[scottLobster]

I think you're straw manning a bit there. It's not illogical to say that severe national challenges help rejuvenate society in the long run. You can even see it locally when the power goes out for a few days in a hurricane, and all of a sudden neighbors who barely knew each other for 10 years are pooling resources and talking.

War is horrific in the short term, but everyone on this site has benefited from it in some form. Much of the internet came out of military research, as did flight, as did satellites, as did many nautical advances, the list goes on.

Whether those benefits are worth it and on what scale could be the subject of a dissertation, but we don't want to become the Eloi any more than we want to be the Morlocks.

Just because the concept can be twisted into pointless war mongering by fascists doesn't make it less true. For my part I think climate change alone is going to provide enough national challenges.

[AnimalMuppet]

> War is horrific in the short term, but everyone on this site has benefited from it in some form.

That's because nobody on this site has died from it.

[scottLobster]

So people who die in war don't benefit from the war... and?

My point was that war is not always entirely negative if you zoom out far enough. It can be entirely negative or partially positive, just like many other things. Would you rather the British to have surrendered to Hitler and the Americans refuse to fight in WWII?

[AnimalMuppet]

> So people who die in war don't benefit from the war... and?

And therefore your claim that everyone here has benefited from it suffers from significant survivor bias.

> It can be entirely negative or partially positive, just like many other things.

Sure. But we've seen way too many examples of people selling how wonderful a war would be (and you're flirting dangerously close to that). War's not wonderful. It's horrible. Only fight it when the alternative is even more horrible (which is not never).

[scottLobster]

Strange, because in this thread the closest thing to calling war "wonderful" I've seen is "Sometimes, as sad as it is to imagine, I think you need a good war to refresh a country..."

Things that are wonderful aren't sad to imagine. Nor am I saying anything resembling calling a war "wonderful". I hear a lot of accusations and assumptions of intent with few real arguments other than "war bad".

From where I sit the conversation appears to go like:

  Person 1: War bad.
  Person 2: War sometimes good in certain contexts...
  Person 1: NO! WAR ALWAYS BAD YOU FASCIST COWARD!!!

Shockingly I remain unmoved.

[notfromhere]

military research is not the same as war. Flight was developed by the commercial sector.

the people blabbering about war as a means of national rejuvenation are usually the ones not planning on bleeding out in a muddy ditch. 30 million people died in WWI and not much was rejuvenated

[scottLobster]

Can't speak for everyone, but your second point is an easy one for me. If I were drafted, in any remotely realistic circumstance I would go.

And military research is a result of war or potential war. And if you want to deny the lack of the military's influence in human flight, I'm not even sure what to say to that. Aircraft were adopted by militaries around the world as soon as they were viable. And military observation balloons go back to the 18th century. The military may not have invented human flight, but they funded a crap ton of it.