It is true that war is a form of 'legalised violence', with it's own set of rules, almost like the rules in a game. When I speak of the nature of war, I am coming from the angle of thinking how so many deaths may be unnecessary. Also, I wonder to what extent people wish to avoid war if they do not believe in life after death. The idea of glorification in a heavenly reward may lead people to be prepared to fight and die. Without belief in life after death the other form of 'immortality' is to remembered as a hero.

Yes, Jesus is probably the ultimate role model of martyrdom and I probably gave Socrates as an example because it is simpler. With the story of Jesus there is so much more, with ideas of Jesus atoning for people's sins and being the 'Son of God'. But, Jesus did lead the way of martyrdom in Christendom.

Regarding the anarchism and totalitarianism spectrum, it is worth saying that there can be differing forms. In particular, there is a difference between anarchism which includes violence and that which is based on peaceful community living without need for government control. At the present time, of global powers and technological advances, there may be such a tendency towards totalitarianism. What I find surprising is that what is happening is not questioned more, as being a militant form of control.

What I find surprising is that what is happening is not questioned more, as being a militant form of control. — Jack Cummins

Well, look at it like this: there are people that believe that the Earth is flat. I find that far more surprising, if we're comparing what surprises us about other people's beliefs.

There is also a war of competing ideas. This is metaphorical in a way, but it is being fought out as ideologies. Often these are subtle but they have an impact. For example, there is a lot of emphasis on the unemployed as lazy and (people with disabilities being included). It serves to ignore difficulties of those who experience inequalities. In other words, politics itself is a form of war, with ideologies as weapons. In this context, totalitarianism is presented as being protective.

You are right to say that we use the word 'war' for so many things, including the war against terror, the war against Covid-19 and psychological conflict. It is probably about metaphorical possibilities.

In its literal sense it is about taking up arms in defending territories; it is the Hobbesian way of establishing order against disorder. It is natural in that way, but could be seen as a rather outdated approach to life if it is about literal violence. Of course, aggression is part of human nature and in the 21st century such aggression may be in a different form, such as in cyberwar, which could have as destructive effect as physical violence. There is also the evolutionary possibility of people thinking of avoiding destruction.

There is also a war of competing ideas. This is metaphorical in a way, but it is being fought out as ideologies. — Jack Cummins

I'm sorry, I don't want to be mean or rude to you in any way, but, does this somehow surprise you? At what point in the history of warfare was that not the case?

You are not being mean. Ideologies have always existed; it is likely that they have been identified and analysed so much more in this century and the last.

I think war is simply a part of being human. What could be more natural than seeking to expand territory and values and finding enmity along the way?

It is natural in that way, but could be seen as a rather outdated approach to life if it is about literal violence. — Jack Cummins

What would make 'literal violence' out of date: do you mean by this physical violence? Do you have a model of progress which can demonstrate that violence is less intrinsic to human behaviour over time? I know this is a popular view among progressives.

There is also the evolutionary possibility of people thinking of avoiding destruction. — Jack Cummins

I'm not a big fan of projecting untheorised interpretations of evolutionary theory upon behaviours. But if you must say this, then we can also sat that there is also the possibility of people thinking of more destruction in order to gain control over land and values.

If there were weapons that could vaporise people but leave all buildings and infrastructure in place, that could be viewed as less destructive and yet be more deadly.

When I say that violence of war is out of date I am thinking of how many people see the use of war and violence in religion as being something to be avoided. War exists in a primitive society and can evolve in sophisticated ways, in which the extremes are about nuclear weapons and cyberwar, or, alternatively, thinking beyond war.

It may be 'natural' but how human nature is expressed is another matter. It is true that human beings have an aggressive side but how it is channelled is about human mastery. Awareness of human warlike tendencies may enable humans to become more than slaves to nature.

When I say that violence of war is out of date I am thinking of how many people see the use of war and violence in religion as being something to be avoided. — Jack Cummins

I understand that, but I don't think this matters. Many soldiers I've known feel this way too and yet were committed to conflicts when they were called to them. How do you think we would ever arrive at a time when humans won't fight over territory and values? I am not a utopian or a pacifist nor do I make any comment as to whether war is natural or whether nature can be overcome. Not sure if notions of essentialism or 'human nature' give us anything.

I grew up with the ideal value of pacifism, mainly upheld by my mother and partly by my father. I was not encouraged to play with guns or war toys. One of my mother's relatives had killed in the second world war and had experienced so much guilt. I did avoid fights as far possible, but as I was smaller than most of my classmates, I wouldn't have done very well if I got into fights.

However, I am not a moral absolutist and believe in the importance of defending rights and causes. As an adult I have experienced bullying, mostly not of a physical nature. I have had to 'fight' for myself. Bullying and war may be different, although there is probably a crossover. Defending oneself is important, as well as protecting the rights of others.

I am sure many soldiers do feel they have a valuable role, although some take intoxicants to help them fight and some develop PTSD. It is probably variable how they feel. We live in remembrance ceremonies of red and white poppies. My concern over war is mainly in the context of the wars of the present time. There were so many headlines in papers about being on the brink of third world war 3 about a month ago. It is hard to know how much is sensationalism. But, it was in relation to this, that I first started thinking about war in the world and metaphorical war in the individual psyche.

Military is an integral and essential part of historical and modern societies, even if we don't admit it. Even those few countries that don't have militaries, do have international agreements for defense and aren't without military capability (as usually the police has capabilities of acting in the role). Only the Antarctic is exempt of a military, but it's a continent without a real human society, but an assortment of researchers, just like space is now.

Armed forces will remain an essential part of the society, even if societies can are at peace with other simply for the reason of deterrence. And international efforts to counter the necessity for this deterrence is simply dwindling at the present when even war of annexation has become a reality again. We are simply backtracking now.

When we go from the individual to how groups and societies behave between each other, there comes much complexity to the situation.

When I speak of the nature of war, I am coming from the angle of thinking how so many deaths may be unnecessary. — Jack Cummins

Then think just what we call the most successful military operations? They aren't called wars. They're just military operations.

Just like Operation Danube, the most successful military operation that the Soviet Union made, with perhaps in the Russian history comes the annexation of Crimea in second place. That military operation was done with thousands of tanks, a quarter a million men that later came to be half a million strong occupying force from various countries. The outcome of the operation? 96 Soviet soldiers were killed with 84 of them in accidents. Civilian losses? Negligble, only 137 civilians (and opposing soldiers) were killed with 500 seriously wounded.

It worked so well, that in the First war of Chechnya and in Ukraine 2022 that "Operation Danube" was tried to be mimicked by the Russian leadership. But it's not a war, because we know it as The 1968 Occupation of Czechoslovakia.

In fact, it was Sun Tzu himself that said: "The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.” This tells a lot about the nature of war and it's relationship with politics as a continuation of policy, as Clausewitz argued.

Photos from a military operation that was a brilliant military success:


Even the Czechs got the message in the end: Before 1968 the Russians were their friends, aftewards they were their brothers, as the saying goes.

Hence in fact, Jack Cummins, I would argue that you are describing the nature of pacifism, not war. It is pacifism that sees peace and non-violence as the opposite of war and war as this great evil demanding human sacrifices to itself. It is the pacifist ideology itself that see war as an entity that has to be opposed, not a method that humans has evolved and put so much emphasis and hard work at. Above all, it is pacifism that doesn't want to go down the rabbit hole and ask just what war is if it's a continuation of our policies. Or that nation states even in peace do have armed forces. Pacifism see war and peace as opposite, while the vast majority of military leadership don't see it this way. For them, the best use of a military is like the use of nuclear weapons; that they aren't used in anger, but create that deterrence. After all, as the old Roman saying goes, Ci vis pacem, para bellum.

War is then natural, man being by nature a warmaker — Jack Cummins

I chose this sentence because of the last two terrorist attacks in the US. Both men served in the armed forces when the US was taking military action in Afghanistan. It is believed post trauma syndrome played a part in these men taking such violent action. In the past it seems we ignored what war was doing to those who fought in them, but today we are aware of how war can affect a person and especially our long wars are not human nature. Human nature demands a break from war and possibly years of counseling.

We talk less about war does to civilians and children. We don't want to think about the children and raped women so we don't. The media covered the Vietnam War on the front lines and in no time war protest were everywhere and the US participation in the war came to an end. It is our nature to be horrified by acts of war and I know I am not the only one who has stopped watching the news because of the repeated scenes of war.

I believe honest awareness of war can end war.

Military is an integral and essential part of historical and modern societies, even if we don't admit it. — ssu

Most people don't even recognize it, is what I'm saying. Or they have conspiratorial, deluded thoughts about what the military as an institution actually is. In simpler terms: ordinary people (myself included) simply don't understand some of the most important aspects of the military, and that is by definition, why? Because we're talking about classified documents, whatever those may be in each specific case. A classified document is, by definition, a document that cannot be seen by the general public. That's why many case files have a now infamous caption that says "For your eyes, only".

I don't think it's even the classified part. Ordinary civilan government stuff is classified. Foreign relations has a lot of classified stuff and so does trade relations. It's not because that we simply don't know about it.

I come from a country were military service is compulsory for men and voluntary for women, hence military service is very normal. There's no division in the civilian male population between those who do their service and those who do not, as only a minority opt not to do military service. Hence there isn't this kind of support of "thank you for your service" as it's simply still viewed as an ordinary thing you ought to do. When you don't have compulsory service, any armed forces looks really different. Hollywood films hide how in the end normal the military is as in the end, it's made up of quite normal people. Societies where you have all volunteer forces create themselves this idea of a 'separate people'. Above all, if the country or nation state doesn't have an imminent outside threat, there's not going to be compulsory service and military service will look like an oddity.

Now if I would have been born let's say an American, I've never would have enlisted. Not that I'm against the military, but I wouldn't have thought I would have it in me as I suffered from very low self esteem as a young adult. I would sure be one of those supporting our guys and gals, but as I was lousy at sports in my class, I would have decided that military stuff really was not for me.

And actually armed forces usually make everything to be as normal. Above all, it's all very rational in a sense. You are put into stressing situations, because war is a stressing situation. You are taught handling your rifle by repetition that it comes robotic or nearly unconscious, because when artillery rounds start exploding, that are the things you member to do. It all has to be extremely well coordinated (as otherwise you will at worst accidentally kill each other, blue on blue), hence orders and time tables have to be kept. And then there's a paradox of while obeying orders, you also have to show initiative when it's needed. This all has logical reasoning because of warfare itself and this is not so much understood or simply thought about. For example Foucault views the rigid command system and military discipline as way to crush the individual to become a servant to the government.

But let's take another example: a symphony orchestra. There too is a rigid command system lead by the orchestra conductor and the various musicians play exactly when the conductor wants them to play. Not like you have a full orchestra of 80 to 100 musicians all playing their own tunes when they themselves feel like it. The coordination is essential for the sound to be great and that's the main reason for the conducter to be in such prominent position. But of course, you can view the role of the conductor and the musicians as merely a power play in classical music circles for something else than for the music...

I come from a country were military service is compulsory for men and voluntary for women, hence military service is very normal. — ssu

Above all, if the country or nation state doesn't have an imminent outside threat, there's not going to be compulsory service and military service will look like an oddity. — ssu

I don't understand, you lost me here. Is there an inminent outside threat to Suomi (Finland)?

I'll say some rather obvious things, that haven't been plainly said thus far.

War requires a broad consensus on both sides to the identity of the parties. Everyone, or at least most people involved, have to know which side they are on and who is the enemy. Without such agreement the best that can be managed is a free-for-all brawl.

In order for the separation of identities to occur, or another way of describing such a separation, the term 'polarisation' can be employed. The 'normal', ie 'stable' situation for any society is that folk's identities are not aligned, and as long as there is no great alignment conflict will tend to be internalised within the individuals, and social relations will be largely peaceful.

A classic case of polarisation leading to open conflict was the troubles in N. Ireland. The society became polarised such that religion, class, political party, political party, exact location of home, all became aligned, such that to know one vector was to be able to predict all the others with almost complete certainty. It is this alignment that allows the externalisation of the conflict and the absolute identification that leads to violence.

Your argument, 'honest awareness of war can end war' is important to consider. That is because it is the devastating consequences of war which lead to it being stopped. If those engaged in it do not reflect it can be continued mindlessly. Ideas of patriotism and fighting for entitlement may blind people to be the suffering involved physically and psychologically.

The term 'military action' is just glossing over the term of war. It is true that I have a leaning towards pacifism but not an absolute one. If someone is about to kill defense is needed. The trouble is that war is often not just about defense but an attempt to destroy a perceived 'enemy' and to conquer triumphantly.

If someone is about to kill defense is needed. — Jack Cummins

And that's the way you get down the rabbit hole: So defense from aggression is justifiable and understandable. If so, is then a pre-emptive attack justifiable, if there really exists that evident threat (and the threat isn't just proganda lies)? And when is an military intervention justifiable to another nation state? Was it justifiable for Vietnam to intervene in Kampuchea and overthrow the Khmer Rouge or the Allies to occupy and overthrow the Nazi regime in Germany and Japan?

Why are these questions important when talking about war and the underlying philosophies of it? The reason is that when talking about war, we easily fall into a normative view rather than an objective view, because people getting killed, even if they would be only soldiers, is a bad thing. Thus the viewpoint comes to be a normative one.

The trouble is that war is often not just about defense but an attempt to destroy a perceived 'enemy' and to conquer triumphantly. — Jack Cummins

Yet the vast majority of armed forces in the World during any time aren't engaged in actual warfare. In fact, the majority of sovereign states have not started wars and military actions and have been faithful to the UN charter, which actually starts with the words:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind,

The majority of armed forces are basically training organizations that upkeep deterrence. Many simply exist for domestic security issues and would be very weak to engage in war with foreign armed forces. Only a few countries have the ability to fight a land war beyond their borders or neighboring states.

Attempt to destroy the enemy is an action. In events that we call wars enemies aren't just 'perceived'. The loose use of the word like with "War against Drugs" or "War against Poverty" do obviously have a vague or an undefined "enemy", yet in war that enemy is quite real. And when the enemy doesn't give up, when no other understanding can be found, then it's the turn of for the well rehearsed and well thought systemic violence perpetrated by armed forces. There simply has to be literally the conflict of interests that no political outcome can be achieved. Only then war ensues.

Hence if we ask "why war?", the reasons are political, not that "people are bellicose and want war".

The issue of defense versus the human gravitation for war is what makes it tricky. It is likely biologically based because animals have territorial imperatives, which are instinctive. Human beings have instincts and biological drives. Some of it is about wiring and chemicals, especially testosterone as triggering aggression. However, there may be war between biology and thought, especially as a result of critical reflection. This may be an aspect of evolution of consciousness, which is still developing amongst humanity.