Fact-Check: "Wars are pointless more people die unless someone absolutely needs to be stopped"
What We Know
The claim that "wars are pointless" and result in unnecessary deaths unless there is an urgent need to stop an aggressor is a complex assertion that can be examined through various lenses.
-
Nature of War and Atrocities: According to an op-ed by Paul Woodruff, war is inherently linked to atrocities, often resulting in civilian deaths and moral injuries to combatants. Woodruff argues that the violence of war transforms individuals into killers and leads to significant suffering, suggesting that the justification for war is often flawed.
-
Humanitarian Interventions: Laurie Calhoun discusses the moral dilemmas surrounding military interventions, questioning whether such actions are sometimes necessary to prevent greater harm. She suggests that the justification for war often hinges on the perceived necessity to protect communities from existential threats, although this is fraught with ethical complications (Calhoun, 2002).
-
Historical Context: The history of wars, particularly those deemed unnecessary, such as the Vietnam War and more recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, has led many to label these wars as pointless. A TIME article highlights the repeated failures of the U.S. in these conflicts, suggesting that many wars do not achieve their intended outcomes and result in significant loss of life.
-
Public Sentiment: There is a strong public sentiment against wars that are perceived as unnecessary. Articles from various sources, including Truthout and Medium, emphasize the emotional and societal toll of such conflicts, reinforcing the idea that many wars lead to suffering without justifiable outcomes.
Analysis
The assertion that wars are pointless unless there is a dire need to stop an aggressor is partially supported by historical evidence and philosophical arguments.
-
Support for the Claim: The argument that wars often lead to unnecessary death and suffering is well-documented. Woodruff's perspective on the moral implications of war aligns with a broader critique of military interventions that do not meet the criteria of necessity. His assertion that the young soldiers who fight in wars are often morally innocent and do not deserve to die resonates with many ethical frameworks that question the justification of war (Woodruff, 2022).
-
Counterarguments: However, the claim overlooks situations where military action may be deemed necessary to prevent greater atrocities. Calhoun's exploration of humanitarian interventions suggests that there are scenarios where military action could be morally justified if it serves to protect vulnerable populations from imminent threats (Calhoun, 2002). This introduces a nuance to the claim, indicating that while many wars may be pointless, there are exceptions where intervention could be necessary.
-
Source Reliability: The sources cited provide a mix of philosophical insights and historical analysis. Woodruff's op-ed is grounded in personal experience and academic philosophy, lending credibility to his claims about the nature of war. Calhoun's work, while also credible, engages with complex moral theories that may not universally apply to all conflicts. The historical context provided by TIME and other articles adds empirical weight to the argument against unnecessary wars, although these sources may carry inherent biases based on their editorial perspectives.
Conclusion
The claim that "wars are pointless more people die unless someone absolutely needs to be stopped" is Partially True. While there is substantial evidence supporting the idea that many wars result in unnecessary death and suffering, there are also contexts where military intervention may be justified to prevent greater harm. The complexity of war necessitates a nuanced understanding that acknowledges both the tragic consequences of conflict and the moral imperatives that may sometimes compel nations to act.
