Is war the only way well ever achieve peace on Earth??

[SeebianWurm]

There was no "yes/no" question asked, Priesto. Please clarify.

The topic is what he was answering to probably.

Ah.

[kojikun]

International conflict will cease when my armies crush every nation on this puny planet. Under my dominion where will BE no nations who could fight with one another! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[SyntaxVorlon]

Though highly unlikely, alien contact would be beneficial to human intrarelations. An entirely new trade partner with whom it would be most profitable if the entire planet participated in trade.
No alien civilization is going to have contact with us in our current, extremely volitile and greedy state, any contact will be had after some SC-like agency in their government reformed our planet to the point that we would be good for contact. There really is no point what-so-ever in an invasion. The Earth's resources can be found in far vaster quantities in the asteroid belt and Oort cloud. Earth is just one big organic chemistry set that was shaken up and left behind the fridge for 4 billion years.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There are two basically two types of Wars. Wars of Agession and Wars of Libetation/Freedom.

Wars of Agression are started by those governments who view force as a legitimate way to get something they cannot or do not wish to get through honest barter. In most cases it is members of a ruling class that the get the benefits of this type of war. Note that this isnt always, but usually is, something material.

Wars of Liberation are fought against those who have imposed, or wish to impose, their will through the use of force, on others. This, in my opinion, is the only moral reason to fight in a war. (Assuming of course, that the use of force isn't being used to counteract the illegitimate use of force by your "side")

The only way I forsee in eliminating War is through education. Whenwe teach people the difference between the two types of wars they will refuse to participate in any Wars of Agression, only in Wars of Liberation/Freedom. Only when people on Earth finally stop seeing force as a legimate means of conducting business will wars come to an end.

Note that this is being VERY general and I could go into much more depth on many of points made in this post. I think what I am posting is more then enough to get the point across though. Do people agree or disagree with my assessment?

There are two kinds of Wars, but those are not the kinds.

There is Irrational (or psychological) War, and there is Rational (or political) War. The only other distinction you can make is between War waged by Nation States and War waged by Non-Governmental Organizations, and in either case they can wage either kind of war.

There is absolutely no differentiation between War as waged in an agressive fashion and War waged for the purpose of "liberation". Who can define "liberation", anyway? The term its self is one that can be so utterly twisted by sophists that it is nearly pointless.

The only differentiation you can make is between irrational and rational war; and in the legal realm, between the sort of body that wages it. And clearly war can be aggressively waged for rational aims. There is a rational calculus which can motivate aggressive War, because War is simply the extension of politics by other means.

Indeed, War does not even necessarily mean armed conflict. Economic Warfare is a form of genuine War between States; one which can be waged just as vigorously as an armed conflict, and in the case of embargoes or blockades, result in casualties, especially among the civilian populace.

I am an educated individual; and I think it odd that you believe that someone you can "educate" the world to peace. The simple fact is that when you have organized political systems, they will compete with each other for available resources, and that competition will sometimes escalate along a known scale, which can range into armed conflict. This is a rational process which is part of the natural interaction of governments.

Theoretically a one-world government would alleviate this; but NGOs also must be factored in, and therefore we must conclude that a one-world government would be faced with considerable uprisings, especially facing the unenviable task of dealing with the poor social conditions of large regions that would now be its writ.

Finally and the most complex, Irrational War. This is war motivated by psychological factors, such as religion. It is very hard for a rational individual to understand this field, but irrational wars have happened on numerous occasions - and would actually include WWII, and as the actions of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany qualify as being the mass psychosis of a large number of people, a group insanity perpetuated in a psychological fashion - Likewise, religious wars, from the crusades to Muslim Jihads to the current violence in the Middle East.

That sort of violence will be insolvable without the world population firstly being entirely areligious, and secondly a far greater understanding of - and ability to manipulate - the human mind than we currently have to prevent the development and propagation of the political mass-psychoses which have the same effect on that scale.

The eliminate of warfare is not necessarily a good thing, as it would imply certain things have been done to humanity that are far from ideal.

[Cpt_Frank]

Concerning the original question:

Human nature is dominated by a strong egoistic element, it is this what made mankind what it is today. This means that there will always be a kind of struggle among humans which can't be prevented, but there's a way to prevent large-scale armed conflicts: preparing for them.
A balance of terror (cold war anyone?) usually never fails to secure peace. Si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for the war.
It is the only possible way world peace can ever be achieved.

[Lord Pounder]

As i've said before

I only recognise one race the human race, they sooner we realise this the sooner we can explor the galaxy, find an alien race, and start a war with THEM

Human nature is to be very competative, and the ultimate conpetition os survival hence you try and end your competitions survival.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Concerning the original question:

Human nature is dominated by a strong egoistic element, it is this what made mankind what it is today. This means that there will always be a kind of struggle among humans which can't be prevented, but there's a way to prevent large-scale armed conflicts: preparing for them.
A balance of terror (cold war anyone?) usually never fails to secure peace. Si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for the war.
It is the only possible way world peace can ever be achieved.

The Cold War was caused because the benefits of armed conflict in those situations were outweighed by the negatives, forcing the conflict to be waged by other means (Economic, espionage, proxy, etc), instead of direct confrontation. It really changed nothing, and such an "overkill situation" is not going to last, nor appear often.

[Cpt_Frank]

Concerning the original question:

Human nature is dominated by a strong egoistic element, it is this what made mankind what it is today. This means that there will always be a kind of struggle among humans which can't be prevented, but there's a way to prevent large-scale armed conflicts: preparing for them.
A balance of terror (cold war anyone?) usually never fails to secure peace. Si vis pacem para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for the war.
It is the only possible way world peace can ever be achieved.

The Cold War was caused because the benefits of armed conflict in those situations were outweighed by the negatives, forcing the conflict to be waged by other means (Economic, espionage, proxy, etc), instead of direct confrontation. It really changed nothing, and such an "overkill situation" is not going to last, nor appear often.

Well yeah, that's what I said, it prevented the outbreak of the war through intimidation.
And what do you mean by it changed nothing?