Yes, war is necessary. Some conflicts cannot be resolved any other way. I'm not saying it's a good thing to go to war whenever possible, but if there is no other option than to go to war to stop an opposing force, then that option should exist. I see war as a last resort to a conflict. If the enemy is a violent regime, also, then war is definitely the best choice since typically, a violent group will not be stopped with peace. As for nuclear war, I don't see a need for nuclear weapons other than for defense. If a nation stockpiles nuclear weapons of mass destruction, this is typically going to be for protection in the form of fear. The use of nuclear weapons is almost always wrong, but there are always exeptions to nearly every rule. ;)

I think those who suffered during the holocaust will agree that war is very necessary.

Yes, we have to admit war is evil, but it should also be noted that war is sometimes necessary in situation when there is a urgent need to solve problems where war is used as a last resort and when dealing with human rights issues or fighting against evil. In this paragraph, we shall put our focus on going for war with good intention, in particular on fighting for human right issues. At times where minorities are discriminated till a unacceptable state where even the basic human rights are denied, wars could have been the best solution to stop the discrimination from existing and continuing. Taking the case of American Civil War where the blacks were treated as slaves with some of them, their families tore apart by the Whites. If not for the war, the blacks would not have been freed and obtained their basic human rights which they deserve to have in the first place. It would be nearly impossible to have the problem solved through peaceful means as no Whites would want to free their Blacks slave and pay them like a worker, when they can chose not to. In such a case, it is definitely necessary to have a war to stop the discrimination. Hence, this would have proved that there are times when war is a necessary to fight for human rights where the intention of war is actually good.

War is a necessary because if all the countrys decided to get rid of all war and one country decided to keep some and then invaded another country there would be no hope

Everyone knows if you want peace you need to get ready for war. People are greedy, ideals conflict, and when heads butt, sometimes the only way out is through.

War is a lesser of two evils, sadly required to protect our nation and to liberate the oppressed people of the world. In response to the September 11 terror attacks, the U.S. waged war out of self-defense. The World Trade Center was not the only thing that was destroyed that day. Our sense of nationalistic pride and dignity was diminished by these terrorist. How could we stand and watch as one of the greatest American symbols collapsed? In order to reclaim our sense of dignity, war was the only option. Self-defense is a universal characteristic of all humans, and war was just that. Humans were ultimately bred for war. Natural selection favors the survival of the fittest, which drives us to be the best we can be and dominate others if necessary. What's war but another form of domination? How can anyone go tell millions of Jews to go back to concentration camps because the war we waged on their behalf against Hitler was unnecessary or a mistake? As gruesome and terrible war may be, it is undeniably a trademark of any and every society. War has always been present in the past, continues to exist today, and will persist throughout the long future. War is not something that is simply waged, it is something that we, as humans, will forever carry with us.

If there is a point to war, then I am for war.

For instance, the Germanic tribes attacked Rome because they needed more land. Without more land, they would die. Under those circumstances, the only logical choice is to gain land. If that means war, then so be it.

When the Mongols spread their empire into Eastern Europe, they would burn and pillage all the towns and villages in their way. Under those circumstances, the Europeans should fight back.

The Spartans had what was known as the 'Agoge'. They would raise males from the age of seven onwards to be soldiers. That was logical, seeing as how the ancient Greeks and their neighbors were quite warlike. I have had this debate with others, those who contest my opinion say that by training for war they are both expecting it and accepting it.

I disagree. By training for war they are expecting it and they are accepting it. But, I ask them, is it not better to expect an inevitable war and prepare than to hide from it and be raped and slaughtered when the war does arrive? It would arrive whether they wanted it or not, whether they prepared for it or not.

However, there are also bad wars. America's involvement in Vietnam and Korea was to spread their democratic ideals. The Americans have no right to meddle in their affairs and to force democracy on a nation not wanting those ideals. They blame the Vietnamese and the Koreans for fighting back, but wouldn't they do the same if somebody was forcing monarchy or communism on them?

Some people say that war is a threat to democracy and the basic human rights. My response to them is the following :

A case in which war is necessary are the revolutions. Take for instance the example of The French Revolution of 1789 which was indeed a bloody revolution but people were being oppressed by the absolutist regime, they wanted to achieve democracy, they wanted to have fundamental rights. The outcome was clearly significant: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the actual French Democracy, the French Constitution, even the American Constitution is an indirect consequence of the French Revolution and the ideas of the revolution. Of course on might say that democracy could have been achieved by other means. Peaceful means of achieving are: 1. Including Consensus; 2. Long lasting - time which is spend on reaching consensus is time in which the tyranny is still in force ; 3. People that want to make a peaceful reform throughout history have been declared enemies of the state and prosecuted by the dictatorial regime; 4. The consensus is made by two parties which are rarely equal in power. 5. In some cases peaceful reforms are led by the same dictator, and he is merely changing the color of the party and the people in order to satisfy the general will of the electorate. By this they obtain the trust of the people and can still express their influence in almost all economical sectors. Example of such countries - most of the former Soviet Republics.

Norms of International law forbid declaration of war. Legislation is only effective if it is enforced properly. The country that declares war should be aware that the risk they assume is not only the closing down of embassies and ending of diplomatic cooperation or economic cooperation, but also the fact that other countries will enforce all the necessary measures to try and prevent it, including self-defense. An eye for an eye is absolutely unethical, but in some cases war is justifiable and it makes perfect rational sense to respond to war in order to preserve peace on the long term and prevent grave crimes like genocide.

Of course war is necessary. However, it is not evil. It helps boost the economy of nations involved (except in certain cases [generally civil wars]) and often leads to the betterment of the government of the losing nation. The American Civil War was necessary because most Southerners were, at that time, too stubborn to listen to the Northerners. The Vietnam War, while not won by America, was necessary to create more jobs in America (and we got the 26th Amendment out of that, too!!). World War II (do I need to go into this?) was necessary because Adolf Hitler would not listen to reason and attacked his fellow European nations.

I believe my argument is valid and that my information stands.

I think, there are quite few people who actually believe that the war is something good, wholesome and useful. It is and has always been one of the worst and most disgusting, destructive events that can happen. But it is to the same degree wrong to accuse it of all the deadly sins existing in the world. Although war is always evil, sometimes it is the lesser evil, in some cases it is inevitable.

I, of course, don’t support the idea that the war is necessary in socio-economical sense – there is such a point of view, stating that the war is the motive power of progress and effective method of keeping demographic situation stable. Of course, some inventions were first applied in military, but also because this research has always been better supplied. And, although a lot of people die in the course of wars, it is not enough to really influence demographics, especially nowadays.

I am speaking about the war as the conflict of interests and state that yes, in certain situations war is necessary and even turns out into a thing to be proud of. War may be offensive and defensive and, just like in the case of self-defense, in the event of armed attack from another country any kind of violence used in retaliation is acceptable, because any other course of action will mean suicide. Looking at the same analogy, there is no much difference between a country attacking another country from a mugger on the street. The fact that the offenders are numerous, wear uniforms and deliver speeches makes absolutely no difference.

On December 10 Barack Obama receivedthe Nobel Peace Prize. He used his acceptance speech to defend the USrole in Afghanistan, and to argue that the use of force could bringlasting peace to the world. Praised by the Nobel committee for his"extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy andco-operation between peoples," just 9 days earlier he had announced hewas sending 30,000 additional troops to the battlefield in Afghanistanbecause "war is sometimes necessary."

There were a number of absurdities inObama's speech. He resurrected the concept of a "just war" to defendhumanity from evil. He portrayed the U.S. as a moral agent striving tomaintain global security, and claimed that the "use of force not onlynecessary but morally justified." Nevertheless, he admitted, "we willnot eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes."

believe that war is a necessary evil because even though it causes lots of pain, suffering and even death but it also can bring a massive amount of benefits as it can bring long lasting peace e.g. world war 2 it was tragic and evil but because of it many technologies were discovered such as the jerry can, the dyanmo powered torch, pressurised plane cabins, raido navigation, synthetic rubber and oil ,radar and more and also because of world war the EU (european union) was made which has made tons of benefits to every country in europe providing military basing rights, research agreements and a sort of inter european police force and also eurovision was formed which was made to bring countries together and to all compete in a friendly competition.

Another reason war is a necessary evil is because if a government or monarchy is not ruling justly or fairly the people will have to revolt to get equal rights for example the American Revolution which was because they believed the taxes were unconstitutional and now America has turned into the richest the country by arguably around 6-7 trillion dollars (not including the EU which could arguably have a higher gdp).

War is also a massive contributor to the population control and without it we could possibly be in a world hunger problem and we might not be able to support ourselves or we could be facing overpopulation or over crowding.

Conflict will also always happen as long as there are humans or anything that lives it is a part of human nature. It has been scientifically proven that there is very little difference between human reaction to danger or threats and those of animals. Animals feel the need to fight to prove themselves, to gain more territory and land to maybe graze on or to get the best food from and also to defend their territory which is just like humans and if there wasn’t any of this no one would be ahead of anything and without conflict we wouldn’t have been able to kill the mammoths in the pre-historic period thus many of us would have died also the only reason stone tools were invented were because of conflict and stone tools then got adapted to suit agricultural purposes such as for gardening hoes, shovels etc and is probably one of the greatest and most revelutionary technologies ever discovered.

damn son

war is kool it gives us awsome movies and pretty explosions also is there a better reason to kill muslms