Since the beginning of mankind, we have always been at war with one another. From sticks and stones, to bow and spear, to musket and gunpowder, to nuclear missiles and their potential devastation, self-destruction is in our nature. The amount of change we are going through as a species is increasing exponentially, and as a result we advance our tools of warfare to the point where it may have devastating repercussions for the whole world. Our knowledge as humans is a curse and a blessing; we have escaped the natural cycle of the earth and are no longer repressed by nature unlike all other species. We unconsciously wish to not only give our lives away, but to also take the lives of others. Since no other force can keep human population in check, there is something that is hard-wired into us that not only creates a desire for annihilation, but also turns the idea of peace into a fantasy. Thus, Mankind’s will for destruction and sacrifice is an unchangeable aspect of our collective human nature. This article talks about warfare, nuclear weapons, and most importantly of all; the motivational factors behind what brings us to fight in these wars. The article explains “Archetypal death”; Kull states that “there is a desire, usually unconscious, that draws us toward world destruction”. There must be some sort of explanation, for why mankind has this propensity to wage wars upon other countries. One might say the main reason is that Country X has something that Country Y has, and there is no other way to get it other than to have a war. Kull’s theory digs much deeper than this; he believes it’s an attractive and almost magnetic force that we as humans possess within us. Consequentially, this means that all humans have this element in our ... ... middle of paper ... ...ay lead to our ultimate undoing. Humans have an innate propensity for our own annihilation; however it is an element of mankind that will never change. Despite this, we can only do our best to minimize the impact this has on our world. Avoiding a Nuclear Holocaust should be priority number one; it would not only lead to mass destruction but also the destruction of our environment. As brutal as this may sound, anyone who survives this will most likely regret doing so. Looking at our past however, we can determine from the cold war that even the most radical of soviets will hesitate to start such a war. As stated earlier, many entities desire war, but we as humans, must recognize our boundaries and limitations. We’ve escaped natural cycle that all other species have failed to do, but there’s one thing that we will never be able to escape from, and that is ourselves.
War is seen as a universal concept that often causes discomfort and conflict in relation to civilians. As they are a worrying universal event that has occurred for many decades now, they posed questions to society about human's nature and civilization. Questions such as is humanity sane or insane? and do humans have an obsession with destruction vs creation. These questions are posed from the two anti-war texts; Dr Strangelove by Stanley Kubrick and Slaughterhouse Five written by Kurt Vonnegut.
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this
War is the bane of humanity’s existence, it is an indiscriminate killer, just as deadly as
"Among the people of your culture, which want to destroy the world?" "Which want to destroy it? As far as I know, no one specifically wants to destroy the world." "And yet you do destroy it, each of you. Each of you contributes daily to the destruction of the world." (Quinn, 1995:25)
Seventy-one years after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear power is rarely recognized as a solution to the energy crisis. Instead, it is associated with the most violent pits of Hell: warfare. The demands of warfare exhaust the scientific community and deplete its resources, as well as decimating the human population.
For the great lesson which history imprints on the mind…is the tragic certainty that all wars gain their ultimate ends, whether great or petty, by the violation of personality, by the destruction of homes, by the paralysis of art and industry and letters…even wars entered on from high motives must rouse greed, cupidity, and blind hatred; that even in defensive warfare a people can defend its rights only by inflicting new wrongs; and that chivalrous no less than self-seeking war entails relentless destruction.
Conflict is constant. It is everywhere. It exists within one’s own mind, different desires fighting for dominance. It exists outside in nature, different animals fighting for the limited resources available, and it exists in human society, in the courts. It can occur subtly, making small changes that do not register consciously, and it can occur directly and violently, the use of pure strength, whether physical, social, economic, or academic, to assert dominance and achieve one’s goals; this is the use of force. Yet, with the use of force, the user of force is destined to be one day felled by it. “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”
John F. Kennedy once famously said, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” It has been said a few decades ago but the theme of war is relevant at all times. One might share Kennedy’s point of view, when another one not. The most obvious example of different views and approaches on how to deal with conflicts are of the Western and Eastern civilizations. The Western is focused on physical aggressiveness and getting things done through power and coercion, while the Eastern approach is more philosophical, rational, and strategic. We see such method of approach in Sun Tzu’s military treatise, “The Art of War.” Even though he wrote a manual on how to defeat an enemy, Sun Tzu emphasized that a large portion of success is based on the army’s moral duty, which is cultivated by incentives, leaders’ examples, and the ability to listen to their soldiers.
Philosophers since the beginning of time have debated over the source and cause of violent tendencies in humans that in turn produce global conflicts, to solve the age old question, man or beast? Global conflict can with out a doubt be completely accredited to the human race, but what are the particular reasons for humans to cause such conflicts? There are many topics that have been argued by philosophers and historians over the connection between the reasons the human race and global conflict. One such topic is the gender based theories and sexual differences of men and women. Others believe that religion, with particular emphasis on monotheistic beliefs, is the major basis of conflict among the human race up to this day. Another important fact to take into consideration when attempting to understand why there is global conflict in the human race; is the significance of individual cultures amongst opposing or simply separated tribes, groups, states, and nations. Lastly, one must consider the physical evidence, for example, figuring out what can be learned about previous prehistoric societies from anthropology and paleontology. The basis of the debate is the nature of mankind; is it in our nature to be like wild animals with a lust to kill with the only difference between us and animals being intelligence, or is it that mankind over the time of existence have developed such things as material goods, religious belief systems, and all different ways of life that are responsible for violence and conflict throughout the history of the world. There is no clear cut answer to why mankind acts in such a way, but one can develop a very strong argument or theory which includes and relat...
All throughout time and history people have been at war with each other at one point or another. War can, truthfully, at times be inescapable and considered by some historians as a natural instinct, an instinct that every human being possess. Throughout history mighty empires and governments have collapsed due to the damages inflicted on by a war, yet in spite of this, some have managed to face the odds and make it through, staggering along as if nothing happened. War is a true test of an empire or government’s determination to move forward, adapting using the knowledge and intellect they have acquired to their own advantage. Nevertheless, not all wars lead to fighting by physical means but instead it can lead to fighting mentally by opposing sides. One such example would be the non-traditional Cold War fought between the United States and Soviet Union. The Cold War was a time that caused an immense fear in the lives of many, and inspired novels such as 1984 by George Orwell, Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank, and essays such as “You and the Atomic Bomb” by George Orwell, which are just some of the voices from this terrible time.
Harry Truman (1884-1972) was the most influential person in the race for the super bomb. As President Roosevelt’s Vice President, he knew nothing about the development of the atomic bomb. But within months of assuming the office of President of the United States on April 12, 1945, he became the first and only American leader to authorize the use of atomic weapons against an enemy target. Truman’s era only marked the beginning of the race for nuclear weapons. The development of nuclear weapons is still an issue today, decades after Truman left office.
The cold war was named so because between the USA and Russia, there was hardly any direct combat just a pile of tension, hostility, and potential violence. They were heading towards mutually assured destruction; using weapons of mass destruction which were the nuclear bombs and assuring inevitable destruction for both sides if there bombs were to go off and ultimate victory for none at the end. Each set of alliances, the Warsaw Pact and NATO competently created nuclear weapons to threaten the other one. Just in case either one of the countries decided to attack using their fatal nuclear weapon, then the other one wouldn’t just stand empty handed. Both USA and Russia found it their first priority to keep themselves as secure as possible by creation of nuclear arms. This resulted in a competition to be the most prepared and powerful, known as The Nuclear Arms Race.
Over the course of history, violence amongst men has shaped the world in which we live through wars, political protests, or social conflicts. Sadly, enough, this is a factor of human nature which resides in all individuals and cannot be controlled or avoided. Not only have these events of man’s inhumanity been documented, but they have also become the underlying theme for many well known works of literature. Both Golding and Wiesel shed light on the immorality of mankind’s actions by putting it under close scrutiny, leaving the reader left to wonder how human beings are capable of so callously hurting and killing one another.
The definiton of war will never change. Its ideal prupose throughly is to cause pain of those who go through it or who are somehow involved. Through my prespective, I believe we need less hostility and use other inititatives and methods of reasoning and resolving problems rather than create brutality and increase death in this world. This book, its descriptions, but most importantly, Erich Maria Remarque, has significantly suceeded in emphasizing an in-dept overlook and understandment of what the outcome of war turns out to be which can also be associated with its supporting literature. We cannot prove anything through war; the only thing we have proven is how low us humans in general have sunk in resolving conflicts. Anybody has the potential power to kill someone through a simple pull of a trigger.