it's a hard question
the point of it is to cull society
In that sense we're overdue for one
on the other hand it's morally bad

mmm, I think war it is not necessary, but it is kinda of a logical thing to happen

nevertheless, I hope in the future we realize that war should not be an option

War is the way humanity advances

Yes

it is indeed to true that humanity has advanced through it

If you declare war out of retaliation to an attack such as 9/11 or Pear Harbor then I can see it as justified

but we have paid a high price for it

War is necessary when the conditions to declare war are met. ```The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
```
This is just war doctrine

it's not necessary for advancement, it's just been our excuse so far

War has caused human technology to develop very fast when it presented

It depends on what causes lead to war

The US military created the Internet

> War has caused human technology to develop very fast when it presented
@NJT44 yeah that's true

War has undoubtedly made us advance in aspects like technology

Probably, probably not.
Politically war advances mostly, but economically it doesn't since most wars end in temporary economic downturns.

However, I think there are things much more important that advancement in technology

advancement for advancement's sake is actually stupid

True but war can also adapt to technology too

Yes, but war will exists while humans are humans

maybe conflict in the vague general sense but "war" specifically probably will only continue to exist with the existence of the state

or some other centralized authority

I'd argue since Islam is inherently against everyone who isn't a Muslim then annihilating them would be justified, or just overpowering them and teaching them how Muhammad was a false prophet

War will never cease as long as we are different

So are we talking about McNuking now? @𝖃𝖆𝖛𝖎𝖊𝖗

are we? lol

Any culture that is different than yours is a threat long-term and can arguably be faught

yeah, I agree we are predisposed to end up doing things like that due to our basic nature. However, I think acknowledging that fact can make us more conscious and give us the oppportunity to become "better"

Nukes are too dangerous to use. Nothing wins in nuclear warfare. Same with biological warfare.

Well, war of course will exist. But I think that the subject in question in most debages is how to reduce the propensity of wars. It is like the position on criminality. You can't end it but you can diminish it considerably.

I think that the fact that not everyone agrees on something like war is proof that humanity has the potential to overcome those basic desires that can end up dooming us all

War isn't inherently wrong

The next war could be economic or informational warfare

@Milk well nothing is inherently wrong

If you get a attacked you should fight back

@𝖃𝖆𝖛𝖎𝖊𝖗 okay nihilist

literally yes

also

i'm all for defending yourself, that shit is awesome

I don't think humanity is lost and that we will necessary end up destroying ourselves

^This