what are the consequences of war?
548058
Untold misery, atrocities for some, huge profits and great business opportunity for others.\n\nAmerica has tuned this into a fine art, going to war with minimal casualties and earning the maximum profits and reparations, war expenses for the world.\n\nIran or N Korea next? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? st
85637
The impact of the Iraq war on the US economy
557338
a war in the horizon.
300980
1.world.\n2.war.\n3 .three.
497
hopefully less war and more happiness in the world. We can all do with that.
1170844
No.......wars dont make countries poor,  just the poor people poorer and poor living people dead....
397568
finite resources plus infinite demand for resources equals conflict.\n\nbut the term "war" can mean many things, so i guess it depends on your definition of war.  if the term "war" is taken to be as broad as the term conflict, then yes--war is inevitable.  if, on the other hand, you mean by the term "war" a very specific type of conflict manifestation at a very specific level of the organic hierarchy, then i would suggest that it is theoretically possible to mediate the infinite conflict in different ways by revising the parameters of the organizational structure.\n\nfor instance:  one of the unspoken but very real reasons for war is population control.  (this isn't to imply malificent despots cackling wickedly as they plan population reduction wars--it has to do with the natural pressure of increased direct competition for resources erupting into violence as systems fail to accomodate basic needs.)  as social systems continue to naturally develop greater control over modes of reproduction (i.e. the progression of sexual mores, marital rituals, birth control and sex education, extending into the near-future developments of genetic engineering, cloning etc.) the state will learn to preclude population surpluses in order to obtain the greater efficiency provided by a more harmonious stability.  (if you find this logic hard to follow, think of it this way:  when the technology to enhance genetic traits such as intelligence, longevity and athleticism  (or provide extra senses and adaptations for tech interface ports) becomes available, the government will control it.  although there will be fierce battles to preserve natural breeding, the vast superiority of genetic engineering as a mode of reproduction ensures its eventual succession (if we survive the terrorist attempts to induce an apocalypse rather than allow the human race to be succeeded, that is).  when test-tube offspring become the norm, a non-violent population control system will likely emerge.)\n\nanyway--this addresses only one cause of war, but i'm sure you can see how the ramifications can extend to all the various aspects of the current institution of warfare.  the conflicts will remain, but what we call "war" (people killing people in organized battles) may very well disappear sooner than you think.  (although it's also possible that the future modes of conflict resolution will be far more ruthless than our primitive wars).\n\ni'll leave you with one more thought to elucidate my point.  thousands of years ago our primordial ancestors (closer to beasts than to men) waged a different type of war--not for land or ideology, but to eat or be eaten. their primitive minds were probably incapable of conceiving of a state of affairs where the sabre tooth was not a fierce and cunning enemy, where a perpetual vigil for a tactical battle to achieve a visceral kill would not be a constant and necessary aspect of the daily lives of their children.  and yet, with remarkably few exceptions, this war has long since ended.  there is no predator that regularly hunts human prey, and only an infinitesimally small percentage of the food eaten by humans in the modern world is hunted in the wild.  the war has ended.  and yet the conflict remains.  in order to survive humans must eat.  in order to be eaten, the food must die.  only now, this conflict is resolved through a peculiar social contract.  we breed livestock and crops whose sole purpose of existence is to feed us.  we kill them, but it can't really be called war. they offer no real resistance, and they only reason they were given their strange lives in the first place was to be eaten.  i used the term "social contract," and indeed, that's what it is.  civilization authorizes their birth on the condition that they be an easy (and delicious) food source for humans.  individuals that are especially docile or delectable succeed in reproduction, and inefficient
521070
Your assumption that war derives from misunderstandings is intellectually false and has no basis in reality.\n\nWar is nearly always caused by greed and pride.
281835
try "The Great War For Civilisation" by Robert Fisk.  You will need to go back further than 20 years too as the current problems are rooted in the decisions made after the first and second world wars.  This book covers other countries in the Middle East too.
207112
the complication of the simple things that really matter.\nie. how and when you get your food, shelter and water. also, who come knocking to collect differs with the level of war, colonization, and politics.
433504
does it make a difference to the dead,their families or the world? wars are fought out of fear,greed and evil in the hearts of men.in the end it's always just sad.
651039
1. Racial tension amongst soldiers, despite that military units of different race were not mixed.\n\n2. "Liberal" loss of support for the war.\n\n3. Cut exports/imports via railways; loss of major agriculture; (all due to Southern possession).\n\n4. Poor military leaders.
301004
war has no boundaries\n:-3
141801
Yes.\nIt cost thousands of lives,hundreds of billions of dollars,\nand lowered the standing of the U.S. in the international\ncommunity. Even when the war ends there will be a cost-the\npeace of mind of many who served,suffering from post-traumatic stress.\n All of this to confiscate Weapons of Mass Destruction that\nnever existed.\n Invading Iraq was a colossal mistake.
88687
Unfortunately, most borders are decided by war.
958007
War is never won.  The misunderstandings between cultures, escalating to the point of violence, is comparable to a natural disaster.  They are not a source of glory or victory, just pain, suffering and ill will.  The survivors of a war are bettered because of the experience, but only if they come to the realization of how futile the endeavor was.  There is always a peaceful solution to end cultural disputes.  These kind of conflicts are brought on by the failure to communicate, or the refusal to.  When war is engaged in out of a last resort, it is tragic, because those that enter into such a struggle do not understand the circumstances they are in.  They have failed to realize what the peaceful solution is to the conflict, and must then resort to violance.  The terms win and lose have no validity in a conflict where both sides have admitted their wrongmindedness and ignorance by relying on violance.  We must have a respect for anyone who comes out of war, alive or dead, because they have made a sacrifice.  They put aside their moral doubts in order to invoke a pointless and futile struggle.  Those who go to war change nothing they set out to, but come back changed themselves.
63498
Well, peace is always good since it prevents the unecessary death of others.  War would be good if you run a major corporation and can profit off it.