This essay was written to the Comments section of New Scientist Magazine at this link: "Winning The Ultimate Battle"War is not the answer? Well, doesn't that depend on the question?
No one really wants war, yet sometimes it is necessary. How else can someone like Hitler be contained?
In fact, I maintain that the modern peace movement has probably killed millions of people more than all the wars of the 20th Century. Consider the 100 million or more killed under Communist regimes like the Soviet Union, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, or Cuba under the Castros. The peace movement effectively disarmed truly enlightened societies and prevented them from removing these murderous governments.
Furthermore, America has been drawn into wars almost every time it has been perceived to be weak. World War II is a classic example. The combined pressures of the Depression and FDR's military cuts left us vulnerable to both Nazi and Japanese aggression. A large, well-trained and equipped military is the single best guarantor against aggression and, thus, war.
A world government might actually be worse than a world with war. As things stand now, many people can actually "vote with their feet" and leave nations that are not conducive to a free and peaceful life. True, many dictatorships make that extremely difficult, but alternatives still exist. Were we to have a world government, where would dissidents go? Everywhere would be under the jurisdiction of that government. Without the competition of other forms of government, that world government would stagnate and become even more corrupt than the individual governments we now have.
Just because our present ways of doing things aren't perfect, doesn't mean that we can improve things with wholesale change. One must always keep in mind that old maxim:
Be careful what you wish for -- you might just get it!
Copyright June 9, 2009 Gregory Indelicato
No comments:
Post a Comment