Fact-Check Article: "Most Wars are Pointless; More Innocent People Die. Settle It Peacefully!"
What We Know
The claim that "most wars are pointless" and that "more innocent people die" is a complex assertion that can be examined through various lenses, including historical data and ethical considerations.
-
Civilian Casualties: According to the Costs of War project, civilian casualties in modern conflicts are staggering, with estimates indicating that at least 244,000 civilians have died violent deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan alone. This figure highlights the significant toll that wars take on non-combatants, often leading to calls for peaceful resolutions.
-
Indirect Deaths: A study by Paul Wise published in Daedalus emphasizes that indirect causes of death—such as lack of healthcare, food, and shelter—often result in more civilian deaths than direct violence. This suggests that the repercussions of war extend far beyond immediate combat, affecting the overall well-being of populations.
-
Collateral Damage: The concept of collateral damage is legally accepted in warfare, where civilian casualties may occur as a byproduct of military actions aimed at legitimate targets. As noted in an article on collateral damage, the principle of proportionality allows for civilian harm if it is not excessive compared to the military advantage gained. This raises ethical questions about the morality of such actions.
-
Civilians as Victims: Reports indicate that civilians account for nearly 90% of war casualties, underscoring the disproportionate impact of warfare on innocent populations. This statistic reinforces the notion that wars often lead to significant civilian suffering.
Analysis
The assertion that most wars are pointless and result in the death of innocent people is supported by substantial evidence regarding civilian casualties and the indirect effects of war. However, the claim also lacks nuance, as not all wars can be classified as "pointless," especially those fought in self-defense or to prevent greater harm.
-
Source Reliability: The sources cited, such as the Costs of War project and academic publications, are credible and provide robust data on civilian casualties. However, the interpretation of what constitutes a "pointless" war is subjective and varies depending on individual perspectives on justice, self-defense, and international relations.
-
Moral Considerations: The ethical implications of collateral damage and the principle of proportionality are critical in evaluating the morality of warfare. While it is legally permissible to cause incidental harm to civilians, many argue that this practice is morally indefensible, as highlighted in the discussion of moral philosophy. This adds complexity to the claim that wars are inherently pointless, as some may view them as necessary evils in certain contexts.
-
Indirect Effects: The emphasis on indirect deaths due to war-related factors, such as food insecurity and lack of healthcare, is particularly important. As Wise notes, these factors often lead to higher mortality rates than direct violence, suggesting that the consequences of war are far-reaching and multifaceted.
Conclusion
The claim that "most wars are pointless" and that "more innocent people die" is Partially True. While there is substantial evidence supporting the notion that wars lead to significant civilian casualties and suffering, the characterization of wars as "pointless" is subjective and context-dependent. Some conflicts may be deemed necessary for self-defense or humanitarian intervention, complicating the narrative of futility in warfare. Thus, while the impact on innocent lives is undeniable, the motivations and justifications for war require a more nuanced discussion.
