Topic: Going to war means let's ulter the economic progression - page 4. (Read 1432 times)

Prolonged hostilities between countries can harm not just the two countries immediately involved, but also the global economy and the well-being of individuals all across the world. War's economic consequences can be far-reaching. Industries may suffer as a result of supply chain interruptions, trade restrictions, destroyed infrastructure, and decreased investor confidence. Poor security conditions, as you indicated, can also prevent individuals from working and earning a living, leading to economic instability and poverty. Furthermore, resources that could have been used for economic development and social welfare may be redirected instead to military spending and post-war reconstruction.

I hope that the two countries, Russia vs. Ukraine, will soon end their conflict for world conditions that continue to improve today and for future generations.
almost all countries have felt the effects of the war between the two countries which caused many industries not to operate because they were vulnerable to poor security conditions, so that many people did not work and did not earn money. I think the longer the war lasts, the more difficult it is for the world economy to develop.

You argue simply as a theoretician, without taking into account the realities that have now developed in the international arena. The countries of Europe were so afraid of the start of a new war that they did everything possible to make it very real for them, not only a conventional war, but also with the use of nuclear weapons. The countries of Europe, and in general all other countries, tried for too long to ignore the growing military threat from Russia, and the position of appeasing the aggressor only increased the predatory appetites of Putin and his entourage.

First, Russia, using its military and political influence, achieved the creation of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic on the territory of Moldova, then in 2008 it openly carried out a military invasion of Georgia. There was no proper reaction from society to the aggression. Therefore, in 2024, Putin went further and captured the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea and part of its eastern regions. The countries of Europe were again afraid to pacify the aggressor, introduced weak economic sanctions and calmed down on this. The Kremlin realized that it could do whatever it wanted. Therefore, Putin decided by force to return the former republics of the USSR into a single state entity under the strict control of Russia, or rather, with the help of the army, to conquer and annex them to Russia. Therefore, a full-scale war with Ukraine in 2022 was only the next stage in the implementation of Putin's plans. Next in line would be Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, then, perhaps, Poland.

The unwillingness of European countries to provoke a war with Russia just led to the fact that Russia itself began to attack its neighbors in turn under various far-fetched pretexts and got to them. Putin's aggressive plans were not destined to come true only because of Putin's unexpected powerful military resistance from Ukraine. Therefore, subduing an aggressor by military means is sometimes the only way to avoid a larger war.

Now Putin is losing the war in Ukraine and it is quite possible that, saving his life, he can use tactical nuclear weapons and not necessarily in Ukraine. This is the price of just a peaceful policy, or rather, the inaction of the world community on the military threat on its part.

You are now operating with the values of a person with intelligence, honor, conscience...
And you simply can not come up with the idiocy on the basis of which tyrants and terrorists build their plans. And what are their reasons. There is no rationality, there is no logic, there is no real solution to some complex problems that cannot be solved otherwise. Although I am still opposed to the military solution of problems, and I think that we should try to look for other ways, except in cases of protecting our state, and responding to terrorists who initially do not follow any rules.
Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, headed by crazy likenesses of the Fuhrer, are based on cowardice and fear for their lives, and inferiority complexes, which some try to realize through a primitive demonstration of strength (for example, against their own population) or aggression, for example, against a weaker one, or who can't resist. Any conflict, let alone war, always leads to destruction and loss. The affected country then needs years, and maybe decades, to recover. The aggressor country is the same, plus for many years it has become a pariah, is experiencing severe degradation, both in the economy and morality. War is very bad, I know personally, because a large-scale terrorist aggression is now being waged against my country....

Saying this, you seem to not see what Russia is doing now in Ukraine and how the inhabitants of Russia still relate to the war. For almost a year of a full-scale war, the Russians supported the war and the bombing of peaceful Ukrainian cities by about 70 percent, as well as the murder of their "brothers" Ukrainians. Only now, when the war began to reach the territory of Russia itself, when information about the heavy losses of Russians in this war periodically leaks into the media, only now some of them began to think that war is not only the annexation of foreign territories, but also devastation and death. Therefore, now support for the war there has slightly decreased to 45-50 percent.

Therefore, to say that not a single person, or nation wants war, is not true. If Russia didn't want war, it wouldn't attack Ukraine. if the Russians did not want war, they would not fight in Ukraine to seize its territory.

I think your first part is very meaningful because you said that a nation doesn't want to be in war. That implies an important differentiation because often it is not the people who want the war, but the government for ideological reasons. I don't know how many Russian civilians really want the war in the Ukraine, but if I had to guess I think it is not that many. Losing your children while you don't even know or never understand what it was good for, that can't be in the interest of the civil population. So the "nation" usually doesn't want war, while the leading apparatus of that nation might force it go to war.

The destruction we are seeing in war areas is so intense these days. It often looks like there never even has been a single building. Heaps of rubble everywhere, dead people lying left right and center. No energy, no water, no heating and children get born without medical care. Not even food.

I disagree in one regard with you: you said that humanity has been seen to find a way to better ourselves. Do you really think so? There come two ideas to my mind.

The first idea is that the weapons are so deadly today, especially the nuclear arsenal, that we do indeed have a global geopolitical strategy mainly based on military deterrence. Aggressors know that if they go too far, their county would eradicated from the world map, but then probably the whole world would be destroyed anyway. It only needs a few evil minds and we could indeed have a nuclear war. Do we have such an evil mind on the planet right now? I can't say yes, but I also can't say no.

The second idea is that war has only seemingly become less brutal because a hundred years ago there was less artillery and more close contact combats. That was brutal. Watching your enemy in the eyes while killing them is the worst one can imagine. Today you have way less close contact combat. That makes it easier for people to push the button. But think about it: does that make us any better than the people from a 100 years ago? When we conduct military operations as if we were playing chess or a computer game? That's the brutal part of today's war as empathy is close to zero once you marked your target on the screen and push fire. It is only digital. It is about coordinates, about software, about a canon that can fire miles and miles and miles. Dead people are no faces anymore, but numbers.

I get what you are saying @Smartvirus and I have been thinking about that question myself a lot. But the whole drone game slowly but surely feels like war has turned into a board game for its most part and we all know that board games feel much better on the inside than actually truly killing another body with your own hands.

That is not entirely true. War will cause damage to the warring countries, but there will be countries that benefit greatly from war. The countries that sell weapons are making billions of dollars, and they never expect the war to end. The longer the war dragged on, the more old weapons they sold, as well as the chance to try out new weapons for customers to see. It can be said that war is not good for the people, but for politicians, it is good for them, they will have more power.

The impact of war will indeed make the economy collapse, many countries involved in conflict and war will become a poor country, this is because there is no more production, distribution and other business processes, many countries have experienced such bad things and from now on we have to Maintain peace.

I don't think that's true, because I have seen so many guns and armory videos and picks which are neither tested before on humans and Russia is testing those weapons on Ukraine and even Ukraine is getting new technologies to test them on Russia in its counterpart, Overall these countries have become a test base for new weapons and I think that's a benefit for other countries. Plus countries need an alarm or slap that could wake them from doing the mistakes of sleepiness so they could prevent the same mistakes those under war countries made.

No doubt these wars have bad impact not only on warring nations but on the people of nations too. Which is bad, and in this inflation, things will be more difficult to buy for normal people. Like in my country things and goods are not that expensive as compared to European countries but like you guys pay 300$ rent and we pay $30 rent per month but still, we found these prices high why? Because of the devaluation of our money, how's that happening? Due to less employment and more inflation plus the rate of dollar is increasing against PKR (national currency) this has convinced peoples to lose hope or to urge them to earn in dollars but most of the citizens are illiterate to an extent that they don't understand English language then how could they earn dollars to meet there expenses.

The point is, regardless of wars things are way more difficult for our people and when these wars will take place then the saying of Albert Einstein will come true which was "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.". I hope that day never come and people live like a loving and caring couple ( I think I am hoping too much)

War is something I don't think any individual or nation would want to be in. That's why every possible means to avoid it if possible is been sort for but, the need to exercise some form of sovereignty or be in charge of your own territory and avoid influence often makes it in editable in conflict situations and resolutions.
In war, people get to lose there homes and means of livelihood, infrastructures and civilization that took years yo build or developed is reduced to dust in minutes or hours. It's such a hard thing to take. The good thing about it is that, through all these, humanity have been seen to find a way to better ourselves.

After the field is laid plane, an opportunity for new ideas is born and it teaches men to avoid situations that could lead to war at every reasonable cost. I say reasonable because, when your sovereignty is been challenged, it's hard not to result to war.

Wat can do many things. It can reduce the worlds population and with it goes our hope to greatest humanity and talents. If you study literature from world war then you will see how war did both things: gave rise to inventions and at the same time saw humanities ugliest destruction faces. Definitely today war is something else. It can destroy the whole supply chain, it can alter the course of technological advancement and stop the economy completely. Forget about inflation, we won’t be having any value to dollar as well if third world war happens. It would be fought for bread and wine.

That's true. Wars are obviously bad for any economy unless some economy does war profiteering like the US did during the world war 1. But I feel in case of the Ukraine and Russia thing it's already too late. But your point is right not only does it brings economic disruption in countries in war it also brings losses in some form or the others for the rest of the countries. For example like Whole Europe had to suffer with high gas prices when they put sanctions on Russia.

Society is not a friend to all, there are bundles of beings left out.
Animal kingdom for once, all societies are abusing their suoperiority.

War has never been a friend to the society and the world at large because if there is war, there is automatically some kind of restrictions of movement and with just that alone, everything economically moves backwards because the right on the freedom movement has been bridged. There are great negative effects of war and war in this context might come in different forms just like the case with the COVID-19 because that was a global war and  the entire world was turned upside down as the disease made life difficult.
War isn't good and there shouldn't be any reason to declare a war especially in this present generation now .

Unfortunately so War is a chance to correct a system which has jumped rails. Just as our system has jumped rails.
Look at the involved parties, they are all bankrupt. 

I have always believed that the second world war derailed the development of countries on planet Earth. I have no data to back this up, it is just a belief of mine. I know many significant inventions were introduced during the great war but I just believe how ever developed the world is today, we would have been better without the second world war.



Can countries really achieve self-sufficiency? Like they will no longer need any resources from another country? That's not possible. There are countries that are over-dependent on another true and they can work so they are no longer over-dependent on other countries, like the way developing countries are dependent on the West, but in a counter cannot be self-sufficient, they will always need some things from an external country.

There are negative effects of war but some countries do profit from these situations if all they want is the continuation of war between those 2 or more countries because the advantage-taking countries see that not alone the economy of countries involved in war is being harmed, but also their population will be suffering the nuclear drops' effects on themselves as well as their upcoming generations. This is the worst that can even bring in some deadly diseases which could potentially lead to more deaths being spread all around the globe. The nature is also changing its stream due to what's happening and we are also experiencing that change through earthquakes and unnecessary climate changes.

I think other countries join war too because they have alliances with one country who's at war. Just like UN, UN members have to  to support each other in the event of war. They come to the aid of a friend or because they share the same principle then countries agree to come to each other's aid if one of them is attacked. They join wars to when they will gain benefit from it. For example, they want to gain access to resources or territory or to counter a perceived threat. It sounds selfish to me but considering that those countries have their reasons too, I think they had to.

I was just hoping that if they can, they can just seek diplomatic solutions to conflicts instead.

My dude, it's a harsh reality that some folks think it's all good to say "let's go to war." But let's not forget - wars always end up being a complete disaster for everyone involved, on the battlefield and beyond. They mess up people's lives and can cause stuff like inflation, poverty, hunger, and environmental damage worldwide.

Remember when Ukraine and Russia were beefing? Their conflict ended up messing up other countries too, causing economic chaos and food shortages. That's why we gotta work together and use peaceful diplomacy to prevent wars and find solutions.

War also seriously messes with the environment - the damage to infrastructure, water sources, and ecosystems can screw up agriculture and food production for years. That leads to even more food shortages and insecurity.

It's time to face the facts - war is a total bummer. The downsides far outweigh any potential upsides, you know what I'm saying? That's why we need to put talking and peaceful conflict resolution first instead of always turning to military action. By doing so, we can work towards a world that's more secure and stable for everyone.

Yes, War has serious consequences that go beyond the deaths of soldiers and civilians. It can distort economic progress by increasing inflation, exacerbating environmental degradation, and causing extreme poverty and food insecurity.

The recent conflict between Ukraine and Russia is an example, as disruptions to the supply of fossil fuels and agricultural produce have driven up prices and caused food shortages. The negative effects of war can impact the world at large and challenge the fiscal priorities of even advanced economies.