Philosophy Now Forum

Do we have a definition for War in this world as it is today, that is useful?
We appear to be intent on avoiding a Third World War.
In doing so we are tending to fight hot wars locally and hard luck for the country involved.
Which means that world war is now changed in nature.
It may be asserted that democracy has been at war with tyranny for many decades.
The weapons are now those of technology and sheer dominance through trade.
Ukraine has indeed been fighting a proxy war for democracy - not for NATO.
There are of course two extremes of 'democracy' one is a partnership of all democracies, and the other is autonomy or even a global morass of individualism.

adult human beings.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 9:26 am Do we have a definition for War in this world as it is today, that is useful?

a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state

Pretty useless definition, yeah?

Me, I say war is the natural way of things between free men and slavers.

The thing goin' on between Ukraine and Russia, that ain't war, that's just a squabble among slavers.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:23 am adult human beings.

baby adult human beings fighting over toys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiCwE62txO8

Warning!!
Age, the following scenes are disturbing, make sure you watch with an adult for guidance and reassurance.



LOL x a million

it is as it always has been, a struggle to remain alive

-Imp

Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:23 am adult human beings.

I find that answer to be The Truth. The Truth, in the sense of being a capacity for carry on despite the briefness of the answer

RWStanding wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 9:26 am Do we have a definition for War in this world as it is today, that is useful?
We appear to be intent on avoiding a Third World War.
In doing so we are tending to fight hot wars locally and hard luck for the country involved.
Which means that world war is now changed in nature.
It may be asserted that democracy has been at war with tyranny for many decades.
The weapons are now those of technology and sheer dominance through trade.
Ukraine has indeed been fighting a proxy war for democracy - not for NATO.
There are of course two extremes of 'democracy' one is a partnership of all democracies, and the other is autonomy or even a global morass of individualism.

In the modern world, of astronomical observation, war is the supernatural. The astronomical observation is social media, surveillance, academic study, university life, television and internet. With all these units, it is the supernatural of autocracies to still exist.

Putin-Russia’s fear of NATO expansion, though especially the deployment of additional U.S. anti-nuclear-missile defense-system batteries, further into eastern Europe is typically perceived by the West as unmerited paranoia. Surely he must realise that the West, including NATO, would never initiate a nuclear-weapons exchange.

But how can he — or we, for that matter — know for sure, particularly with the U.S.?

For example, while Ronald Reagan postulated that “Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong,” who can know what may have historically come to fruition had the U.S. remained the sole possessor of atomic weaponry. There’s a presumptive, and perhaps even arrogant, concept of American governance as somehow, unless physically provoked, being morally/ethically above using nuclear weapons internationally. Cannot absolute power corrupt absolutely?

After President Harry S. Truman relieved General Douglas MacArthur as commander of the forces warring with North Korea — for the latter’s remarks about using many atomic bombs to promptly end the war — Americans’ approval-rating of the president dropped to 23 percent. It was still a record-breaking low, even lower than the worst approval-rating points of the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson.

Had it not been for the formidable international pressure on Truman (and perhaps his personal morality) to relieve MacArthur as commander, could/would Truman eventually have succumbed to domestic political pressure to allow MacArthur’s command to continue?

RWStanding wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 9:26 am Do we have a definition for War in this world as it is today, that is useful?
We appear to be intent on avoiding a Third World War.
In doing so we are tending to fight hot wars locally and hard luck for the country involved.
Which means that world war is now changed in nature.
It may be asserted that democracy has been at war with tyranny for many decades.
The weapons are now those of technology and sheer dominance through trade.
Ukraine has indeed been fighting a proxy war for democracy - not for NATO.
There are of course two extremes of 'democracy' one is a partnership of all democracies, and the other is autonomy or even a global morass of individualism.

RW,

War/business is business, the only way to end war is to make it unprofitable, colonization did not end with the folding of the British Empire, American just took it over. The American just does it differently but just as cruely and just as violently. American apple pie is bullshit, American is the crime family of the globe. One cannot find out what is going on in the world by watching the evening news, one needs to listen to what the world community is saying. The American Empire is evil and the main source of terrorism. America is corporate America and business is business is war.