eh i dont think the problem is a lack of world wars

not world wars

if you fight another major power, they may melt your neighborhood with your kids and wife

hear me out

or really any wars really

"I'm of the opinion that much of the global problems we have today are caused by the fact that most of the major powers stopped fighting wars properly "
i think the problem is more like most countries dont really use what they have to grow themselfs.

what makes you think a world war isn't going on now? it's not like in the previous 2 people on the first day said 'holy shit, a new world war is starting"

they want control, not for their people to do well.

Allow me to rephrase

Having gotten themselves into wars, they've stopped finishing them properly.

it's like how people wonder if we're headed for a civil war, we might have already done that (we can call it civil unrest because it's on a slow burn)

it's not the amount of wars

it's not that they SHOULD fight wars

it's that when war occurs it must be fought properly, it must be concluded properly

oh, you're british?

the US has the same problem

getting into a bunch of wars and not fighting to win really.

No Canadian

us USA people tend to do wars down south style, lots of duct tape and superglue

But look at the european empires, see where they've been. Look at native NA populations, African populations, what they've done and the way their territories have shifted and which ones are stable or not stable.

Areas where one group has successfully subjugated the others for a long time and either continue to hold power, or have otherwise transitioned into a coexisting state, those are the stable ones

Areas where the invaders have come, conquered, then left or lost control, those are areas of instability.

this seems to be very consistent

for obvious reason

I saw the word *trebuchet* and now I'm invested.

The long and short of it is. If you're going to get into a war, not that you should, after victory you need to be able to secure and occupy territory for at a long time.

Depends on your desired outcome.

If you seek to exert biological dominance over the largest geographic area with no regards to social stability or the establishment of government, the Mongol Empire comes to mind.

But for the longevity and prosperity of a nation, you're arguments solid.

I'm talking about for example if one side is trying to genocide you, and you want them to stop.

you can't just beat them in and leave

that just fuels the fire for their next attempt

Not necessarily. Take the Armenian Genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire.

right, a core idea in war is that your end objective is a psychological defeat @Bringerof_D

occupation must last long enough that the ones who held the original ideology that pushed them to hate you are dead. Long enough that those who hold a grudge over their defeat are dead. Long enough that everyone alive has lived under your rule, your system and considers it to be normal.

That's an unfortunate truth. The eradication of the opposing ideology and complete demoralization of a people is truly required for the death of a culture.

practicality often stands at odds with morality unfortunately.

Additionally, removing a system required the inception of a more preferable societal structure to prevent resurgence. This is historically accomplished by individual and economic empowerment, while the subjugation of conquered nations instills the seeds of contempt for future warfare.

exactly

when i say occupy, its not neccesarily by oppression and force

The Treaty of Versailles being the best example of how imposing consequences upon the defeated can result in the revenge of a naiton.