The cause of War

[donttread]

Because neither explanation makes any sense.

Population density probably has something to do with the limited resource explanation Peter gave. In the H&G days population would not have been dense by today's standards but in terms of sustainably living off the land density is relative.

[donttread]

No. I reject your spin.

How does greed differ from " allocation of limited resources"? I guess you could say and I would acknowledge that if the societies faced starvation it would be driven by survival drives not greed. But that is not the case with most modern wars. In fact modern wars tend to cause the starvation.

[Mister D]

Population density probably has something to do with the limited resource explanation Peter gave. In the H&G days population would not have been dense by today's standards but in terms of sustainably living off the land density is relative.

Yet your fabled HG enjoyed war. So much for that...

[Peter1469]

How does greed differ from " allocation of limited resources"? I guess you could say and I would acknowledge that if the societies faced starvation it would be driven by survival drives not greed. But that is not the case with most modern wars. In fact modern wars tend to cause the starvation.

A sovereign has a duty to protect his people. Not the people of another nation. If there are limited fresh water supplies and you can't negotiate an agreement with neighbors it is not "greed" to go to war and take it.

[donttread]

Yet your fabled HG enjoyed war. So much for that...

I'm pretty sure only modern non-participants enjoy war.

[donttread]

A sovereign has a duty to protect his people. Not the people of another nation. If there are limited fresh water supplies and you can't negotiate an agreement with neighbors it is not "greed" to go to war and take it.

I agree, IF YOU NEED the resource. Entirely different if you just want the resource or simply want to control others.

[Admiral Ackbar]

There is not simple one sized answer here. Nations have imperatives. Depending on their geography, history, climate. Wars happen when nations feel insecure, but there is even more.

Once a nation feels insecure it has to determine if it can find other ways to balance that insecurity, Alliances, trade etc.. beyond that a nation has to determine realistically if it can win. Sometimes they feel there is a short window in which they can win for a variety of reasons.

Each conflict has all these elements, but is unique to its own situation.

Take China for example. China is insecure. Surrounded on all sides by hostile powers, India, Vietnam, South Korea, a Crazy N Korea, Japan, Taiwan, The Phillipines and Russia to the north (yes PJL Russia is traditionally hostile to China). Throw in US Ships and sea and forward military bases they have reason to be insecure.

On top of that this is made worse by the fact that their entire economy depends on the ability to export via the sea lanes. They control none of that.

So they are exerting some power in the South China Sea, but are exploring other ways to avoid war. The Belt Road intiative, Trying to build alliances. There will be war if they believe all of those have failed AND they have the ability to win a conflict AND they can absorb the cost of that conflict.

This will play out specifically regarding Taiwan.

That is how wars happen

[Mister D]

I'm pretty sure only modern non-participants enjoy war.

You would of course be wrong but that would not be the first time.

[Peter1469]

I agree, IF YOU NEED the resource. Entirely different if you just want the resource or simply want to control others.

That was my hypo.

[donttread]

There is not simple one sized answer here. Nations have imperatives. Depending on their geography, history, climate. Wars happen when nations feel insecure, but there is even more.

Once a nation feels insecure it has to determine if it can find other ways to balance that insecurity, Alliances, trade etc.. beyond that a nation has to determine realistically if it can win. Sometimes they feel there is a short window in which they can win for a variety of reasons.

Each conflict has all these elements, but is unique to its own situation.

Take China for example. China is insecure. Surrounded on all sides by hostile powers, India, Vietnam, South Korea, a Crazy N Korea, Japan, Taiwan, The Phillipines and Russia to the north (yes PJL Russia is traditionally hostile to China). Throw in US Ships and sea and forward military bases they have reason to be insecure.

On top of that this is made worse by the fact that their entire economy depends on the ability to export via the sea lanes. They control none of that.

So they are exerting some power in the South China Sea, but are exploring other ways to avoid war. The Belt Road intiative, Trying to build alliances. There will be war if they believe all of those have failed AND they have the ability to win a conflict AND they can absorb the cost of that conflict.

This will play out specifically regarding Taiwan.

That is how wars happen

I'm going with the idea that war is initially over resources. Ego, power etc are all involved as well, but i think it usually starts with one group, or at least it's leaders, wanting something the other group has.
I also suppose we could say that there are at least two reasons for every war.
The reason the war is really started and the reason that is fed to the masses to get their support in the form of the willingness to sen d their sons to kill and die.