Is war necessary?

Is war necessary?

Yes.

There will always be conflict but that doesn't mean there will always be armed conflict.

no. Its basically just two rich sociopaths not being able to make a business deal, so they pay a bunch of poor people to go murder each other and who evers team wins, gets to do what they want in the business deal

What's wrong with that?

it's a waste of resources

Not if you can get more resources from the enemy to compensate or even surplus for your home resources.

War is the continuation of politics by other means.

sometimes

what if you are not a rich sociopath and a rich sociopath attacks you

Defensive war: Absolutely. Any person who tells you to turn the other cheek is either an idiot or looking to suckerpunch you themselves. The only way you are going to preserve your own way of life is to be ready to spill blood to protect it.

Aggressive war: Not really, unless your goal is to build an Empire. Wars of aggression tend to backfire disastrously.

Military intervention (joining someone else's war): Depends on the situation.

Pre-emptive war: You better have solid proof that your neighbor intends to do you harm.

Aggressive war is never necessary no.

Defensive war is however, because sometimes retards don't follow the first rule.

War was necessary

Necessary? No.
Effective and efficient? It used to be.

What if your own way of life isn't worth preserving?

Necessary for what?

This.

Today its more of a battle to maintain stability in the world.

I think he means the resources of civilization as a whole are wasted

War's necessity depends on your purview. Some people believe in empire building, and hegemony built through force.

However, war is an inevitability, and in that way it is a necessary fact of life. People are volatile and nations are but ideologies and sometimes ideologies go to war. Tribalism will do that.

Then you die in the gas chamber and no one gives a shit about you.

Yes. How else are you going to settle ethnic and ideological differences? Multiculturism doesn't work.

Is being forced into a defensive war a sufficient moral ground to conquer the aggressor and absorb them?

Why drag morality into it?

If you can confidently pull it off and the benefits outweigh the costs, do it to ensure the future safety of your polity.

If you're unsure whether you can successfully take, hold and absorb the aggressor's territory, or unsure of the political, diplomatic, economic, military and social consequences, then maybe hold off on that to avoid making yourself more vulnerable.

Well, a people conquered by an aggressor and an aggressor conquered by a defender might have very different outlooks on their occupation. Like, the mentality of a Vichy France citizen, for instance, would be really set against the occupier. Compare that against some of the people who lived in the GDR, who may have felt more resigned to conquest since, "Hey, maybe we got what was coming to us for trying to gobble up our neighbors."

Yeah it's a natural way of dealing with overpopulation without completely pissing your citizens off

>necessary
Towards what end?