Talk:War/Archive 1

message: -----
Not only does war involve weapons that kill and maim, but there is a very powerful tool often used by warring parties which usually is disseminating Information in the form of propaganda. I would like to hear about the historical perspictive on propaganda and how it has shaped wars and civilisation.
-----
Ok who put this paragraph in? (although it's hilarious)
"Another common perception of war is that it is the answer. We know that it is not the answer but many people believe it is the answer. See War Is Not The Answer for more information."
I quote the page: "Other psychologists have argued that while human temperament allows wars to occur, they only do so when mentally unbalanced men are in control of a nation. This school argues leaders that seek war such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin were mentally abnormal and thus if some sort of screening process, such as elections, could prevent these types from coming to power war would end."
Hindenburg was elected to the presidency and then appointed hitler chancellor, that was in his power just like the president appoints a cabinet, the nazi party, which hitler was leader of, was also voted in with a controlling majority in the Reichstag, they then passed the enabling act giving hitler dictator type powers, hindenburg died, hitler combined the office of chancellor etc etc, my big beef is where it asks for a screening process such as elections, basically they were elected, so that should be taken out.
I can only point out that (as far as I know) every President of the USA (but you can check out with all the leaders of all the nations of this planet) "had" a War. Be very carefull with phrases like: "when mentally unbalanced men are in control of a nation", or are you saying that almost all leaders of nations were and are "mentally unbalanced"? 
These "other psychologist" are talking of things (in this case politics) of which they have simply no idea, because they never never had "such power and responsability". It kind of reminds me of something like this: "What is a specialist?" "It is somebody, who can explain you today, why the stuff he told you yesterday was wrong." or "Those who know how to do, do. The others, teach. Flamarande 19:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: misc. discussion

message: I'd appreciate other eyes on this section, checking for neutral POV, etc. --NathanHawking 00:52, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
:I think the neutrality is fine. I would insert quotations rather than pose questions. I appreciate the urge to put some sort of "cap" on the subject - a summation. Perhaps move the section on the morality of war to the end to serve this function? WardHayesWilson 00:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks once again for your thoughtful feedback, Ward. I'll have a look with fresh eyes, by now, when I get a little extra time. I think your idea of moving the morality section to the end is excellent, a denouement of sorts. I'll put it on my to-do list, but don't hesitate to jump in if the urge strikes.--NathanHawking 06:22, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
Benefits are a values based judgement/comparison and is POV. I've removed it but you can revert if you want to discuss it. It's a fine topic for an essay, and you have written it fairly for the most part, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. For example, I could also write "some benefits include gaining control of natural resources, strategic positioning for future warfare, and power over the citizens of Iraq.. I mean.. the defeated country" which should give you an idea of my POV. --Ben 03:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "Costs and benefits of war" section 

message: the example that war may be 'cost-effective' in case of an intervention to ethnic cleansing etc. seems faulty to me. because, if you intervene in such a case, this means there is already a (civil) war, and you're only helping to end it. You may argue it can be cost-effective to throw more money and effort at an already ongoing war, in order to end it, but not that it can be cost-effective to start a war. dab (ᛏ) 15:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: intervention != war

message: A few things stick out immediately to me reading this, such as "the unquestioned horror of nuclear war", which is not necessarily true, as some people believe that nuclear war can be useful and/or effective. For example, I forget which discussion page thios was but one person made a reference to the fact that Japan surrendered in WW2 earlier than they otherwise might have, thus saving many lives that would otherwise hae been lost to battles and strategic bombing. Therefore, in this particular case, using nuclear strategy could be viewed as effective, and for the greater good. But I agree, a lot of evil does come about accidentally in war, and the best Generals are usually those who reduce it as much as possible.
On another quotation, "Many now believe that wars should only be fought as a last resort." This, I would say is not true. I can back this up with a recent local opinion poll which actually showed that the vast majority of the people in the area were actually for war against certain regimes that were viewed as not worthy of diplomacy, for example, if someone attacks without declaring war then they do not deserve the chance to discuss peace soon after, as this is perhaps dishonourable (though undoubtedly effective). Can anyone prove that many people are against war?
--The1exile 00:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of points on POV wording 

message: There is a particular portion of the information warfare section that discusses the choices of invasion and resistance made by states. In one particular line the article notes that the Argentinians "knew that Britain had the ability to defeat them" but were failed by intelligence that failed to predict that this would, in fact, come to pass.
This statement is not borne out by facts. In fact most military strategists of the time were almost certain that Argentina, possessing not only a division-sized occupation force on the islands but also significant local air superiority and anti-ship capability (cf. French-built Exocet missile), would totally wipe out any attempt the Royal Navy made to retake the islands. This was part of the reason, for example, that American support for the British was so late-in-coming and ineffectual, and that American efforts to seek settlement beforehand were so frenzied — Reagan and his Secretary of State, Casper Weinberger, were worried that a massive defeat suffered by a Western European NATO ally would display weakness to the Soviet Union at a diplomatically-critical moment and encourage an invasion of West Germany. We will never know if this would have occurred — however the opposite did, indeed, occur, and Britain returned to the first rank of powers as a direct result.
Thus, there was not in fact a deficit of information leading up to the Argentine invasion — or, if there was, it was that the Argentines, far from knowing whether the British would counter-attack (though that is a fair enough supposition), did not believe the British could defeat them militarily, given their massive material advantages. This was a view shared by many within the British Foreign Office, which led partly to its failure to predict the outbreak of war and the resignation of the Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington. Wally 02:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information Warfare 

message: I've removed the following sentence. It is a piece of a philosophical argument, not reporting on the current best state of knowledge. "In this sense, war is no more morally problematic than maintaining an armed law enforcement community against crime." WardHayesWilson 02:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Morality in War

message: I just added this section. Please notify me at my talk page if I was out of line.DanielDemaret 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Predicting the outbreak of war

message: Characterised in the first line should be characterized, I believe.
Thanks, have a nice day!
:I'm told that the first is Commonwealth spelling, the latter US spelling.  In Wiki, either is acceptable.  Rick Norwood 14:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: There should be an "environmental theories" under "causes of war". Greenwar forever! savidan(talk) (e@) 07:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenwar! 

message: How wars end (as many or most do!) was conspicuously absent, given the good treatment of how they start and play out.  Anyways, I'm not a warfare expert, but I've stubbed a section there with what I believe to be a true statement.  Take it from there! Remember, "the end is important in all things". -Yamamoto  ;-)  --Ds13 18:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: Termination of war 

message: Currently,
:The only atomic weapons ever used in war - the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan by the United States on August 9, 1945, effectively ending World War II. The bombs over Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki immediately killed over 120,000 people.
This caption seems a bit sloppy.  I am going to rewrite it. --CrypticBacon 08:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States detonated an atomic bomb over Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, effectively ending World War II.  The bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (on August 6) immediately killed over 120,000 people, and are the only instances of nuclear weapons ever used in war.
Let me know what you think. --CrypticBacon 08:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Better. But there's a verb missing: and are the only instances of nuclear weapons being used in war. Pinkville 17:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about this.  The word being seems redundant here, as you could just say the only instances of nuclear weapons used in war and have the same meaning.  I included the word ever to stress the unique characteristics of these attacks.  --CrypticBacon 07:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the word "instances" that affects the verb. You could say: and are the only nuclear weapons ever used in war, but when you add "instances" you aren't referring to the nuclear weapons anymore but rather the act of using them, which necessitates "being". I agree with the impulse to say "ever", and at the time I thought "ever being" seemed awkward, but now I think maybe not. You could also say: the only instances nuclear weapons have ever been used in war, which might be best. Pinkville 13:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, that makes sense.  I'll change it.  Thanks for the tip! --CrypticBacon 04:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nagasaki bombing image caption 

message: This looks a bit out of date. I wonder whether Colombia, the USA and Democratic Republic of the Congo etc etc should be on here too. -- max rspct leave a message  13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This map is somewhat out of date. It unquestionably should mark Sudan as a war zone, and I don't think there is much reason to still place the Basque areas in red. - SimonP 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of conflicts

message: Remember back to George Orwell's 1984? War is peace...that is war philosophy right there...should we add this concept...? --Lord X 00:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: War ideology and philosophy - the purpose of War

message: I'd like to work on this a little. There are limits in almost all wars. Only wars of extermination are unlimited in the scope of their killing. In almost all wars you can surrender by throwing down your weapon. In almost all wars civilians are not regularly massacred. There are very few wars of extermination (Third Punic War, American Indian Wars?). I think it makes sense to change the heading of this section to be "Treaties Limiting War". This moves it from the philosophical question of whether wars are limited and how much, to a focus on the Geneva Convention, etc., which seems to be where this should go anyway.--WardHayesWilson 19:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Limited War

message: I have removed the words "effectively ending World War II" from the caption to the Nagasaki picture. The most recent scholarly research is divided on the effect that using nuclear weapons had on the Japanese decision to surrender. Frank, for instance, notes that the news of the bombing of Nagasaki appears to have had no impact on the meeting of the Supreme Council on the August 9th. While there are numerous after-the-fact claims by Japanese leaders that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki persuaded them to surrender, careful review of the contemporaneous evidence does not bear this out. There is, on the other hand, strong evidence that the invasion by the Soviet Union had an important impact on the thinking of Japanese leaders. While it has been a common assumption in the US that the Bomb ended the war, the current historical research is divided. See for example, John W. Dower, Japan in war and peace: selected essays, (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1993); Edward J. Drea, In the service of the Emperor: essays on the Imperial Japanese Army, (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1998); Sadao Asada “The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration”, Pacific Historical Review, Volume 67 (1998); Richard B. Frank Downfall:The end of the Imperial Japanese empire (New York : Random House, 1999); Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito and the making of modern Japan, (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2000); Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the surrender of Japan (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2005).--WardHayesWilson 02:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nagasaki Illustration