week 9: Hannah Pulley

No, I don’t think that there is a time for war. 

Often, the first question that comes to mind is “why does it seem like the countries of the world constantly at war against each other?" I’m pretty sure it comes down to territory and power, whether it’s politically or religiously motivated. One group attempts to move beyond what physical or figurative territory they already have, conflict ensues on a small or large scale, and so on. In the grand scheme of things, what is actually accomplished? While one generation may reap the benefits of a war won, the environment and the people are often left with consequences that long outlast the benefits of war. This kind of legacy is what makes war unethical, and should be considered by the leaders of the world.

So inequality, in one form or another, is usually the cause of war. If one nation has the means to intervene in an ongoing conflict, with positive effects, while remaining neutral, they should. However, I disagree with parts of United States policy because it often seeks to impose a new form of government or societal structure on a nation with a complex underlying culture and history which affects almost every aspect of life. This is the responsibility of the home country, not a nation which has come to be seen as the overseer of the world in some people’s eyes. I admit I do not know everything about the political states of every country, but I think that in general, a less interventionist type of thought needs to be considered by our nation.

Or still yet, think about this: mutually assured destruction, a military policy adopted in the Cold War, advocates to nations to keep enough firepower to ensure the destruction of a country that fires at them. This was considered a peacekeeping strategy, for neither side would reasonably fire first, for fear of complete destruction. There has to be an alternative to this policy: not just operation, but an existence based in fear.