|
| ▲ | halfmatthalfcat 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| That's not necessarily true. The point of war is to force control. You can force control without killing people. Economically, psychologically, digitally, etc. Killing people is one of the ways but not the only way to wage war. |
|
| ▲ | Aeolun an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The point of war is enforcing your will through violence. You can skip the violence, but then bullies would essentially be unrestricted. |
| |
| ▲ | megous 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | There's no single point to war. It can be anything from enjoying the destruction and killing and torture and lack of rules, to "retribution" (for people who are into thinking of other people in terms of arbitrarily and vaguely defined groups), though creating chaos to get political advantage, to distraction from political issues, or really whatever... | |
| ▲ | swat535 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "War" for the sake of "war" is pointless. It should be tied to a political objective for some kind of gain. Ideally, it would be the last resort in limited capacity when diplomacy fails. Otherwise you're unleashing horrors on humanity. | |
| ▲ | bamboozled 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you think there is a difference between killing people and violence ? | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You can have violence without killing people, for example in torture the goal is generally not to kill the recipient. And if a doctor has a surgery that goes bad and the patient died, they may have killed someone, but there was no violence. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Dylan16807 37 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > The point of war is to kill people. You could have a war that's entirely based around infrastructure damage, and you could warn people away from incoming attacks. |
| |
