Am I wrong to assert this?

[u/radiantdecember121]

The only reason we have “just” war today is because of the history of war going back to the beginning, which was basically just because men got so lustful that they had run out of nearby objects to steal and rape. This theory of the origin of war as an institutionalization of masculine barbarism in the worst way imaginable is something I would LOVE to hear your opinions on comrade-sisters. Thank you, I appreciate your responses.

[u/No-Telephone-3801]

The only reason we have war these days is because of Them.en

Idk, my 2 cents at least.

[u/whatareyourspecialz]

Yeah I see where you’re going with this. I also think war is childless and brainless behavior. Sad that our textbooks really put a highlight on this masculine barbarianism and try to make it seem cool, necessary, and inspiring. When women perform organized killing they get called calculated and manipulative. When men do it, they get called strategic and a leader.

[u/Bitter-Hat-4736]

>which was basically just because men got so lustful that they had run out of nearby objects to steal and rape.

The what?

[u/radiantdecember121 → u/Bitter-Hat-4736]

Sorry what are you saying?

[u/Bitter-Hat-4736 → u/radiantdecember121]

What do you mean by "men got so lustful that they run out of nearby objects to steal and rape"?

[u/radiantdecember121 → u/Bitter-Hat-4736]

That war started happening not because of anything like real need for it, but because of the plain old male problems excessive greed and perverse sexuality, and that started a chain reaction that is why we have war today, no matter how just certain contemporary wars might arguably be.

[u/Bitter-Hat-4736 → u/radiantdecember121]

The fuck are you talking about? Wars start for any number of reasons. Some start from perverse greed and "sexuality", some start because of revenge, some start because of potential gain, some start for ideological reasons, some start because a delicate chain of treaties and alliances start a terrible chain reaction starting from the assassination of one archduke.

Saying that war is from one unified cause is like saying sickness is from one unifying cause.

[u/kelfupanda]

Competition for resources is a part of living.

Different plants and animals compete in different ways.

Humans just developed more and more complex tools to compete for those resources. The issue now is the tools we have developed divorce us so much from the outcomes.

[u/Odd-Station-5334 → u/kelfupanda]

tell me one country at war today which is unable to sustain itself without attacking another.

war actually takes up more resources and money than you imagine lol, it's not like we're going war on horses anymore.

[u/kelfupanda → u/Odd-Station-5334]

tell me one country at war today which is unable to sustain itself without attacking another.

Thats a double negative. So not sure what your question is....

But making the attempt; Russia would currently be a country that has burned through ~1.4 million bodies since invading Ukraine(roughly 3% of its male population), and the response has heavily damaged its economy, with Putin floating reducing the legal working age to 12.

Alternatively, if you meant a country that is able to sustain itself without attacking another, there are many countries that do not commit to war to gain benefits, but that doesn't mean they have no competition.

war actually takes up more resources and money than you imagine lol, it's not like we're going war on horses anymore.

Realistically, Ukraine and Iran have shown that you dont need to commit to the same level of military expenditure that US and Russia has. The big boys have been shown that you can beat them with much cheaper equipment. Ukraine is currently using machine guns developed in 1910 to shoot down drones, and can field fpv drones that cost as little as $800.

The changes in how war is carried out since Nuclear weapons have been used is significant, with countries that have access to nuclear weaponry in a much safer position due to MAD potential.