It is right or wrong to be able to solve the problem of war with scientific knowledge

The use of scientific knowledge to solve the problem of war is a controversial topic. Scientific knowledge can provide some help in solving the problems of war, but it is not an entirely feasible approach.

Scientific knowledge can provide us with some understanding of the nature of war, the causes of war, the effects of war, etc. Through scientific research and analysis, we can better understand the complexity and dynamics of warfare, so as to better formulate war strategies and operational plans. In addition, scientific knowledge can also help us develop more advanced and effective military technologies, systems, strategies and tactics, etc.

However, scientific knowledge is not the only way to solve the problems of war. The solution of the war requires the combined effect of political, economic, cultural, and other factors. Negotiation and dialogue are one of the best ways to resolve conflicts, which require cooperation and compromise on all sides.

Stabilizing the situation is also an important means of preventing wars and conflicts, which needs to be achieved through sound foreign policy and military deployment. International cooperation is also an important means of preventing wars and conflicts, and all countries should strengthen cooperation to jointly maintain international peace and security.

Therefore, although scientific knowledge can provide us with some understanding and direction for solving war problems, the solution of war problems requires comprehensive consideration of various factors and cannot rely entirely on scientific knowledge.

War itself is wrong.

The so-called law of war is the essential connection and inevitable trend of various contradictions in the process of the emergence and development of war. It is the result of the interaction of objective conditions such as military, political, economic, geographical, warlike nature, and international nature of the two sides of the war, and is reflected through the practice of war. It runs through the entire process of war, dominates the direction of the development of war, determines the course and outcome of war, has the considerable nature of not being transferred by human will, and continues to develop along with the development of human society and the practice of war.

Therefore, we must explore the regularity of war through scientific methods, and then give correct guidance to war.

1. Just as hunger is alleviated by solid food rather than by drawing bread, the best way to solve the problem is to fight a real war, not a war of words.

2. During World War II, the Allies finally relied on war to eliminate the fascists, and the previous appeasement policy obviously gave the fascists the illusion that they could invade wantonly, allowing them to blitz Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and France.

3. Our country can have such a large territory, which is solved by war; The rise of our nation was also solved by war; In the early days of the founding of the People's Republic of China, we were able to have time for peacebuilding, and it was resolved by war.

Lü Shu criticized the popular Yanbing theory and argued that war was inevitable. In response to the theory of the Yan Soldier on the grounds that a certain country died due to war, "The Swinging Soldier" retorted: "The husband has a person who dies with hunger, and he wants to forbid the food of the world, which is contradictory."

There are those who die in a boat, and they want to ban the ships of the world, which is contrary. There are those who use soldiers to lose their country, and they want to destroy the soldiers of the world, and they are rebellious. Husbands and soldiers must not be disgraced.

For example, if water is fire, it will be a blessing if you use it well, and a disaster if you can't use it. Such analogous reasoning is very convincing. It affirmed the inevitability of the war, and its purpose was to demonstrate the rationality and irreversibility of the war of Qin's reunification, which was in line with the historical conditions and objective situation at that time.

In addition, although the author emphasizes the inevitability of war, he does not erase the distinction between just and unjust war. He believed that war was not an end in itself, but only a means to a certain political end.

The power of science and technology, from the current point of view, will make ** more powerful (note, make ** not the war itself).

However, the scale of the war is directly related to the manipulator of the war, the will of people, and has no direct connection with science and technology itself (from ancient times to the present, people have fought wars for interests, or other purposes, regardless of the era and technology).

The frequency of wars is still from ancient times to the present, (in fact, the landlord can go to check more, take a look at the history of human wars, and you will understand that there are no less than 100 major wars recorded in history, significant and far-reaching, and there are countless small-scale and local wars, and Chinese history alone is enough to explain) So the frequency of wars is not focused on the development of science and technology.

If you want to say that, the development of science and technology has changed the situation of war, the means of war, the situation of war, and the mentality of war, etc., after all, it is people who decide war.

No, war technology has developed rapidly since World War II, but there are fewer and fewer wars, for the simple reason that they don't want to destroy themselves.

Will a war without interests happen? No matter how advanced technology is, who will do something without interest? Can you go to work without pay?

The people of a group or even a country will not be composed of a group of mentally handicapped people, and if war is based on profit, there will be problems left over from history, such as Japan and us. Even if it is a territorial dispute, it is a conflict of interests.

We should all know that in World War II, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima at 8:15 on August 6, 1945, killing and injuring 200,000 of the city's 245,000 people, and the entire city was instantly reduced to rubble. At 11:02 a.m. on August 9 of the same year, after the attack on Hiroshima, the U.S. military carried out a second atomic bomb attack on Japan, targeting Nagasaki.

More than 100,000 people out of a population of 230,000 in Nagasaki City were killed and disappeared on the same day, and 60 of the city's buildings were destroyed. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused many more injuries, and in addition to many deaths, survivors also suffered from the after-effects of radiation such as cancer, leukemia, and burns. As of August 2007, according to statistics from the relevant Japanese authorities, the number of deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a result of atomic bombs** exceeded 250,000 and 140,000 respectively.

At the beginning, the nuclear ** was developed, which made a leap forward in science and technology. But now, because of nuclear **, many people have lost their lives and families. It is the rapid development of technology that has led to so many deaths, homelessness, and broken families.

War is not a misconception, but the ultimate means to achieve interests.

The demand for interests is the basis for determining the behavior of the state, and if there is a situation of zero-sum interests, it is impossible to reach a unified idea; When the weaker side does not succumb to the pressure, the most vulnerable body becomes the weakness of the strong to strike at the other side.