Is Destruction necessary to bring peace?

This reminds me of a Bill board  written in the campus of Eastern Naval command Head quarters in my place Vizag.

The Bill board says,

"If you want Peace be ready for a war."

I'm of the opinion  destruction is inevitable to establish Peace. Soft methods to bring Peace in these Cutthroat world will be an exercise in futility. Can we use soft methods to deal with war mongering Pakistan to establish Peace ?

Your post itself contains the answer, it is necessary to kill the evil people because once they overpower the good, all reason is lost and there is no other way but to kill them. Innocent lives are lost for a number of reasons, chief ones being that they remain quiet when evil grows and allow the evil to grow stronger without quashing it in the initial stages. Other reasons are they collude with the evil. it is true that God created the world, but it is the humans who have created evil for their own greed and selfishness. Maybe it is the nature's and God's way of maintaining balance in the world.

It is said that when Einstein and Oppenheimer built the powerful bombs, they were very restless and apprehensive about its destructive nature. They sought answers from the Bhagwad Gita and then were able to complete their work that aided in bringing down Hitler and arresting the Japanese, Russians etc. before their oppression could grown stronger.

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

Your post itself contains the answer, it is necessary to kill the evil people because once they overpower the good, all reason is lost and there is no other way but to kill them. Innocent lives are lost for a number of reasons, chief ones being that they remain quiet when evil grows and allow the evil to grow stronger without quashing it in the initial stages. Other reasons are they collude with the evil. it is true that God created the world, but it is the humans who have created evil for their own greed and selfishness. Maybe it is the nature's and God's way of maintaining balance in the world.

 

It is said that when Einstein and Oppenheimer built the powerful bombs, they were very restless and apprehensive about its destructive nature. They sought answers from the Bhagwad Gita and then were able to complete their work that aided in bringing down Hitler and arresting the Japanese, Russians etc. before their oppression could grown stronger.

Absolutely. I agree with your point that God created the world and man invented killings and barbaric ways to cater to his selfish needs. Hence, to punish those evil doers destruction becomes inevitable.

 

yes sometime it happens in everyone life each and everyone face in his/her life to get some happiness he/she have to do some destruction. It mostly happen because of some uneducated person

rambabu wrote:

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

Your post itself contains the answer, it is necessary to kill the evil people because once they overpower the good, all reason is lost and there is no other way but to kill them. Innocent lives are lost for a number of reasons, chief ones being that they remain quiet when evil grows and allow the evil to grow stronger without quashing it in the initial stages. Other reasons are they collude with the evil. it is true that God created the world, but it is the humans who have created evil for their own greed and selfishness. Maybe it is the nature's and God's way of maintaining balance in the world.

 

It is said that when Einstein and Oppenheimer built the powerful bombs, they were very restless and apprehensive about its destructive nature. They sought answers from the Bhagwad Gita and then were able to complete their work that aided in bringing down Hitler and arresting the Japanese, Russians etc. before their oppression could grown stronger.

Absolutely. I agree with your point that God created the world and man invented killings and barbaric ways to cater to his selfish needs. Hence, to punish those evil doers destruction becomes inevitable.

 

 

True...as we all know according to our Hindu philosophy the Trimurti concept that consists of Brahma - The creator, Vishnu - the Nurturer and Shiva - the Destroyer. Here the concept of Shiva as destroyer is not simply destruction, but also as the beginner of new life. Unless the old and unnecessary is destroyed, there won't be place for new. Even in nature we have studied about different ages and eons, once dinosaurs ruled the earth. They were destroyed and then other type of life took birth, so on and so forth. So we have to accept that the life is nothing but a cycle of life and death or rather, a new beginning.

I agree with you. While agreeing with all the mythological aspects you mentioned supporting the necessity of destruction to establish peace, I would like to add the crux of Malthusian theory of population which says that population check is a necessary evil . It says

"Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio."

Destruction is boon from the Blue to maintain the Balance.

War cannot bring peace, though it destroys evils. Also, evils cannot be demolished by peaceful ways; otherwise there would have been no evils.…. Krishna was blamed that he did not prevent the war. Sure, he could have done it, but Krishna was not a God; he was a God-incarnate. That is, God incarnated as a human being. He cannot use divine powers to stop war. He had to follow the limitations of human being. He had to follow the passions and traits of human, the form in which he was incarnated. Within his limitations, he tried to prevent the war, but he did not succeed. He even felt that Gandhari was responsible for everything…. If a mother could not guide her sons through righteousness, how can a God-incarnate do?   

Even if you set aside the role of God, from the social pint of view, War and natural calamities  or destruction are necessary to cheek the population growth. Malthusian theory of population also says the same. wars and Natural calamities are the nature's way of dealing with the Balance between sustainability and Population.

Everything cannot be achieved through peaceful means. As we say everything has a right time like it every achievement comes through a right amount of preparation as well as with an appropriate method. This is the fact that when the buffaloes fight, crops suffer. We need to accept that the step was taken not by any criminal but Krishna the God. He knew that many innocent would have got killed but still he opted for war only because it was to finish the evils from root and a lesson for those who were left behind that the evils meet a dead end.

It is imperative to crush evil..In order to achieve one thing,  you have to forego another. In this process, it is necessary to weigh the things and see in which way the balance tilts.Krishna has seen the balance tilting towards establishing peace because as God his prime duty is to safeguard the humanity..

War can never lead to peace. Destruction means demolishing so if the party is demolished how cqn we expect any peace. If people think that war can lead to soft bilateral relations then, I feel that if we destruct and deteriotes one's power, the other people who are in favour of that particular party would rise and would lead to both-sided destruction instead of peace. Killing or destructing is just hazardous and self-annihiliating. If peace is required, diplomatic relations should promote mutual benefit. Results of better mutual benefits have always been fruitful and will remain so forever. At one side, we discourage terrorisms and civil wars because they are destructive and demolishes peace then, howcome we are promoting destruction and wars for peace.

It all depends on the other side of the party. If the other party provokes with an intention of destabilizing the country, do you think we should the song of Peace. A thorn should be used to remove a thorn.

Apart from this I would like to add on that in the mythology of India both the epics ramayan and Mahabharat had wars but it is notable that first the heroes both Shri Ram ( and army) and Shri krishan alobg with Arjun and Family demanded peaceful diplomatic agreement firstly and war was secondary. In the case if the other party wants destruction, it is their lack of knowledge or rather-

" Vinashkaale vipreet budhi".

However, war leads to destruction only. In the case of mahabharat only a handful of people were alive after the 13 day war who were of a same team, so peace was derermined. In the Ramayan also, Ravan and his supporters died and Shri Ram had been always peaceful, if he was not have been so, he would have never accepted the exile.

Basically war became a need of situation not a source of peace. It was about ending evils and peace was never a criteria of requirements.

A thorn can remove a thorn but what about the several other thorns coming in the way? 

Also if a thorn removes the other, only one is left. A Single palm cannot clap similarly, with single thorn there is no point of peace and war. Its over basically , one thorn ends and other rules.

War is an extreme form of negotiation to settle a dispute if other peaceful means fail. Destruction can be peaceful or violent. In technology we see it happening all the time. Mobiles have killed landlines, PC and laptops and cameras (Kodak has closed down),watches, CD's and so on. Progress means replacing the old. In the process people who earned from the old lose their jobs and livelihood and are put to trouble.  

We are discussing about the imminent destruction, when other peaceful efforts fail.

So.

"So" ? What does  it mean ?

It means without any doubt.

A criminal wastage of space. Please ensure as much as possible to be crisp, compact and clear in responses. Spreading a simple response into 2 pages, which could have done in a single page amounts to spam For the same reason the Administration views serial posting one after another seriously.