I'm thinking about switching studies. At the moment I'm doing European Law School, but I really would like to do Leiden University College The Hague. When I want to apply for this, I have to write an essay. One of the subjects is this question: Do you think that war is a bad thing, and (if so) why? Now I am wondering: when answering this question, 1) what is your definition of war and, more importantly: 2) what defines 'a bad thing'? It's bad to randomly kill people, I got that. But when it is for a higher goal? And does it matter for what kind of goal?

This is such a coincidence! I had a lecture about modern warfare and humanitarian rights last week. It was very interesting
But yes I think that war is a 'bad thing'. In general there is created an unsafe region somewhere for the inhabitants, a battlefield in which many die, and there are many indirect negative sides on war aswell. I don't think that there are many people who think that war is good and even fewer that can explain why.
And for the definition of war: a definition which I like for a war is that there must be a set region where a battle take place, multiple state or non-state actors and a sort of two or more fronts where te battle takes place. This does mean that the current 'war on terror' is not within the definition of war.
And I don't think that there ever is a thing as a 'higher goal' which would change my opinion on war being a 'bad thing'. Sure in some ways I can understand why a war origins, and I can some times even understand that a country has good reasons to go into a war. But I don't think that this makes the war on itself a less 'bad thing'
But what is your own opinion on the subject?

War is good because it's a way of balancing population. War often breaks out when there are too many young males and not enough females. This happened to be so during various wars and research will back this up (just don't ask me where you can find it since remembering sources is hard ). War will often take a lot of casualties and the numbers of young (aggressive) males will decline.

Also a decline of population will mean less mouths to feed and prevent starvation of overpopulation.

The black death was actually a good thing happening to Europe, and maybe you could argue the same with war. In medieval Europe large parts were overpopulated, people died from famine etc. Black death took the lifes of around 33% of European population, including a lot of scholars (most scholars were men of the church and those were the guys taking care of the sick). Black death rebalanced the population so there was no need to die from famine anymore and at the same time we see that many universities were founded to replace the scholars. Overal seen this black death had a positive effect on Europe.

A war might cause the same effect. Of course only if that specific area will not be drawn in a new conflict. Come to think of it since WW2 it has gone better for a lot of European countries. Western Europe has never been this prosperous, we have never seen a longer peaceful era in europe since the Roman Empire and education has never been this high.

Of course if you look on micro level war is a bad thing. Family members do die, soldiers do die, innocents do die, all true. But do you just look to the individual or to the common good? War can be something good. Ideologies 'we' support spread out and make this world a better place. The ideology of democracy and freedom is spread by the USA in both Afghanistan and Iraq now. Aren't those the ideologies the western world wants to be spread?

Lot of people will always say that war is a bad thing, but argueing the oppsoite might be interesting

Also do note that the above is not my personal opinion (although I do see the black death as something good for Europe, atleast if you look at the social-economic effects of it).

Although I dont think war is always a bad thing, I do wonder why dying in a war is better then dying from starvation. If you look at the society as a whole, it can be good that in a situation of overpopulation people die from a disease: survival of the fittest. But in a war, the group you need in a society (young healthy men) dies first. So only if they're too agressive, I can see that point indeed David

I actually think there are lots of people 'happy' with war: factories producing arms, warlords, private army companies, etc. I really like to do research on this topic! The movie with Nicolas Cage (Lord of War) is really interesting in my opinion. Although it's a Hollywood movie, it does make you think about it. Has anyone more suggestions to read on this topic? And a friend of mine has seen a great documentary on this, but she forgot the name... So if anone knows it, just tell me

And I do believe war can be justified for a higher goal (otherwise I probably didnt want to work in the field of peace enforcing / peacekeeping field
I guess sometimes military intervention is the last resort and can help to stabilize a society. However, that depends on the definition of war indeed. I think military intervention is seen as war when groups opposo to the intervention, right?

Phyleen, are you going to write the essay?

Very interesting on this subject is David Keen with his book 'Complex Emergencies' and an earlier one called 'Endless War'.
These books proof that war serves a lot of functions in society, both political and economical.

He seems indeed very interesting!
After I've read the books for my exam (Oxford Handbook on the United Nations, very cool book btw ) I think this one is next on my list.

Thanks for the advise!

There are so many people benefitting from war, not only the companies but also drugs producers and other countries and their international agenda. Sometimes I think a grand scale war will never arise just from the conflict at hand but from external actors (countries, companies ed) trying to create war. Would the conflict in Colombia and Afghanistan be as severe without drugs?

I think you raised an interesting point Steffy: If we agree was is 'bad' then how do we value peace enforcing operations. Is it ever a real solution?

I believe it's always very hard to know if greed or grievance is the origin of the conflict. I do however think it's sure that the financial possibilies that drugs trade and other 'illegal trades' bring to conflict parties, make the wars more and more severe and continuing. Not only is there the possibility to buy more arms, money and opportunities will also attrack more fighters.