Now my group-mate Nick has replied to Charlie's post regarding the beneficial aspects of total war, and its "holistic" gains. Nick argues against this claim profusely and I must agree with him for the most part. However, (as he's mentioned) transparency is the key to wars' effects on populace. This is to say that: a small war, blown out of proportion for the public's eye (and the *incredible* victories the nation has), gogo propoganda: "we're still winning folks!!", would be motivational and uniting. But this brings us back to the main point addressed by Nick, creating wars to avoid possible civil-wars(?) is a risky thing to do. Now, I would agree that civil wars are often, if not always, more detrimental to the progress of a nation, but with foreigners come the unknown and unforeseeable.
I agree, for the most part, "total-war"s bring societies together if their members are each, individually involved in some way, shape, or form. But at the same time, I do not believe that the benefits (on average) would outweigh the negatives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment