War is not a belief. Sometimes is even a necessity... The UK could have easily sued for peace with Germany in 1940 (as Hitler expected)... The USA, well, they were sort of "forced" into the war by Pearl Harbor... I leave it to you imagine what kind of world we'd live in if we just decided to have peace-at-all-costs (tell you what: Russia and China are counting on the free world pacifists to let them do as they please in their self-assigned "spheres of influence"...)
@drymer WWII was brought on by the Allies dumping the costs of WWi on Germany but the larger picture is why do civilized people fail to settle their differences in a less barbarous way
@bookerdana Ah WWII was the [i]Allies[/i] fault. Right. Germany was [i]forced[/i] to invade Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Russia and also tried to bomb the UK into submission [i]because[/i] of the Allies... And I suppose WWI was the Allies fault too, right?
Granted, mankind is sort of getting a little better about settling differences in a more civilized way. Well at least in Europe west of Russia self-proclaimed sphere of influence... They seem to have learned how to coexist peacefully... Russian seems to miss its glorious war days, though... (how dare Ukraine to want to join the EU?!)
@drymer The point is the fact that military leaders talk about throwing nuclear weapons at each other,as others might talk of tossing a frisbee is insane,every side has its justification and another generation is lost. This is rational?
@bookerdana Not rational at all... But nukes are a different beast... From the 1950s on nukes have been a "deterrent", that is, those threats are made to "scare" the others... not with any real intention to use them... People say that it's those nuclear arsenals which have kept the peace, and if we get rid of nukes, then people would be less afraid to start a war... ironically.
But which "military leaders" you speak off...? The last one to make such threat was MacArthur during the Korean war I think (and he was fired for it)... Political leaders do it more often than military leaders... but it's all a game of chicken (like the 1962 Cuban Crisis), I doubt anyone really considers using them. Except perhaps Trump and Kim-dude, and some hardliners in Iran... Even Russia, I don't think they have any intentions to fire a nuke at anyone... Putin boasts about their powerful nukes, but it's just so they can look "tough" and be popular...
Nixon speaking of Dien Bien Phu,Kissinger in 73..therealdonaldtrump and rocket man?Rhetoric heats up fast,Putin ,Trump,Kim are just monkeys in suits,man
@bookerdana Yes, exactly.. None of those you mentioned are "military" though (Putin worked for the KGB, but that's not quite "military")... I have the highest respect for the military, in general, and in this day and age, post-Vietnam, I think they understand the risks and would not do anything stupid... The idea the military men, "the generals", are this trigger-happy reckless bunch originated withe carnage WWI trench warfare, but that also was not quite the case...
@drymer Fine believe war is rational,carnage acceptable,leader rational,and there isn't a better way..because we're still tribal beast beating our chest?
