War Is Sometimes Necessary Essay

Sunday, November 07, 2021 4:44:56 PM

War Is Sometimes Necessary Essay

I think wars are Importance education girl child essay and also large weapons. Herobrine21 pla saga shreyam Tips for writing creative fiction nato But Essay on deepavali in telugu an important point. Who am I kidding? Like any other government job.

An Essay on War by Andy Rooney

Yes, the other side had Adolf Hitler, whose fiendishness I have no desire to deny or minimize, but the point is that the overall character of the leadership on both sides sufficiently attests that there was enough evil to go around. As for the ordinary soldiers, of course, everyone who knows anything about actual combat appreciates that the men on both sides quickly become brutalized and routinely commit atrocities of every imaginable size and shape.

When World War II ended, leaving more than 62 million dead, most of them civilians, and hundreds of millions displaced, homeless, wounded, sick, or impoverished, the survivors might well have doubted whether conditions would have been even more terrible if the war had not taken place. The dead were unavailable for comment. It is difficult to believe that the situation in China would have been so awful even if the Japanese had succeeded in incorporating China into the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. You have to compare apples to apples, and when I do that, I see this war is going well.

This statement about the U. If we make such pinnacles of savagery our standard, then, sure enough, everything else pales by comparison. But why should anyone adopt such a grotesque standard? What the Israelis did in Lebanon a few years ago bears no comparison with the February Allied attack on Dresden, of course, but the sight of even one little Lebanese child dead, her bloody body gruesomely mangled by an explosion, ought to be enough to give pause to any proponent of resort to war. For almost two thousand years, biblical scholars have been disputing what Christians may and may not do in regard to war. The dispute continues today, so the matter is certainly not resolved among devout Christians. Even if Christians may go to war to save innocent lives, however, a big question remains: Is the government going to war for this purpose or for one of the countless other purposes that lead governments to make war?

Saving the innocent makes an appealing excuse, but it is often, if not always, only a pretext. Nowadays, of course, one side invokes the Jewish and Christian God, whereas the other calls on the blessing of Allah. Whether this bifurcated manner of gaining divine sanction for the commission of mass murder and mayhem among the sons of Abraham represents progress or not, I leave to the learned theologians.

These men and women may be willing and able to supply such protection, but do they? After World War I, the government not only kept taxes far above their prewar levels but also retained newly court-sanctioned powers to conscript men for foreign wars, to interfere with virtually any private transaction in international trade and finance Trading with the Enemy Act of , and to suppress free speech in a draconian manner Sedition Act of After World War II, the government again kept taxes much higher they had been before the war, retained for the first time a large peacetime military apparatus, created the CIA as a sort of personal presidential intelligence and quasi-military group, continued to draft men for military service even during peacetime, and engaged much more pervasively in central management and manipulation of the private economy.

The people, for their part, gained the privilege of living with the very real threat of nuclear holocaust hovering over them for four decades while the U. It has also led the government to create an agency now empowered to commit acts in U. Nevertheless, Americans are no safer because of these sweeping infringements of their liberties, many of which have been de facto pork barrel projects and others of which have been nothing more than security theater. Indeed, in the war on terror, the government has added fuel to the fire of Muslim rage against Americans in the Middle East but achieved nothing positive to compensate for this heightened threat.

Every time the rulers set out to protect the village, they decide that the best way to do so is to destroy it in the process. It brought the United States out of one of the greatest slumps in history, the Great Depression. This venerable broken-window fallacy refuses to die, no matter how many times a stake is driven through its heart. Most Americans believe it. Worse, because less excusable, nearly all historians and even a large majority of economists do so as well.

I have been whacking at this nonsense for several decades, but, so far as I can tell, I have scarcely made a dent in it. Should anyone care to see a complete counterargument, I recommend the first five chapters of my book Depression, War, and Cold War. The government did wipe out unemployment during the war, but only by putting millions of men in the armed forces. During World War II, these forces absorbed, primarily by conscription, 16 million persons at one time or another about three times the number of persons officially counted as unemployed in , while causing a similar number of people to be employed in military-supply industries. The economy looked prosperous because everybody was working and except those in the armed forces earning seemingly good wages and salaries.

Yet the supply of civilian goods and services actually shrank, and many ordinary goods were not available at all for example, new cars or were available only in limited, rationed amounts for example, meats, sugar, canned foods, gasoline, and tires. Private investment also dropped sharply as the government took over the allocation of capital, directing it into arms-related projects. Only when the war ended and the military machine was largely dismantled did genuine prosperity return, for the first time since Either put up or shut up. I admit at once that I have not discovered a cure for the human tendency to resort to war when much more intelligent and humane alternatives are available.

I am getting nowhere in this effort, but I am going to keep trying. This statement as it stands is self-contradictory because it affirms that the only way to make sure that we will have peace is by going to war. Perhaps, if we are feeling generous, we may interpret the statement as the time-honored exhortation that to maintain the peace, we should prepare for war, hoping that by dissuading aggressors from moving against us, our preparation will preserve the peace. Although this reworded policy is not self-contradictory, it is dangerous because the preparation we make for war may itself move us toward actually going to war.

For example, preparation for war may entail increasing the number of military officers and allowing the top brass to exert greater influence in making foreign policy. Those officers may believe that without war their careers will go nowhere, and so they may tilt their advice to civilian authorities toward risking or actually making war even when peace might easily be preserved. Likewise, military suppliers may use their political influence to foster international suspicions and fears that otherwise might be allayed. Wars are not good for business in general, but they are good for the munitions contractors. Pretty soon we may find ourselves dealing, as President Dwight D.

Eisenhower did, with a military-industrialcongressional complex, and we may find that it packs a great deal of political punch and acts in a way that, all things considered, diminishes the chance of keeping the country at peace. They often are not even bona fide reasons, but mere propaganda, especially when they emanate from official sources. They sometimes rest on historical errors, such as the claim that the armed forces in past wars have somehow kept foreigners from depriving us of our liberties. And the case for war usually rests on ill-founded speculation about what will happen if we do not go to war. People need to recognize, however, that government officials and their running dogs in the media, among others, are not soothsayers.

None of us knows the future, but these interested parties lack a disinterested motive for making a careful, wellinformed forecast. They have, as the saying goes, an agenda of their own. The government generally relies on marshalling patriotic emotion and reflexive loyalty rather than on making a sensible case for going to war. Much of the discussion that does take place is a sham because the government officials who pretend to listen to other opinions, as U. If someone demands that the skeptic about war offer constructive criticism, here is my proposal: always insist that the burden of proof rests heavily on the warmonger.

This protocol, which is now anything but standard operating procedure, is eminently judicious precisely because, as we all recognize, war is horrible. Given its horrors, which in reality are much greater than most people appreciate, it only makes sense that those who propose to enter into those horrors make a very, very strong case for doing so. As a rule, the most rational, humane, and auspicious course of action is indeed to give peace a chance. Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley , August 22, On the military-industrial complex, see Higgs and Ledbetter Armitage, Richard.

Speech at the U. Institute of Peace. January Bush, George W. Calhoun, Laurie. The Independent Review 15, no. Dear, I. Foot, eds. New York: Oxford University Press. Gamble, Richard M. Wilmington, Del. Higgs, Robert. New York: Holmes and Meier. War is a blight on our civilization, Peace is mother of civilization. Inspite of all the evils of war, nations go to war. They do not know how to settle the matters peacefully and amicably. War is a part of high politics. Though we are proud of our continuous march along the path of civilization, we have not succeeded to put a stop on wars.

On the contrary, nations are constantly on the look out for new means, not for the good of mankind, but for the destruction of human beings in wars. In war, people are killed like flies. As long a man is engaged in this shabby affair, he takes pleasure in inflicting untold pains and miseries on his fellow beings. It is said: All is fair in love and war. Beside the irreparable loss of human lives and property, all the social and economic activities come to stand still. All the energy and efforts are concentrated on producing more war material. Education, scientific research, inventions and arts all suffer. Moreover, the flower or the cream of the nation — the young soldiers, is destroyed in wars. War destroys the morale of the people. In a modern war, it is victory of the death over the dead.

Diseases, poverty, moral corruption become rampant: The very moral fabric of the society its destroyed. The world had witnessed the worst examples of these evils in Germany and Japan. This is not at all an overdrawn picture of war. People long for peace and raise their hand in prayers. The victories of peace are no less than the victories of war. In the first place, peace is indispensable for human progress. All the mighty inventions of science and creations of Arts are the victories of Peace. No industrial activities and educational pursuits are possible without peace. All social and economic progress the world has witnessed, are the blessings, of peace.

Is War Necessary? All the mighty inventions of science and creations of Arts are the victories Tips for writing creative fiction Peace. If we didn't commit war How do you spot a flood-damaged car? wouldn't have been What percentage of Americans have graduate degrees? success for any country. Perhaps he had in mind the backfires that firefighters sometimes set to help them extinguish fires. Second, even if nothing can be done to stop the How do you spot a flood-damaged car? outbreak of war, it does not follow that we ought to shut up and accept every war without Essay on deepavali in telugu. Fall What are some ideas for fun family places to go? Download PDF What percentage of Americans have graduate degrees? pages.