war = population control

So I got to thinkng about this earlier.

Yes most war is for profit or power as it stands at present. Have we crossed that line though where it is becoming a joint effort by the leaders of the world to reduce the population.

More and more I wonder if it is not insanity that makes our world leaders commit these evil deeds. I feel the stage is being set up for war to reduce the population. What if it is all one big plan to reduce the population of the planet. What if the all our leaders are sitting back and laughing as the masses gobble up the lies about the so called conflict.

I imagine it would be something they consider. Best way to drop a large male population is to throw them in the army and send them to kill other males for reasons that make little to no sense. I mean why would the leaders of any nation bankrupt themselves to go to war in this day and age. certainly there are much more productive and much less violent ways.

thoughts?

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

Thats a rather chauvinistic view.Militaries have advanced a long way.In the event of a major war there would also be many women on the lines.

Wars appear to have had a relatively low impact in comparison to ... the squirts

Diarrhoea kills 10x the number of people as wars. I imagine the most effective forms of population control are illness and disease. Populations also complain a lot less if being slowly diseased to death.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


Yes there would be a bit.

But still the army/military/airforce is what over three quarters male?

See my point?

its a bit presumptuous of you to cry chauvinism

Best way to drop a large male population is to throw them in the army and send them to kill other males for reasons that make little to no sense

read over that again I'm pretty sure it should be politically correct enough for you seeing as it is stating how it would be the best way to drop a large male population

reply to post by Pinke


lol

I was thinking of it more as a future strategy for population control. But good point

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
So I got to thinkng about this earlier.

Yes most war is for profit or power as it stands at present. Have we crossed that line though where it is becoming a joint effort by the leaders of the world to reduce the population.

More and more I wonder if it is not insanity that makes our world leaders commit these evil deeds. I feel the stage is being set up for war to reduce the population. What if it is all one big plan to reduce the population of the planet. What if the all our leaders are sitting back and laughing as the masses gobble up the lies about the so called conflict.

I imagine it would be something they consider. Best way to drop a large male population is to throw them in the army and send them to kill other males for reasons that make little to no sense. I mean why would the leaders of any nation bankrupt themselves to go to war in this day and age. certainly there are much more productive and much less violent ways.

thoughts?

I have often considered that war could be employed as a grand scale eugenics.

Consider that it is generally the less skilled laborer that is employed on the front lines in any combat. Not that skilled labor isn't at risk, and often expended. But that the majority is low skilled labor.

The counter balance to this is that the front line soldier tends to be of an ilk that is more easily subdued by authority. Those that don't serve (and risk death) could possibly be considered less likely to withstand authority.

The effect of war on the development of humanity is something that is interesting to consider.

As it relates to your OP, however, throw in cancer. And yes, it is population control.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

 

Thats a rather chauvinistic view.Militaries have advanced a long way.In the event of a major war there would also be many women on the lines.

while you may have a point when viewed on the basis of specific examples, would you happen to relate the statistics that support your viewpoint? Like, how many women have died in combat in the last, say, 20 years.

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
Best way to drop a large male population is to throw them in the army and send them to kill other males for reasons that make little to no sense.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
I mean why would the leaders of any nation bankrupt themselves to go to war in this day and age. certainly there are much more productive and much less violent ways.

Raw materials such as lithium and oil (and opiates, according to some) are cheaper to control than to buy.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

 

Thats a rather chauvinistic view.Militaries have advanced a long way.In the event of a major war there would also be many women on the lines.

while you may have a point when viewed on the basis of specific examples, would you happen to relate the statistics that support your viewpoint? Like, how many women have died in combat in the last, say, 20 years.

Ok you are right none have and none never will.

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin



It's probably less about population control as it is psychological manipulation. Keep the mind occupied with negative things like war - and the mind will be unable to focus on moving forward, create conflict between races with propaganda etc.. Also, places that have ongoing war would make it easier to take advantage of the general populace for labor and other things like that.

Just some thoughts at least.

Originally posted by WorShip
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

 

It's probably less about population control as it is psychological manipulation. Keep the mind occupied with negative things like war - and the mind will be unable to focus on moving forward, create conflict between races with propaganda etc.. Also, places that have ongoing war would make it easier to take advantage of the general populace for labor and other things like that.

Just some thoughts at least.

wow... never even considered psychological manipulation before. That adds a whole lot more to my paranoia.

Disease and illness are probably more effective and much more covert than a large scale world war over nothing important. The next few years will be interesting...

War has been used a lot in history to decrease population. Notice that the royal families and people in charge were usually incorporated or exiled to a nice location. It has always killed the common folks, not the elite so much.

It is just one of the ways to kill off people, you could use the potato blight excuse like the English did a while back, halting aid to Ireland till most people died.


Every society in the past has done something. Most left the women and trainable children to join their armies. This used to be taught in school.

reply to post by rickymouse


Everything they taught when I went to school was politically correct and had much of the violence removed. May have just been the area I grew up in though. Who knows?

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty



Look....not trying to make an argument. Just curious as to whether or not your statement was truthful, or merely truthy. Either is fine. As The Dude says, "That's just, like, your opinion."

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by lobotomizemecapin

 

Thats a rather chauvinistic view.Militaries have advanced a long way.In the event of a major war there would also be many women on the lines.

while you may have a point when viewed on the basis of specific examples, would you happen to relate the statistics that support your viewpoint? Like, how many women have died in combat in the last, say, 20 years.

Sorry about my last post. I was enduring non ATS issues (getting yelled at by girlfriend).While I can't give combat death stats in the last twenty years.I assumed this post was about future wars.

I can give you one example.In the U.S navy there are 54,917 active female. Some of which are assigned on 277 different ships.A war of the size purposed by O/P would have to include Naval forces.Any ship on the ocean would be a target.

Not to mention that with the advancement of women in the military.Other branches have included combat,support and logistic roles. 146 women have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan they won't be the first, and won't be the last there will be many more.If the battles are as epic,as the o.p. hypothesis.With that many males drained from the pool many women would be needed to fill roles vacated.It doesn't matter if you are in a truck,C.P or on the front line.A bomb is a Bomb,a shell is a shell a missle is a missle.Dead is dead


The Dude Abides

Well if you take a look at wars throughout history, Its not hard to understand thaat a good cleansing happenes every now and then

WW2 - Roughly 60 Million casualties with 30 Million being citizens..

Iraq - Unconfirmed but the official citizen death toll is over 800,000. They are only reported deaths though. The numbers would most certainly rocket if all the deaths were accounted for. As for the Coalition forces operating in Iraq, the numbers are very low.

Afghanistan/Pakistan - Its said that around 17,000 civilians have died in Afghanistan, Not sure what the figure would be if we added the drone strikes in Pakistan. Again, the Coalition and Afghan casualties are low.. Terrorsists are not mentioned, maybe there aren't any, who knows

Vietnam - All opposition casualties were pretty much civilians.

Syria - Out of the 60,000 apparently only 900 have been Rebel fighters while the SAA have suffered around 10,000 casualties. I think that is bs btw..

As you can see population control works both ways but it seems as though right now civilians are feeling the pinch. Wouldn't it be easier for Armies to head out into the desert or something away from the cities? This stuff can be prevented, I think someone wants people dying on a regular basis, its as simple as that.

Yeah war = power, money, control .

No control, no money, no power = peace .


Mmmmm maybe not ha.

War is simply about control as far as i'm concerned.. its the natural extension of politics. When a country won't bow to your diplomacy and grant you rights to build a pipe line, you bomb them.
When a country won't bow to political pressure to keep using your currency? Invade.

Civillian populations are killed in order ot make them submit to the new ruler. sad, horrible but true.

I think its plausible that some groups may encourage the use of war as a political tool, not caring who wins, in order to depopulate the world.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


I have considered a few times what a war of attrition with the east would end up looking like. Like, what does "war of attrition" really mean in that situation to begin with.

Initially, it would be unthinkable to the American people that we might carpet bomb civilian areas, or other such horrors. However, if their technology ends up being better than what they export commercially, it might end up that our only option would be to commit to something like that

I try to not involve myself in such matters, though. I have my own guns, and they defend my front door. Most likely they would defend our borders, too. Anything beyond that, I am not interested.