18 replies to this topic

[brainless]

I just spent some hours watching TV (for the first time in years and I don't intend to do something as stupid as watching TV again) with my dad. Well, he just got out of hospital so I've got an excuse for watching TV with him
On one of the stations, they showed a movie about a german submarine in the second world war (with lots of shooting, explosions, blood, dead people and the bad bad government people who lost their grip on reality) - and when the submarine crew managed to get to their port of destination, they happened to leave the submarine just in time for an air raid, during which the submarine sank and all of the crew [except for the emo guy who was about to freak out during all the time] got killed.
After the movie, my dad pointed out that "war doesn't make sense and never will" - at first, I agreed but when I thought about this when I lay in my bed, a thought struck me: War does make sense and will always do.

This theory covers only capitalist societies but it's probably possible to extend it to cover other forms of organizing society:

In capitalism, there are two main principles people follow:

1) get rich (accumulate as much capital [of virtual value, e.g. money, or real value, e.g. housing, cars, ...] as possible)
2) one is only rich due to others being poor

Therefore: To become rich quicker than the average person, you have to make the average person get rid of their money, preferrably into your pockets and without your money going the same way.

Enters: War Business

The common nation is financed by collecting taxes from its citizens.
The common nation has an own, armed branch of society (except for Liechtenstein whose last soldier died in 1939 and which hires swiss mercenaries ever since).

Military equipment is very expensive, at least in absolute numbers - common budgets contain hundred millions or even billions of Euros.

Some nations own high-end military systems, keeping it up-to-date and runnung costs them huge amounts of money each year. But: They only need equipment for a certain number of soldiers (only once per soldier) and a certain number of tanks, planes, bombs. Once they have been equipped with this, they will reduce their military spendings on a large scale.

Since a nation with high-end military equipment usually can't get involved into an armed conflict (think of the public opinion, with "public" meaning not only national but also international), they need to get rid of their equipment one way or another when they plan to upgrade.

As it will be hard to explain to the average citizen why high-end equipment, paid for by the tax-payer, should be destroyed, it will be sold to "Less Developed Nations" [which can't afford brand new equipment]. This way, Developed Nations get rid of yesterday's war machines and LDNs get their hands on quite new war tools at second-hand prices.

At some point in this chain, the old stuff can not be sold to another nation anymore, even though there are lots of years left before it will not be usable anymore. So what should we do with bombs from ten years ago?

When we arrive at this point, a war comes in handy: It kills people [well, that's bad enough] and, more interesting from a capitalist point of view, infrastructure and military hardware: bombs (why would anyone want to blow up a million-dollar-piece of metal and explosives?), tanks, planes etc.

And this is the interesting thing: Military hardware is state-owned capital. Paid for by public money for things produced in mostly private factories. The money earned in a weapons factory goes to one single person or a group of persons which is significantly smaller than the population of this state; the tax-payer's money does not flow back into his own pockets (well, a little part does; the large sums will be collected somewhere else).

After the war, the average person will end up with less capital than before (less money; less infrastructure; less military equipment) and the average person will be busy rebuilding what has been destroyed during the war.
On the other hand are those persons who sold the weapons - paying someone to count their money and trying to get the next round going since they won't have to face what they produce. As long as they don't have to do the fighting or cleaning up, there is no reason for them to stop putting weapons into this world.

-----

Short infos:

* Most of the world's weapons are exported from the USA (#1), Russia, Germany (#3), the United Kingdom, France and Israel (#6). China is producing lots of weaponry for its own use.

* Germany has given away two high-end submarines to Israel (about 300 million Euros each) and signed a contract to sell three more of them at one third of the regular price to Israel while Israel destroyed most of the infrastructure in the Lebanon's south. The four submarines which are not paid for by Israel are a gift from Germany, 1.2 billion Euros of taxpayer's money.

* These submarines are slightly modified in Israel to make them able to launch Israel's nukes.

* When the USA pull their military out of one place, they usually sell most of the weapons they brought there because it's cheaper to sell them there and buy new ones than taking them back home.

* everytime the political signs point to "war", the value of shares from companies producing military equipment rises

[morosophos]

Pardon me while I fail to understand how the capitalist wealth gap justifies war.

Your argument that "war makes sense" is founded on the idea that war generates economic flow from the taxpayer to the arms dealer, which is a wonderful deal if one is an arms dealer. However, census reveals that very few members of our population are actually arms dealers, even taking into account however many of them deal under-the-table, concealing their true occupations from the eyes of Uncle Sam. Unless one sells weapons, war as an economic catalyst is a bad thing.

Some would argue, however, that war generates revenue on other levels of society than just the weapon-producing sector. This takes into account not only the industries of weapons themselves, but also the materials from which the bombs and missiles were crafted, the work required to generate enough power to maintain the facilities, even the increased needs for items like produce to satiate the appetites of ardent workers. There is a trail to the frenzy, a money trail, by tracing which reveals the nature of this economic spike. First there are the weapons: bombs, missiles, ships, planes, etc., all of which are costly and labor-intensive in their assembly. As you have stated, the state foots the bill, throwing vast amounts of money into warfare (according to “Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007,” the United States government plots to spend $439.9 billion on the military budget, though the United States has recently been separating its budget into a defense budget and a military at-large budget, in order to appeal for even more funding). The money the government spends comes from its citizens, who support the system with their taxes. Therefore, any spike in the economy occuring after the first point in the trail is at the cost of the citizen. The materials and energy required for making the armaments is payed ultimately by the citizen; the fuel necessary to run the machines rapes the wallets of the masses; the housekeepers to watch the homestead while the tenants fight the war suck their salaries from the people. And though meanwhile the nation seems to fund itself, with each citizen participating in the economy: contributing to the war (loss), balanced with salary and benefits (gain), the cash-flow is effectively from one another's pockets. This is especially detrimental when—as you mentioned—the worth of a bomb cannot be recycled when they explode. The government tries to mask loss with loans, which are repayed at great expense for years and years post bellum.

Hence, there is a net economic loss to war. Even if there were an economic gain to war, this does not justify brutal slaughter, since one must consider the price of life v. the dollar: I hear the exchange rate is not favorable yet.

Most people are part of the middle-class, which pays dearly for everything the government claims to do on its behalf, and countless books and documentaries have been published regarding the state's abuse of the poor in wartime. Most people agree that justice is the greatest good for the greatest number, in which case war, which benefits a very small number of people, is not just.

[tractor]

Lets add some stuff here.

Quote

I just spent some hours watching TV (for the first time in years and I don't intend to do something as stupid as watching TV again) with my dad. Well, he just got out of hospital so I've got an excuse for watching TV with him

We Don't want him in there do we

After the movie, my dad pointed out that "war doesn't make sense and never will" - at first, I agreed but when I thought about this when I lay in my bed, a thought struck me: War does make sense and will always do.

It dosn't make sense

Quote

In capitalism, there are two main principles people follow:

1) get rich (accumulate as much capital [of virtual value, e.g. money, or real value, e.g. housing, cars, ...] as possible)
2) one is only rich due to others being poor

I wish i was rich. But i don't care

Quote

The common nation is financed by collecting taxes from its citizens.

Taxes take to much

Quote

Some nations own high-end military systems, keeping it up-to-date and runnung costs them huge amounts of money each year. But: They only need equipment for a certain number of soldiers (only once per soldier) and a certain number of tanks, planes, bombs. Once they have been equipped with this, they will reduce their military spendings on a large scale.

I watched a show abouy those. They cost almost $500,000 every year.

Quote

As it will be hard to explain to the average citizen why high-end equipment, paid for by the tax-payer, should be destroyed, it will be sold to "Less Developed Nations" [which can't afford brand new equipment]. This way, Developed Nations get rid of yesterday's war machines and LDNs get their hands on quite new war tools at second-hand prices.

I still don't see why we do.

Quote

Short infos:

So: What i get is were wasting money

Edited by tractor, 28 November 2006 - 06:34 AM.

[adriantc]

brainless, on Nov 28 2006, 01:31 AM, said:

I just spent some hours watching TV (for the first time in years and I don't intend to do something as stupid as watching TV again) with my dad. Well, he just got out of hospital so I've got an excuse for watching TV with him
On one of the stations, they showed a movie about a german submarine in the second world war (with lots of shooting, explosions, blood, dead people and the bad bad government people who lost their grip on reality) - and when the submarine crew managed to get to their port of destination, they happened to leave the submarine just in time for an air raid, during which the submarine sank and all of the crew [except for the emo guy who was about to freak out during all the time] got killed.
After the movie, my dad pointed out that "war doesn't make sense and never will" - at first, I agreed but when I thought about this when I lay in my bed, a thought struck me: War does make sense and will always do.

This theory covers only capitalist societies but it's probably possible to extend it to cover other forms of organizing society:

In capitalism, there are two main principles people follow:

1) get rich (accumulate as much capital [of virtual value, e.g. money, or real value, e.g. housing, cars, ...] as possible)
2) one is only rich due to others being poor

Therefore: To become rich quicker than the average person, you have to make the average person get rid of their money, preferrably into your pockets and without your money going the same way.

Enters: War Business

The common nation is financed by collecting taxes from its citizens.
The common nation has an own, armed branch of society (except for Liechtenstein whose last soldier died in 1939 and which hires swiss mercenaries ever since).

Military equipment is very expensive, at least in absolute numbers - common budgets contain hundred millions or even billions of Euros.

Some nations own high-end military systems, keeping it up-to-date and runnung costs them huge amounts of money each year. But: They only need equipment for a certain number of soldiers (only once per soldier) and a certain number of tanks, planes, bombs. Once they have been equipped with this, they will reduce their military spendings on a large scale.

Since a nation with high-end military equipment usually can't get involved into an armed conflict (think of the public opinion, with "public" meaning not only national but also international), they need to get rid of their equipment one way or another when they plan to upgrade.

As it will be hard to explain to the average citizen why high-end equipment, paid for by the tax-payer, should be destroyed, it will be sold to "Less Developed Nations" [which can't afford brand new equipment]. This way, Developed Nations get rid of yesterday's war machines and LDNs get their hands on quite new war tools at second-hand prices.

At some point in this chain, the old stuff can not be sold to another nation anymore, even though there are lots of years left before it will not be usable anymore. So what should we do with bombs from ten years ago?

When we arrive at this point, a war comes in handy: It kills people [well, that's bad enough] and, more interesting from a capitalist point of view, infrastructure and military hardware: bombs (why would anyone want to blow up a million-dollar-piece of metal and explosives?), tanks, planes etc.

And this is the interesting thing: Military hardware is state-owned capital. Paid for by public money for things produced in mostly private factories. The money earned in a weapons factory goes to one single person or a group of persons which is significantly smaller than the population of this state; the tax-payer's money does not flow back into his own pockets (well, a little part does; the large sums will be collected somewhere else).

After the war, the average person will end up with less capital than before (less money; less infrastructure; less military equipment) and the average person will be busy rebuilding what has been destroyed during the war.
On the other hand are those persons who sold the weapons - paying someone to count their money and trying to get the next round going since they won't have to face what they produce. As long as they don't have to do the fighting or cleaning up, there is no reason for them to stop putting weapons into this world.

-----

Short infos:

* Most of the world's weapons are exported from the USA (#1), Russia, Germany (#3), the United Kingdom, France and Israel (#6). China is producing lots of weaponry for its own use.

* Germany has given away two high-end submarines to Israel (about 300 million Euros each) and signed a contract to sell three more of them at one third of the regular price to Israel while Israel destroyed most of the infrastructure in the Lebanon's south. The four submarines which are not paid for by Israel are a gift from Germany, 1.2 billion Euros of taxpayer's money.

* These submarines are slightly modified in Israel to make them able to launch Israel's nukes.

* When the USA pull their military out of one place, they usually sell most of the weapons they brought there because it's cheaper to sell them there and buy new ones than taking them back home.

* everytime the political signs point to "war", the value of shares from companies producing military equipment rises

First of all war is kind of good if you think on a large scale. People dying is a necessary evil... of course as long as it isn't you or your family... Food resources are going down so every extra meal may save a starving child in Africa or in some other distant corner of the world.
And of course war is necessary for countries like the USA to test there new "toys" and get rid of the old ones. And if you also get oil for that then its Iraq

About Israel... well practically jews rule the world. The USA pay billions of dollars (tax-payers money?) every year to Israel as a no-return lawn. Of course the USA does this because 90% of the very rich people in the USA are jews. Not blaming them or anything, but it doesn't seem fair that they get an advantage. Specially when you saw what they are capable of (in Lebanon). Everyone feels guilty for what Hitler did and now they get money and arms etc. for free.

PS: I like the quote... Orwell's book is one of the best... Even thought it's not 1984 and we are not under communist rule the book it still suites today's society.

[mojoman]

hmmmm i had a theory like this once....though mine is slightly different (though just as cheerful and happy as your one )

the beginning -

WWII....

USA, which was fairly isolationist at the start suddenly startes investing huge amounts in the arms industries, mass-producing weapons, ammo, guns, tanks.....all of which was very good for the economy, the arms dealers and oil dealers (who supplied oil for the tanks) making lots of money and becoming powerful....money was also invested in the Military and CIA ofc...making the heads of the CIA and Military happy......
also, the USA suffered very little from WWII, having no bombings, and its armed forces generally doing well (Except at pearl harbor ofc)
also, even when battles were lost, and ammo got used up and so did oil....this meant that the oil/arms/military got even more money to replenish the losses!

the middle...the Cold War.....

the presidents, not wanting to piss off the rich oil/arms industries, or the powerful CIA/Military, continued to invest in those 4 groups, and started mass producing nukes.....the Soviets did likewise, not wanting to fall behind the USA military-wise.....and so came the Cold War....
Korea....generally ended the same way as it started, however, after the USA were pushed back to the 58th parallel, it is my theory that the arms/oil/military/CIA groups suddenly saw the profit in LOSING an over-seas war! if they started to lose, the war would take longer, which would subsequently mean that THEY got more investment fro mthe government to patch up the losses!
and so came....Vietnam...
the war the americans lost...heavily...but it dragged on for almost 10 years! thats a long time, and a lot of money invested in the military/arms/oil/CIA.....it also saw the use of jet fighters and helicopters more than any other war....by the way, helicopters and jet fighters use up a lot of...OIL..... and cost a lot for the ARMS COMPANIES...to make....where do they get that money from? the government, who support the war (Cos they are scared of the CIA, lol...)
of course, there was ONE president who wasnt afraid of the CIA....but unfortunately, that wasnt such a good idea. Poor ol' kennedy . CIA bastards.
anyway, after his assasination, the vietnam war went on.....and the military got more money....but things werent going like clockwork....the youths of the world were getting wise...it wouldn't take much to make the hordes of hippies into hordes of revolutionary soldiers...there were mass protests in the streets, the march on washington, was , well, a march on washington, even though it wasnt about vietnam.....the Watergate Scandal was also a kick in the teeth for the government....and so, the Vietnam war ended.....

1970s - 1990s...small wars and "aid".....
the arms/oil/military/CIA knew the dangers of another long-term losing war.....so they told the government to start "small wars" and giving "aid" to countries in need with arms and stuff....
now i don't know all of the wars and countries that the usa gave aid to in the years 1970-today, but i know there were a lot of them....troops were stationed in somalia (black hawk down, any1 seen it =)?) they gave aid to Iraq (yes, Iraq lol) in the Iraq-iran war....they gave aid to israel, they gave aid to the taliban (yes, the taliban, weird eh? but its true, look it up) and who got sent to train all these people? the CIA...so this was profitable to the Arms industry (provided weapons) the Military (provided training in battle) the Oil industry (provided oil for the tanks,planes, missiles, etc) and the CIA (did assasinations and trained ppl in assasination)....

1980s....the Arab Oil Embargo...

in the 1980s, the islamic countries of Arabia were pissed. majorly. the USA and the west was supporting their enemies, Israel, and it was the west's fault that there was an Israel in the first place as well! Yes, they were pissed.
so they decided to make the west pissed as well...by cutting off their oil supply!

now..this made the Oil industries....PISSED...verrryyy pissed...pissed as in "omgwtfimbankrupt" pissed....at its worst, petrol stations in the USA were starting to put im signs saying : "sorry, no petrol available today". eventually, with some diplomacy, the Embargo ended....but the Oil industries werent about to forget....so they went to their buddies, CIA Military and Arms....... ..and so, the USA had a policy shift..instead of supporting the "good guys", they supported the guys who would give them oil....such as....Kuwait! that's right, they went to war against the guys they had once given aid to against Iran....and after Kuwait, Iraq...and after Iraq...who knows?

and there u have it guys, my one, giant, Conspiracy Theory.....

i also have an extension to this, in which the USA ordered the destruction of the 2 towers, but if i say that, the CIA are gonna come get me lol

[FLaKes]

technology greatly improves because of war, it is a reason for it to do so. Knowledge is power, and it definitely is the best way to win a war. I have also heard that the greatest medical improvements were made during world war 2, but in a cruel way with nazis experimenting with the prisoners.

[mojoman]

the NAzis did discover that smoking causes cancer....but they DIDNT TELL ANY1....lol, ironic, they could have saved millions of lives if they had, which makes a nice change...
penicillin was also discovered during world war II.....

however, during world war 2, millions of ppl died, the nuclear bomb was discovered, and if my theory (see above) is correct, then it was the starting point for the takeover of everything by the oil/arms/military/CIA groups...so was it worth it? no....

[matak]

"war what it is good for.. absolutely nothing-- YEAH"

during centuries of human history there was always wars, people were fighting, dieing for certain believes they had in their minds. they were driven to war either by crazy dictators or need for expansion. to simply talk about war is just not possible, but to say that it is necessary is even more crazy thing.

yes, the whole world economy is build on supply and demand rules, and at that time when supply becomes much more than demand economy crises pops out, people lose jobs money becomes worthless and whole general moral of population goes into despair. the best example of such thing happened in 1930ties of past century. at that time in USA there was 30 000 000 people without jobs. stock market collapsed. it wasn't anything better in Europe or anywhere else in the world.

at that time nobody really thought right how that situation could be resolved peacefully beacouse there was not enough time. Dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Japanese emperor (i don't know his name) started encouraging people in their crazy ideas. new world order was necessary, beacouse old empires like united kingdom had colonies in which they drained fortune while other country's just couldn't. it wasn't that hard for them to "convince" people in their ideas and people begin to follow. huge military machinery was built, people had jobs and soon war begun. In that war 20 million people lost their lives, yes there were some great discoveries for some of them i'm sure we don't even know yet.

But wasn't that enough of a lesson?

Why fight, why hate each other when we are all the same. Yes some are white some black and some yellow. Some are christians, some jews some muslimans. But isn't that all the same?!?!

With all of this technology at our hand we still need to fight? I mean i'm not that smart beacouse i know things are way more complicated than that, but shouldn't we all be a bit more smarter.

Why do we need to find balance in destruction, terror and fear. Shouldn't it be better if all of us found some common goal which we could reach for? I don't know, but just thinking of this post in which war is justified makes me really sad, beacouse in all of our history of fighting we still haven't learned our lesson.

Maybe the war is the answer, the ultimate answer. Let us all fight and kill each other, and try to destroy this precious planet we live on beacouse we just aren't worth living on it at all.

[mojoman]

despite my posting above there about evil big industries controllign everything (and i still stand by that) I also think that war can sometimes be neccesary.....
not war exactly, but evil.....evil must always come about, or humanity would destroy itself....there has to be uprisings of evil to remind us why we have to be good and why violence is bad.....
look at the US and UK right now....war hasnt truly affected these 2 countries for over 50 years...and look at the youth culture changes.....
post WWII...peace-loving hippies
1980s/90s.....punks,grungers, anarchy, ppl who fight the law for fun
late-90s-today.....chavs, people who fight [b]any1 /b] for fun and think guns are cool

see the changes in culture as the west begins to forget how wars feel like? evil and wars must always return, or the world will be the worse for it.....
cheerful, aint i?

[osknockout]

OK. The original idea was that war makes sense because it creates economical benefits, right?
I'd say that wouldn't be the case in the long run. Think about it. What is economics besides the study of the laws of supply, demand, their effects, and factors? When you make a war against a capitalist nation- and I mean a total war here, e.g. I don't think that Germany and USA will have a limited war. I mean an actual 'real war' per say, not some Gulf War where you can overwhelm an army by numbers, technology, and expertise making it a bit of bomber practice- what you're doing is reducing the total demand in the region.

Sure, you've made the nation enter a kind of economic boom because of the giant growth in demand, and sure you'll also get high demand for reconstruction after they're defeated, but you've reduced the number of people and the properties of the state to rubble. You've reduced demand for everything except population - and that doesn't get an economy flowing - so you've decimated net world trade.

Of course most people here are writing from the US experience of wars - Americans have never had major military turmoil on home soil since 1865. They've never had to experience the economical roller coaster that comes from having their buildings bombed to rubble and their cities set to inferno mode. All they've had really is invasion and bombing campaigns. Of course that could be seen as economically successful. Everyone gets employed and industry's booming. How's that NOT beneficial?

It's relatively easy too from a military perspective. No home front to worry about having to defend. The point is that the USA never had to feel the direct effects of major war on home soil, but that doesn't mean the world hasn't. When it should have been rolling smoothly from the effects of the Great Depression, Germany spent years rebuilding, not to mention the turmoil of having to forge a new national identity in the Cold War world. And Japan. I'm sure the effects of those 2 A-bombs can still be felt today. Imagine if someone A-bombed New York or San Francisco in the 1940s. Economically beneficial, anyone?

brainless, if you were trying to say that limited wars such as the Iraq war today are economically beneficial, I'd say it's only temporary. Sure you spend maybe $2 dollars something at the gas pump instead of 6 euros if you're an American. But your government pays more than $5.8 billion a month for it. And who pays? It's surely not the oil companies last time I checked Exxon-Mobil's profits.

It's the taxpayer at the end. It's the taxpayer who pays for allowing oil companies to spike demand for a limited supply of oil - not economically smart in ANY sense, you're asking for a stock crash. It's the same taxpayer who pays for maintaining those F-16s - hey, if we didn't have wars every few years, we wouldn't need those would we? And it's the same taxpayer who forces *ahem* certain governments to use loans from other nations so that they don't complain about higher taxes during a war. That's not net economical benefit, that's an allocation of economical resources that could be put to better use elsewhere AND is used to lower world trade - the same stuff that allows for economic gain. I don't know if you're an oil company executive, politician, or just an 'Average Joe' taxpayer. But hey, if you think that a war is economically beneficial for you, well that's your take of our world situation.