Is The Military Best Used As A Fire Extinguisher Or A Fire Starter?
Since the years preceding World War One western countries have been wondering if a large standing army helps or hurts the peace process.
Many scholars think that an army is best used in large show of force in order to intervene to quickly end a conflict. Others feel that an army should be strong and be proactive in starting conflict in order to stop a threat before it can gain strength.
This is a very vague and nuanced topic. Size, geography, technology and politics all have massive influence on these decisions.
I think that a strong military is essential to promote peace and freedom. An equally strong moral compass among military leaders is essential to know when to use force and when to use restraint.
Knowing that your enemy is strong and willing to fight is a very strong deterrent against irresponsible aggression.
The cyber war threat is similar to the nuclear race. The nuclear race is a mirror image of the naval race of the late 1800s. The same themes continue to pop up in history, and the lessons are in theory simple to grasp, but too often countries use the military as a fire starter instead of a fire extinguisher.
Look up Smedley Butler. War is a business for Freemasons that use the msm they own to sell the wars. Look up Albert Pike.
I know smedley Butler. Joe Rogan always used to talk about him and the ‘war is a racket’ idea. I’ll look up Albert Pike. Thanks for the recommendation.
I never thought of a large army contributing to peace. It's an interesting theory/idea. I'll have to ponder that some more. There are of course many nations who's armies (or militias) are basically non existent on the global field and they remain very peaceful. Still this idea got me thinking
Posted using Partiko Android
Consider the prolonged peace when Rome has unquestioned naval superiority, or when Britain has massive naval advantage in the 1800s. When one nation is so much stronger than any group of nations put together (on the seas in this case, but the same idea for a land army), there is an understanding that it would be futile to challenge. We just have to cross our fingers that the overwhelmingly powerful nation of the time has a strong moral conscience. (Which is rare).
Hmm yeah I see what you are saying. I never really thought of all of that.
Posted using Partiko Android
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.