Is violence/war the only way to resolve issues ?

[u/Limp_Distribution118]

My opinion on this thing is kinda controversial, non violence can be encouraged to a limit, where the opposition starts to ignore all the requests, talk and petition, after that violence is the only way for getting something like land, but some issues aren't that big for violence.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to r/Believeism!

This community is dedicated to thoughtful discussion about beliefs, ideas, perspectives, and personal philosophies.

Please remember: * Be respectful. * Debate ideas, not people. * No harassment, hate, or personal attacks. * No spam or excessive self-promotion.

If you see content that breaks the rules, please report it.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Dagenhammer87]

Violence isn't the first answer, quite often not the second but it must never fully be taken off the table..

For instance, if Ukraine weren't fighting due to the invasion, there'd be no one who'd dare to take on Russia - even if all their military might turns out to be paper tigers and one big bluff.

On current affairs, a bit of me thinks that the US have possibly backed themselves into a corner - at what point do Iran say "my turn" and can they actually execute any sort of plan?

Whether it's international war or a difference of opinion - diplomacy should always be the first order.

Quite often, the goals can be surprisingly similar ("success" might look different to each side) and there's probable common ground somewhere and then people simmer down and become a bit more reasonable when they feel understood and listened to.

The mistake is people that don't leave headroom to escalate and go in all guns blazing - there are threats that need to be neutralised immediately sometimes... But as a fan of Bruce Lee's "the art of winning without fighting" I'll typically say if there's scope for any other means to get a job done - give them a go first.

[u/No_Mercy_17145]

War and violence are the issue, not the answer, it honestly just causes more conflicts.

[u/Limp_Distribution118 → u/No_Mercy_17145]

Uhhh, this is true actually, thank you for ponting this out

[u/ragoff]

I'm the product of a failed public education system. What are some examples of issues settled without violence?

[u/Limp_Distribution118 → u/ragoff]

Probably none ?

[u/Few_Fact4747 → u/Limp_Distribution118]

Loads. Most democracies in Europe. Liberation of india. The abolishment of segregation in the US.

[u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Speak softly, but carry a big stick.

[u/Limp_Distribution118 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Oh, so if speaking doesn't work, use the big stick ?

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/Limp_Distribution118]

As a last resort, one might have to. The main point of the big stick though, is that if it's big enough, one wouldn't need to. Once the effectiveness of nuclear weapons had been demonstrated in a war, nobody who owns them has had reason to use them since.

[u/Limp_Distribution118 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Oh, but what about other big weapons ?

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/Limp_Distribution118]

Not big enough. We should all get personal nukes.

[u/Limp_Distribution118 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

But won't it be hard that each individual person gets his/her nuclear weapon ?, and if this happens their will be bad consequences

[u/EnKristenSnubbe → u/Limp_Distribution118]

Yeah, I better get a nuke first so I can nuke you before you get yours.

[u/Limp_Distribution118 → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Yup, that's what I am saying, it will lead to consequences

[u/hallam81]

This depends whole on what the issue is.

If the issue is "lets trade together", then war is not the answer. But if the issue is "you have oil and I want the land to use that oil so I can make myself and my country richer", then war is the likely outcome.