote Stalin for SnowFire on this one, "Quantity has a quality all its own" -J Stalin. I don't know if you can trust a madman like that, but he still has a point. You send enough men against someone, odds are, you will win. The casualties would be horrendous though. I'd go for quality any day, personally. Spoe, I think Mertz was talking things used in peacetime that were developed in wars But, I guess I'll add a couple WWII, The assault rifle. (The Stergewher[something like that], which a Soviet tank mechanic, Kalyshnakov, based the AK-47 on) WWI, Everyone's favorite tank! Or machine gun on wheels, whichever. Poison Gas, (illegal, but still developed in WWI, first used in Ypres IIRC). Huge mines, storm trooper infiltration, so many things. Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general, YYYH
Hothram Upravda	posted 12-13-98 06:03 PM ET We are still able to win a war with China. But give them a few more years. They are really upgrading there tech and equip. In 20 years we might not be able to take them with out a little help. Which is why it would be nice to have them as friends Hothram Upravda TB
DHE_X2	posted 12-13-98 06:20 PM ET and lets not even talk about nuclear weapons. If they can massacre their own people like at Tienamen square, imagine what they would try to do to us.
DHE_X2	posted 12-13-98 06:23 PM ET Oh, and Snowfire, Britain isn't even close to a match for us. Their tech is somewhat on par with the U.S., but their quantity is what is lacking. Anyway, we don't have to worry about Britain, since we've been friends with them since WWI.
SnowFire	posted 12-13-98 06:38 PM ET Yes, their quantity is lacking. But they do have an island base, and we'd take some serious navy and air force losses trying to storm it, assuming Frnce/Iceland/Ireland/Denmark etc. stay neutral. Just sneak a sub on our carriers and we'd be powerless to take over Briatin.
Gilgamesch	posted 12-13-98 07:11 PM ET I think you are wrong. Technology does not come from war. It may appear there first, but that is due to the fact that military often gets most money for research and it is much easier to destroy things than to do something productive. Take fusion power for example. They can use it to build a bomb, but they can't use it for anything else. Calculus, Yo-Yo-Yo-Hey, yes it is that book. The author is called Erich Maria Remarque. You should read it if you haven't done already. It is brilliant. Like all books it is better than the film made of them. Gilgamesch
Jeffery	posted 12-13-98 09:09 PM ET My Justifications for war: 1. War is expensive, but if the economic gains can off set that, this can be justified 2. War to back up diplomacy, diplomacy based on empty threat doesn't go anywhere, an example from Star Wars, blowing up Alderaan while destorying a potential resource, quieted many other planets which would've been otherwise expensive to subdue, so war to prevent war is justifiable 3. War to maintain stability, if war is nessessary to keep the people happy, then they wouldn't mind dying for it 4. Yes, war does speed up research out of nessessity 5. War is just another way of disbanding your useless units, I forgot who said this, but "If you kill one, it's a tragedy, if you kill a million, it's a statistic" 6. War is sometimes needed to show commitment in an alliance, because it will absorbe hugh amounts of production capacity 7. Lessons are learned through wars, it's an art, since it's unavoidable, you might as well have more fo it, because the more you fight, the better you get at it That's all I've got to say about that, quote from Forrest Gump paraphrased to fit this subject, "War is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get" (I could start about a million and a half of those), hehe Can't wait for Multiplayer SMAC.