Skip to content

The World needs a War

2nd January, 2009

Umm .. yes .. at least .. umm .. a little bit .. ok wait, let me convince you.

Currently, the world is messed up.

Economically, experts have predicted a 0.9% global growth this year. And yes, I will use one of the banished words of 2009 – Recession! Consumers are consuming less, producers are producing less. The cycle of money is slowing down, and that doesn’t help anybody. Demand is expected to pick up only in a few years (of course in a generalized sense).

Socially, the situation is bad. Even though fewer people are below the poverty line, the recession impact will eventually trickle down to a fewer rate of people climbing up the poverty line.

And then theres terrorism. 10 terrorist attacks in India last year itself (add one more, in Assam on the first day of this new year). The faceless enemy is coordinating even braver attacks, even larger blasts than seen before.

2008 has been really bad, and things do look bleak for 2009.

So why a war?

Sure, a lot of people will die. Innocent civilians, children who wouldn’t get to see another day in school. But compare these facts:

  1. In 2007 alone, AIDS claimed around 2.1 million lives.
  2. Around 4.5 million people have died in the Darfur conflict in Sudan.
  3. Estimates of the mass killings in Ethiopia start from 1.5 million.
  4. Around 3400 killed in the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971.

Maybe, the world needs a war. A war means that major arms- and ammunition-producing nations (like Russia and USA) get to earn millions from the demand for such machinery. Agreed, a large amount of innocent taxpayers money will be diverted from funding socialist projects to capitalist warfare. But its an investment, there are war spoils at the end of the road. Most nations do recover after war. West Germany recovered quickly and doubled production from pre-war levels by the 1950s. The economy isn’t really hit that bad, if the switch to a war economy is made as fast as possible!

More R&D will be done, most will be allocated larger budgets (like those done for biological weapons by Saddamn Hussein). Whether you like it or not, some military research does trickle down to civilian life. Take the internet, for example, whose research was first funded by the military. A war now will most definitely mean some great scientific advances that would help (or I hope so) in, say, the next 10 years. And sometimes this progress of technology is so great that the nations economy is greatly strengthened after the war! Heck, Israel is earning bag fulls of hard cash by selling its radar systems and god knows what else!

Most wars do bring in great change. The change that is drastically needed in todays world. A new economic order, maybe? A new superpower? A big change in diplomatic relationships, new friends, new enemies? Maybe China can finally flex its economic and military strength. No, I don’t have any solutions to the problem that is today, but we could always do with some change.

But, theres one problem

Nuclear warfare.

A modern nuclear bomb has been proved to have massive strength and would be able to cause immense damage – and we  know we don’t want it. Nuclear-possessing nations will now never go into direct war. Most skirmishes would be fought through a proxy war – diplomatic bashing, missile pounding, border crossing. But there will never be a direct army-to-army war lasting more than a month. The threat of the great red button (or so I picturize it!) is far too great.

And so I backtrack. My points fail against this one big nuclear problem, even though I believe a few lives lost would do the world a great good. Lets hope things change, but change without a full-fledged war.

3 Comments leave one →
  1. 2nd February, 2009 1:25 AM

    I think that in reality, the event(s) that got the U.S. out of the depression of the 1920’s and 1930’s was World War II.
    I’ve thought the same thing—that what we need is a good war. Of course, even if there was a non-nuclear war the people who would benefit the most are those who would not be touched by it—people who would not be killed, maimed, injured or who lost a loved one. War is a heavy price to pay –and I hope that ‘we’ don’t have ever again.

  2. 2nd February, 2009 8:23 AM

    Happy to know you’re also thinking along the same lines!

    The human race feels more can be done with a war than with a peace march – marking out territorial lines forcefully has always been a basic animal instinct!

    But, like you said, war has a very heavy price to pay. I feel there has been a greater consciousness in this century towards peace as a solution – hopefully a full war can be avoided again!

    Its quite funny – the nuclear bomb might actually prevent wars!

  3. 2nd February, 2009 12:04 PM

    dumass…i hope its ur place here thats bombed first

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: