Is war good for humanity?

>Nazi Germany preaches war as a virtue that will make them strong

>gets utterly obliterated in the war, country is bombed into dust, and its army is slaughtered like cattle while their women are raped on a massive scale, their leaders all kill themselves out of fear and humiliation while the rest are either executed or locked up in prisons and their country is split up between the victorious powers, with the Russian ones ruling over them as slave masters almost and being so guilt ridden by this horrid war that the entire psyche of the nation is driven into a suicide mode of self hatred and self loathing over all the pain and misery they brought to themselves and the world

but then again, some beta and edgy 18 year old whos never been in a fight in his life and is terrified of confrontation said war is cool so who knows?

I have no idea what you are talking about, since, unlike yourself I am not steeped in the Reddit subculture. Does drinking beer have something to do with Reddit, now, young man?

Even Napoleon, the guy who fought the most just war ever, went on record saying that he'd rather folks in the future settled disputes with methods other than war.

War is disgusting

Only for the winners

Humanity is tribes warring with each other for larger shares of booty and booty.

And since intelligence exists as a hierarchy in the social world, more intelligent men will be able to whip up elaborate arguments and come up with elaborate strategms that lead to increasing amounts of booty.

No.

But downfall and reconstruction is.

War is one of the most irrational human activities.

>young man
Eww go away, i dont wanna catch the old

For humanity, as a species, generally yes.

It's the absolute best economic driver, and spurs scientific development like nothing else. Just think of it as the exchange of lives for accelerated progress.

War and alcohol built the state and civilization you stupid anarcho primitivist.

None of that's true though. Using WW2 as an example, the war turned out to be kind of shit for everyone who wasn't the US. For the people in Europe I can't see how having most of your factories blown up and workers shot helped their economies.
As for scientific progress I think wars impact is overstated. Sure giving smart people fat stacks of tax payer cash does help spur innovation. But you don't really need a war to justify doing that.
Really I think the idea that war helps science and the economy is only true for the US. We get all the benefits that comes from all our competition killing themselves while we can sit back and sell them guns.

>Using WW2 as an example, the war turned out to be kind of shit for everyone who wasn't the US.

That's why I said "as a species". If one nation advances, so does humanity.

WWII pushed nuclear power, aviation, and rocketry ahead by decades' worth of normally-paced development, laying the foundation for space exploration- which in itself was a political move to assert superiority over the USSR.

>Sure giving smart people fat stacks of tax payer cash does help spur innovation. But you don't really need a war to justify doing that.

We don't do that, is the problem. The people who are idealistic enough to enact those policies either don't get into a political office or don't get their way in government.

Good for population control

Yes. It keeps the population down and pushes us to technological advancement.

Yes. War is a continuation of politics.

fuck off, beer is delicious.

You're not serious, are you

>We don't do that, is the problem
Sorry I didn't explain myself very well but what I meant is that governments spend billions on military advancements that spur scientific growth to prepare for war. But that money is spent regardless if we go to war or not so its preferable that we don't.
Also both of these assumptions only work for large scale total wars that leave one country totally fine. If the war is too small like Vietnam or Iraq then it doesn't really help anyone. If the war is too big then everyone is dead which you can argue is a bad thing.
Really I think the big wars give general run of the mill wars too much credit as catalysts for innovation.

>Vietnam didn't spur innovation
what are you on about

>most just war ever
>Napoleon
What do you base that on? He was a manlet warrior used and abused, finally killed by men behind the curtains.

yes
it moves the life cycle of nations and their peoples aong
it can spur great advances in technology
it can jumpstart economies

It helps things along, so that humanity doesn't stagnate for too long
so yes, war is good for humanity. is it a good thing for people to go through? absolutely not, war is complete and utter hell, there's no other way to describe it.
But alas, one of the things that human being are best at is fighting.

Soldiers get addicted to the adrenaline and volunteer for more tours.

>governments spend billions on military advancements that spur scientific growth to prepare for war. But that money is spent regardless if we go to war or not so its preferable that we don't.

I mean, no, that's completely wrong. Almost all large military projects are undertaken in anticipation of or during war.

Also- saying that it's preferable that we don't go to war is like saying it would be preferable for apple trees to spontaneously start growing oranges as well. Humans are still just violent, tribal, territorial apes under the facade we've built. The hunger for conflict is part of us. It's part of me, it's part of you. There would need to be a worldwide, concerted eugenics program- spanning generations- with the goal to breed the desire for violence out of people, and that's not going to happen.

Chemo is hell.

It spurs technological development, which is one of the only good things war does.

No, but it's good for technological progress.

>implying tech progress is good itself

War is presented to be bad in a short-term. But in long term war is the only thing which can make you a hero and your nation to survive or get better environment. There is nothing inherently bad about war.

*tips stahlhelm*

*tips "I am with her hat"*

At this point I'll take anything that slows our reproduction

Why don't you go and speed up humanities progress by getting yourself killed by a bunch of ragheads, Jimbo? If nothing less, you'll at least be a hero when you get back to your grieving mother in a star spangled coffin.

Story of this picture?

I don't think war is good, nor do I think it is bad. It is an aspect of the human condition that can't be escaped. On one hand many benefitial ideas that can help greatly during peacetime have come about through war, on the other hand it devestates populations, horrible things happen.

Anyone who has walked through a country ravaged by war can see that war brings out the worst in humanity, brought about by the sheer necessity to survive and the absence of punishments which keep man from following his baser inclinations. Raped and enslaved women and children, lawless bandits which steal and murder anyone who gets in the way and some people who dont anyway, and the works of generations lying in rubble and ash. War is pretty fucking horrible. Its terrifying to see what we can do to each other given an excuse, any excuse.

War is human nature in its most basic form

No, war is just nature. When resources become scarce, we must compete for survival just like a bacterium or a mangy dog must. Some people just delude themselves into thinking we are more noble or somehow higher than we actually are.

>Ten-year-old Polish girl Kazimiera Mika mourning the death of her sister, caused by strafing German aircraft, near Warsaw, Poland, 13 Sep 1939
War is really not nice

Just as hunting is good for culling the herd, war is good for culling humanity.

Run for President and I will vote for you. The legalization of Alcohol was a mistake.

> I could rid of it would be War and Alcohol.

you were pretty spot on until you went full retard

No really, it's just an aspect of humanity. It is an evil of which admittedly some good can be derived.