Would a Global War make for a better world afterwards?

Only if religion was wiped out and replaced with teachings of compassion for all living things.

saabsaab wrote: »

A full nuclear war would cause a nuclear winter and result in huge starvation & disease world wide not to mention nuclear contamination for centuries. A few pockets of survivors would eek out an existance in out of the way places back to stone age really.

I wonder how long it would take us to reclaim lost technology, a new renaissance in a way.

Just don't give the Apes guns

Sounds like the plot of a dan brown novel TBH...

So the way to World Peace is to blow half the planet to **** in a nuclear war ? And the way to stop mass killings in religious wars is to start a war against the religious and kill them all. Probably makes sense to someone.

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Male to Female ratio in Russia has still not recovered due to effects of World War II. A serious indication of how nasty and brutish wars are.

Huh? Why would the effects still be noticeable?

WW2 ended in 1945, even if a person was 12 then. The very earliest I imagine a boy would have been fighting in the Russian army in 1945, they would be 83 now and probably dead.

So wouldn't the lost generation have fixed itself by now?

Large wars don't automatically result in a period of peace and prosperity afterwards. The world was completely ****ed between WWI and WWII. This is basically why WWII happened in the first place.

And six years after that started we dropped the first nukes. Imagine if for whatever reason WWII hadn't started until 1949, when the US and Germany had already invented nuclear weapons.

The world is better now, 70 years later, but it was still pretty ****ed up by WWII till the late 80s.

Previous wars are no guide. In WW1 & WW2 whole continents were pretty unaffected apart from losing men. WW3 would affect the whole World.

Discodog wrote: »

Previous wars are no guide. In WW1 & WW2 whole continents were pretty unaffected apart from losing men. WW3 would affect the whole World.

whaaa? unaffected? As many civilians were killed as soldiers in ww2..entire european cities were literally burnt to cinders..75% of jews were killed in europe.. some continents were unaffected yeah like north and south america but the continents where the real war was happening such as europe and east asia were hardly 'unaffected'??

Hitchens wrote: »

Cities would be demolished completely but the rebuilding would mean no unemployment.

The following scheme would work better and there'd be no bloodshed.


Scheme for Full Employment

Recommends that:
1.Jobless people be employed as security guards
1. in their own homes.
2. They have official-looking uniforms.
Benefits:
• Reduces the number of unemployed.
• They no longer sit around all day doing nothing.
• Instead, they sit around all day maintaining the
security of the premises.
• Fosters social responsibility.
• Increases self-respect (from wearing nice uniform).
• Develops skill-set.
• Reduces neighbourhood crime/terrorism.
Alternative role:
• For those who prefer not to be security guards, we
recommend employment as Home Administrators.
Funding:
• To be funded by the government (ie public funding).
Why should the government fund it? Well, the government already spends billions of pounds of public money funding job creation – eg schemes such as the New Deal, Regional Selective Assistance Grants, etc. Why not go a small step further to fight the evil of unemployment?
And, anyway, would you prefer public funding of idleness? Surely it's better to fund respectable jobs.

http://www.anxietyculture.com/scheme.htm