The Only Way To Prepare For Peace Is To Be Prepared For War:
This statement is true. A country cannot, in good conscience, be unprepared for war. Any country that attempts to live with no military forces will be eventually destroyed, unless they have absolutely nothing of value in their country. Value is what drives invasions of other countries, no war has ever been fought by a country that had nothing to gain by winning. Therefore, if a country wants to have any standard of living whatsoever (a standard of living requires a certain amount of economic production, which implies value), they must be prepared to defend themselves from those who would take that value for themselves. Any country that tries to live based on abstruse conceptions of "Human Nature" will inevitably find themselves on the receiving end of a good ass-whuppin (sorry ms jenkins).
A perfect example of a country that tried to live peacefully is Tibet. The Dalai Lama had next to no military, as he wanted. Then, when China decided to invade, Tibet was unable to put up a fight, and China easily conquered the defenseless country. This kind of subjugation shows exactly why a country must be prepared for war at all times. Any other philosophy is naive.
Disclaimer: Just because a country HAS military power, does not mean it MUST use it. In fact, it is beneficial to a country to refrain from military action as much as possible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
-Jonathon
While I definately take your point Neil, and it is a true situation with Tibet, I disagree that preparing for war is the only route to peace. For instance, take Costa Rica. Costa Rica abolished their military after a revolution in 1948 and have lived in peace since then, putting the now available funds into one of the most successful education programs in the world. While it is naive to think that peace would be us all throwing down guns and holding hands, it is a very pescimistic veiw of the world.
You make a good point in that you effectively support the need for a military, if only to maintain the safety of citizens in the event of an invasion. However, I don't feel like you have made a case for the statement you are addressing; if our country is invaded tomorrow, and our military is able to drive the invaders out, does that really mean that peace has been achieved? I think, to be prepared for peace, a country must look at the bigger problem and attempt to create a situation where a war will not happen in the first place.
- Hannah Walhout
I have to agree with the statement. A country does need an army to survive. To have relative peace, we do need strong military to defend ourselves.
But after one war, treaties are made. And another war starts. The peace never lasts. Would it be possible to have a peace that would last a lifetime?
Melissa Wong
To all those who replied with something along the lines of "we should just end war, and have everlasting peace"
That is what i'm talking about when i say some people are naive. It is unrealistic to think that we will acheive some lasting peace, thousands of years of history contradict that. While it is something to strive for, it is better to be prepared, than face invasion.
Jonny- You make a very good point, but the Costa Rica situation is only partially right. yes, costa rica has been sucessfully without a military since 1948, but they have succeeded in this because they are not a high-value country. There are no great powers around them that are inclined towards invasion. If a country such as the US, Russia, China, or parts of Europe abolished their armies, there is a good chance they would face invasion.
-Neil
I know that some of the things I wrote may have appeared naive, but I was writing about what should be happening rather than what I know is and will always be happening. I understand that a military is necessary simply because people are imperfect. I was being idealistic, and I know that in the real world, being prepared for war is an important part of public safety. But that doesn't discount the fact that, even if we are prepared for it, war should be our last possible resort. I sort of agree with you, but you can't deny that there are other steps we could take to further peace. The statement says that being prepared for war is the only way, which is not true.
- Hannah Walhout
I don't know if the Costa Rica argument is that strong, because although the country doesn't have a formal 'military', they do have a Civil Guard which does essentially the same thing. The Guard acts as the country's military force and has the responsibility of defending it. The Costa Rican constitution does formally abolish any military in the country, but they are not unprepared for the event of an attack. If they have a military power, it doesn't matter what they call it; it is still important that they have one, which is why I agree with Neil.
Carly Haeck says:
I get what you're saying, Neil. However, I think it all depends on what your interpretation of 'peace' is. In 1984, WAR IS PEACE means that because they are constantly in war, the economy is kept in check and the standard of living is at the level the Party wants it to be; war is needed for this peaceful balance. But I think we can all agree that the society of Oceania is not ideal or peaceful at all. The statement "The only way to be prepared for peace is to be prepared for war" is all dependent on what your idea of peace is.
Post a Comment