Firefly wrote:It is not an extension of diplomacy but the result of failed diplomatic efforts.
Ah, but you see that is still part of the entire diplomatic process. From the start to the conclusion, whatever that conclusion might be, is all based on the relationship between two or more parties. Even if it deteriorates and violence becomes the sole outcome, it is a result of that process.
Economics and diplomacy are only two of many methods of securing resources and securing resources is only one of many necessary behaviors of humans.
Absolutely correct, but I never said they were the only two methods. Just that they are methods used. Humans must secure resources (water and food) to survive. We defend these resources to the death, and if it seems like there is more competition than is worthwhile, we move to a new spot not populated by other individuals in the hopes of becoming sole 'owners' of said resources. Why do you think humanity migrated across the entire globe?
There are many combinations and war is only one of many possibilities. Therefore you conclusion may be in error.
I would agree with this, although when it comes right down to it we live in a finite world with a finite amount of resources. Until we create a way to replicate our essentials infinitely, people will struggle, some will die, and others will flourish. There will always be conflict until the day that there isn't, and if someone needs something bad enough, something that without it they will surely perish, they will do whatever necessary to obtain it.
War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.
Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.
Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.
War = Life