What is it good for war Mojin / 11.06.202111.06.2021 Apr 07, · The core argument of ‘War: What is it Good For?’ is that over the very long term (thousands of years) war has brought about the creation of larger and more organised societies that have been increasingly good at suppressing internal violence, the paradoxical result being that war has progressively decreased the likelihood of people dying violently/5(). Oct 07, · In pre-industrial times, the gains desired by a warring country might be precious materials such as gold and silver, or livestock such as cattle and horses. In modern times, the resources that are hoped to be gained from war take the form of things like oil, minerals, or materials used in manufacturing. It can't be negotiated with. There will be no truce. The metaphor of choice is framing the way we god the crisis. I'm Brooke Gladstone. If we are at wag with this virus, an how to become a first responder in indiana, according to economists, is that it could shake up our social compact. I'm Bob Garfield. This is going to be weeks and weeks and weeks. This is going to be a long day and it's going to be a hard day. And it's going to be an ugly day and it's going to be a sad day. Not even close. World War coronavirus. I mean, for those of us who aren't health workers and hospitals, just people sheltering in place, this is a real question. Sailors do goood need to die. Risk expert Michelle Walker ffor that metaphor to describe an obvious, highly probable, yet strangely neglected danger. It's coming right at you. It's dangerous. You know, like, like with a horn. And that's when the rhino popped into my head. And they're not stealthy, any world power could see one coming if they had the guts to face inconvenient truths. I pulled the gray rhino out of a blog post on metaphors written by University of Nottingham Prof, Brigitte Nerlich. Metaphors are much on our minds because by framing the gpod, they can shape policy. In past shows, we've observed how other metaphorical wars on cancer, for example, or on drugs did little to vanquish those problems and may have even impeded the efforts to address them. This hour we explore the suitability of the war metaphor: politically, economically, historically and personally. They are the ones that make the disease every day. And all the rest of us are soldiers in this fight. Wars, even the most ruinous wars, have heroes, those often of low station who sacrifice out of proportion to how the society has treated them. Indeed, one of the collateral benefits of war is that those heroes are celebrated for their courage by those who had never really ever seen them before. Health workers are our heroes. And right behind them, the mail carriers, sanitation workers and grocery clerks, all essential, all recognized now as crucial parts of the mechanism that holds communities together. Jeet Heer wrote a piece in The Nation this week about how these workers are being empowered by crisis to demand better conditions, equality and justice. Not for the first time. But it was moved towards the abolitionist position by the argument that freeing the vood would weaken the South, but also that black American soldiers were a crucial part of the war effort, what are the hieroglyphics for open that you cannot ask these soldiers to sacrifice for no reason. Even after the civil war, there was a very strong push for pensions. Every time there's a war, you say you have to come to terms with what do we owe the people who are making sacrifices? But here's the thing, unlike volunteer army or the fire wnat, a frontline nursing assistant or a supermarket cashier hasn't signed up for heroism. They've signed up for a low wage job. I think that's absolutely correct. It's not like the volunteer army. And unfortunately, it's a war where they're not given the protection that they need and they're not given the compensation that we would normally want to give our soldiers. And it's particularly pertinent at this point because, you know, unions are weaker now than they have been in more than a century. So we've seen a whole host of whah. There was the workers at Instacart Grocery Delivery Services called for a ir. They're refusing to fill orders until more is done to help keep them safe. The company said it's been more like fifteen. He was the person who was organizing strikes. Bus drivers in Alabama went on the strike because they felt that they weren't being protected. So this is a nationwide movement of blue collar workers who gokd withholding their labor to try to push for better conditions. Those seeking economic justice or simply recognition of their contributions will be dismissed as opportunists or as unpatriotic or selfishly trying to cash in on the crisis. Here's conservative pundit Ben Shapiro. I would, because this is unconscionable. And that seems very different than the case of a price gouger. And I want to just underscore something, which is that it's not just that people who are doing dangerous work aren't being compensated, because of the economic recession, there's actually a real rollback of wages and compensation. And just yesterday, Alteon Healt,h which is a major employer of doctors and nurses, announced that they were reducing hours, reducing pay, including pension, bonuses and paid time off. And they're doing that because health companies can make money off the coronavirus. They make money off of elective surgery. So we have this perverse situation where the very workers who are most at risk are actually seeing their compensation being cut back. There are four senators, including Lindsey Graham, who have tried to resist the expansion of unemployment insurance. And you know, what they say is kind of jaw dropping. You're literally incentivizing taking people out of the workforce at a time when we need critical infrastructure supply for the workers. It's very dire in terms of what this ih going to do to the how to use gas heating profession. What controls the anterior pituitary gland we already have doctors and nurses drawing up wills, trying to figure out who's going to take care of the kids. I honestly cannot understand the morality of denying compensation to people in that situation. BOB GARFIELD We've discussed in the past on this program two potential futures, one in which the crisis enables authoritarian minded leaders to get even more autocratic, to govern by decree and so on, the likelihood that once they've usurped that power, that they're loathe at the end of the crisis to surrender it. But the other possible future seems to be defined by the package that the Congress, the two trillion dollar package for a more socially just distribution of the nation's wealth. Post pandemic, what do you what is it good for war happens to the social contract? A spike in unemployment, but also premiums are going to be likely to go up much higher because health insurance companies are not really set up to deal with a pandemic. What does kinder bueno mean, many medical institutions like hospitals ie going to face bankruptcy and are going to have to be bailed out. So within those conditions, I think that there is the perfect parameter for a radical overhaul of the health system to make it universal and free. It doesn't help you to have great private health insurance during a pandemic if many other people don't. You're only as insured as the person who has the least health coverage because if they get it and they're not treated, then the pandemic will spread. And I think the logic iis the pandemic itself is going to force that social contract to change. One could have the nightmare scenario where there is a push towards authoritarianism as we see in certain countries like Hungary right now. But what is it good for war always been also the other possibility of a picture of a more democratic system that's more inclusive and that really offers people this protection of belonging to a shared collective project. The front line was in Europe, but FDR, in fireside chat, let Americans know that the sacrifice would extend to their own doorsteps, their own hearts, their own pantries. Every loyal American lt well aware of his individual responsibility. It's our duty to sit inside and many of us watch our livelihoods evaporate to flatten the curve. But what is the government's duty to us? On Wednesday, the IMF published a blog post calling on governments to implement wartime-like economic measures around the globe. And that the rhetoric of wartime idealism spills over into economic policy that can have what is it good for war impact lasting long after the armistice is signed. Nicholas, welcome to the show. They vor the stakes. Right now, for example, when you look at approval ratings, Trump's approval ratings have gone up a bit and in many other democracies, the approval ratings of incumbent leaders have gone up. So it seems like a huge incumbency advantage, but only time will tell whether the coronavirus crisis will provide a what does limerick poem mean political benefit, because it's exactly because people now seem to put a lot of faith in leaders that these leaders can also squander that trust much more quickly. So I think that what seems to be a kind of rallying around the flag effect could very quickly turn into mass disillusionment. I'm not convinced. In fact, the organization and militancy of labor, also the claims of veterans, of widows, disenfranchised groups like African-Americans in the United States made much hwat claims to participation in society afterwards. Forces are unleashed in wartime economies that even governments that have conservative politics will find it quite difficult to restrain. Did you read that piece? Do you worry when we pull a lever that is so associated with real war? And I agree with that. I would just differ slightly from him in emphasizing that we currently are, of course, not in a war. I've actually been quite surprised that it has taken so relatively long for Trump and Trumpists to turn Coronavirus into arguments against immigration. I godo have thought they would have done that much more quickly. But even as they are doing that, they're still reliant on China and other East Asian countries right now for providing supplies. Last Sunday, there was a big airlift of supplies from East Asia that arrived at JFK of masks, gowns, gloves, thermometers and I think that that was already happening in World Wars I and II which are remembered as moments of increased nationalism, of course, then of national self-reliance and self-sufficiency. But in fact, already at that point, there were very globalized supply chains and even the American war effort was dependent not just on raw materials from abroad, so what does m mean on chevy malibu from Latin America and Africa and Asia, tin, aluminum, etc. America was using its productive base in order to build equipment that the rest of the world used in order to fight fascism. That's something that right how to do gel nails at home without uv light, interestingly, is kind of inverted. We're in a lendlease and reverse situation because most of the production of medical equipment happens in East Asia. On the Media He now works as a freelance writer in Florida. US troops on the move. Up until the late 19th century, wars were usually fought as a series of set piece battles. Modern technology and other trends, such as asymmetric warfare have changed how wars are fought. Read on for my 8 common causes for war. A war is typically fought by a country or group of countries against an opposing country or group with the aim of achieving an objective through the use of force. Wars can also be fought within a country in the form of a civil or revolutionary war. Wars have been a part of human history for thousands of years, and have become increasingly destructive as industrialization and technology have advanced. There is rarely one single, clear cause of conflict and, ultimately, war. The causes of a war are usually numerous and can often be intertwined in a complicated way. Many theories have been put forth over the years as to why wars happen, and some of the greatest minds have offered their take on the subject. In the article below, I'll provide a general overview of the eight main reasons for war. Given the many potential causes for conflict, the list does not attempt to be exhaustive, but does intend to give the most common reasons. Often wars are caused by one country's wish to take control of another country's wealth. Whatever the other reasons for a war may be, there is almost always an economic motive underlying most conflicts, even if the stated aim of the war is presented to the public as something more noble. In pre-industrial times, the gains desired by a warring country might be precious materials such as gold and silver, or livestock such as cattle and horses. In modern times, the resources that are hoped to be gained from war take the form of things like oil, minerals, or materials used in manufacturing. National Museum of the U. A country might decide that it needs more land, either for living space, agricultural use, or other purposes. Related to buffer zones are proxy wars. These are conflicts that are fought indirectly between opposing powers in a third country. Each power supports the side which best suits their logistical, military, and economic interests. Religious conflicts often have very deep roots. They can lie dormant for decades, only to re-emerge in a flash at a later date. Religious wars can often be tied to other reasons for conflict, such as nationalism or revenge for a perceived historical slight in the past. While different religions fighting against each other can be a cause of war, different sects within a religion for example, Protestant and Catholic, or Sunni and Shiite battling against one another can also instigate war. Russian soldiers in ceremonial uniforms. Most military groups have traditions, customs, special dress and awards that provide soldiers with recognition within a wider cultural framework. Public domain image via Pixabay. Nationalism in this context essentially means attempting to prove that your country is superior to another by violent subjugation. This often takes the form of an invasion. Richard Ned Lebow, Professor of International Political Theory at the Department of War Studies, Kings College London, contends that while other causes of war may be present, nationalism, or spirit, is nearly always a factor. In his essay " Most wars are not fought for reasons of security or material interests, but instead reflect a nation's spirit ," he writes:. Following Plato and Aristotle, I posit spirit, appetite and reason as fundamental drives with distinct goals. There can be little doubt that the spirit is the principal cause of war across the centuries. Related to nationalism is imperialism, which is built on the idea that conquering other countries is glorious and brings honor and esteem to the conqueror. Adolf Hitler went to war with Russia partly because the Russians and eastern Europeans in general were seen as Slavs, or a group of people who the Nazis believed to be an inferior race. Seeking to punish, redress a grievance, or simply strike back for a perceived slight can often be a factor in the waging of war. Revenge also relates to nationalism, as the people of a country which has been wronged are motivated to fight back by pride and spirit. Unfortunately, this can lead to an endless chain of retaliatory wars being set in motion which is very difficult to stop. African American soldiers fighting in the American Civil War. The American Civil War saw the first signs of mechanized warfare, which would become more apparent with the onset of World War I later in Europe. These generally take place when there is sharp internal disagreement within a country. The disagreement can be about who rules, how the country should be run or the people's rights. These internal rifts often turn into chasms that result in violent conflict between two or more opposing groups. Civil wars can also be sparked by separatist groups who want to form their own, independent country, or, as in the case of the American Civil War, states wanting to secede from a larger union. These occur when a large section of the population of a country revolts against the individual or group that rules the country because they are dissatisfied with their leadership. Revolutions can begin for a variety of reasons, including economic hardship amongst certain sections of the population or perceived injustices committed by the ruling group. Other factors can contribute too, such as unpopular wars with other countries. Answer: There is a multitude of causes of war, and they can only be learned through an extensive study of human history. Usually, but not always, it starts with a dispute between countries, or groups within a country, which subsequently becomes violent. Answer: In the modern age, people rarely think that war is good, but often they can see it as necessary. Examples of a necessary war might be defending your country against foreign invasion, or fighting a revolution against an unjust government. Answer: Nobody knows for sure. Answer: It really depends what you mean by "solve". What is true is that periods of violent conflict can be followed by extended periods of peace. If the source of a conflict doesn't go away, however, there is every possibility that the conflict will erupt again, violently or otherwise. As human technology has advanced and warfare has become increasingly destructive, there has been an increased urgency to resolve conflicts non-violently. Answer: The roots of the Napoleonic wars lie in the French Revolution. Napoleon seized power from the revolutionary government and attempted to stabilize a country that had suffered from years of chaos and excess. There were also numerous conflicts associated with the revolution and in an attempt to resolve these, Napoleon ended up fighting the other major European powers, especially the United Kingdom. It's difficult to know exactly what Napoleon's original intentions were, but eventually, the wars became a struggle to be the dominant power in Europe. Answer: The different types of war include civil wars, revolutionary wars, wars to achieve economic gain or capture territory, wars of revenge, religious wars, nationalistic wars, defensive or preemptive wars. Answer: A "buffer zone" in this context is a neutral area, the purpose of which is to keep apart hostile forces or nations. Answer: War is a state of armed conflict between two or more countries or groups within a country. Answer: Wars have numerous different purposes. Certain types of war, for example, a "defensive" war, might be fought with the desired outcome being peace. However, most wars are fought with the intention of beating the enemy and effectively imposing peace on the victor's terms. Answer: Although wars are typically fought between two or more armies, that is not always the case. There are many historical examples of irregular fighters engaging in combat. In a revolutionary war, for instance, many combatants might not be part of an army, especially in the early stages. Partisan and guerrilla forces can engage in warfare too, without necessarily belonging to a regular army. As technologies advance, wars can be fought increasingly with automated weaponry, such as drones and missiles, with less and less need for a traditional army. Cyber warfare is also on the rise. Answer: It depends on the political system that the leader operates in, but in most cases, the answer is yes. Answer: There are many potential reasons, including: competition over territory and resources, historical rivalries and grievances, and in self defense against an aggressor or a perceived potential aggressor. Answer: Wars are usually destructive, causing loss of life and damage in many other ways. Many people consider wars to be ethically wrong and most people consider them to be deeply undesirable. However, wars can also sometimes be considered necessary as a last resort, where no other option seems realistic. Controversy often revolves around those that think a particular conflict to be justified and those that don't. Answer: Wars don't usually come out of nowhere. They typically though not always begin with some sort of dispute which then turns violent. The mechanisms and developments that lead to war vary considerably, however, and are often complex, only understandable through the study and interpretation of human history. The Crusades actually fall under defensive wars. The primary goal was to curb Islamic raids on villages in eastern European towns. Well written, easy to understand, and great examples, Very clear, understandable and to the point, which can be challenging to some that write about History! Thank you!! I've referred back to this website several times already!! The list goes on, but the objective is always the same As for the Iraqi Conflict being a "defensive" war, it was just the theft of oil. Hi I'm a fifth grader and completely over 10 thank you. This info really helped me with my assignment! I think this is really good for note taking in a history class. But, it does not have direct definitions. Is it true that civil wars do not just happen but are preceded by multiple and varied signals? Also, why do people choose to go to war instead of taking other peaceful measures to resolve conflict? While Buddhism is less associated with religious warfare than both polytheistic and monotheistic religions, some exceptions exist such as in southern Thailand where the killing of a Buddhist monk is considered such a sacrilege as to prompt a furious call for immediate killing of the murderer. However, in an area such as that, the Buddhists have been the minority and fear for their lives from militant Muslims. As co-editor of the book, "Buddhist Warfare" he said that, "Buddhism differs in that the act of killing is less the focus than the 'intention' behind the killing" and "The first thing to remember is that people have a penchant for violence, it just so happens that every religion has people in it.