Essay on War
this is the only essay i actually prepared for english (too lazy to prepare for the other 2). General Sam, you shld like this :p
6. Comment on whether you think we should prepare for war if we wish to avoid war.
A war is a conflict of arms. Wars have long been intertwined to Man’s history, as a primeval symbol of dominance and supremacy, for the victor in war can boast of his ascendancy and assert his authority over his defeated opponent. The military drumbeat and the bugle call to take up arms, these all reflect a fervent war fanaticism. Yet the violent and mortal nature of war has invoked equally compelling anti-war sentiments.
Are wars inevitable? Is the modern man but a murderous being with a primitive lust for blood and glory on the battlefield? While the purpose of war will always be under moral scrutiny, a novel war theory has arisen in recent times, that preparing for war ultimately helps Man avoid war. An unconventional supposition indeed, but one worthy of debate and discussions. So should we prepare for war to avoid war?
A valid argument for this theory is the possession of nuclear weaponry. When many countries such as France, former USSR and China began acquiring nuclear technology and subsequently nuclear weapons, many feared a nuclear holocaust, especially with the harrowing experiences from Nagasaki and Hiroshima in which human civilizations were reduced to sheer desolation in the blinking of an eye. Yet the interesting observation is that nuclear weapons have kept relative peace among their possessors. As the saying goes, “with power comes responsibilities”, possessing highly lethal weapons has arguably made countries less inclined towards wars and made them more responsible stakeholders of world peace, thereby preventing wars. As long as rogue nations like North Korea do not acquire nuclear weapons, the countries possessing nuclear weapons will be keen to maintain peace and a nuclear war is unlikely to break out in the near future.
However, on the other hand, many also view military build-up as the biggest threat to world peace. To illustrate this point, we should look at the example of the Cold War (1947-1991). While a full scale war did not actually break out between the United States and USSR, the protracted geopolitical, ideological and economic antagonism that existed between these two global superpowers and their allies did make the world more dangerous. The ensuing arms race resulted in a major influx and proliferation of military weapons, which teetered the world closer to war. In fact, the Korean War and Vietnam War were a direct result of the differing political agenda between the United States and USSR, i.e. proxy wars. This shows that wars have not been avoided totally and military build-up will probably result in some form of military clashes.
Nonetheless, war preparation is not confined to the sole purpose of organizing wars. It also acts as a form of deterrence. As US President George W. Bush once described, the role of the military is to “prevent war from happening in the first place.” In fact, the Singapore government seems to follow such a doctrine. Although Singapore is not interested in war, it is constantly preparing itself for war. For instance, the Singapore Army is constantly improving and leveraging its technology and weapon systems, while also procuring some of the most advanced military hardware in the world. All fit male Singaporeans also have to go through a compulsory military training in National Service. This is apparently a deterrence strategy to put off potential aggressors, erecting a psychological barrier.
On the other hand, such maneuvers may send the wrong message across. For example, Japan received fierce criticisms from its neighbors for attempting to revise its constitution and upgrade its self-defense force to a military force. In this case, Japan’s moves do not distinguish self-defense from expansion, therefore causing anxiety and apprehension among its neighbors. While this may only be a domestic military policy and a largely peaceful act, it can have long lasting negative impacts. Japan’s neighbors, including China and Korea, are likely to be perturbed by this act and may seek to upgrade their military capabilities, culminating in a regional arms race. This would also increase tensions on regional flashpoints like the Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan Straits, increasing the possibilities of a war between Japan and its neighbors.
As the saying goes, “failing to prepare is preparing to fail”. Indeed, many believe that preparation for war is the best form of self-defense. History has shown that if a country demonstrates that it is prepared for war anytime to defend itself, it is unlikely to be invaded by other countries. During World War II, the German army swept across most of Western Europe except Switzerland. Why? Because the Swiss militia system comprises civilians who wield rifles and were prepared to defend their homeland to the last bullet. Therefore, the German army decided not to invade Switzerland.
However, there exists only a thin line between preparing for war and actually entering a war, which can be crossed too easily. As Sir John Frederick Maurice put it, “I went into the Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I now believe that if you prepare thoroughly for war you will get it.” British Prime Minister Tony Blair infamous said in December 2002, “"Sometimes the best way of avoiding war is to be prepared for war if you have to have it". A few months later, his armies were moving into Iraq, on the pretext that Iraq owns weapons of mass destruction which threatens Britain’s security. As Britain was well prepared for war, it was ready to enter war at the slightest provocation, ironically antithetical to its initial objective, i.e. to avoid war. Such is the risk of preparing for war, as one would be overtly inclined to engage in a war.
Also, there are now new elements of unconventional warfare which has added new dimensions to contemporary warfare. A good example will be terrorism, a form of unconventional warfare which seeks to achieve certain political objectives. Firstly, it is not really possible to prepare for war against terrorism, as it is difficult to target and attack a specific group of terrorists. Secondly, countries which are adequately prepared for conventional warfare, such as the United States, are more prone to terrorism, as the terrorists know they are unable to engage that country in open combat.
I believe the cause of war is due to both “hardware” and “software” factors, hardware being the military weaponry and software being the war-mongers and peace-lovers. To avoid war, we must address both factors. If we only focus on preparing for war and upgrading the hardware factor, not only do we fail to avoid war, we are also preparing ourselves for greater devastation and obliteration.
6. Comment on whether you think we should prepare for war if we wish to avoid war.
A war is a conflict of arms. Wars have long been intertwined to Man’s history, as a primeval symbol of dominance and supremacy, for the victor in war can boast of his ascendancy and assert his authority over his defeated opponent. The military drumbeat and the bugle call to take up arms, these all reflect a fervent war fanaticism. Yet the violent and mortal nature of war has invoked equally compelling anti-war sentiments.
Are wars inevitable? Is the modern man but a murderous being with a primitive lust for blood and glory on the battlefield? While the purpose of war will always be under moral scrutiny, a novel war theory has arisen in recent times, that preparing for war ultimately helps Man avoid war. An unconventional supposition indeed, but one worthy of debate and discussions. So should we prepare for war to avoid war?
A valid argument for this theory is the possession of nuclear weaponry. When many countries such as France, former USSR and China began acquiring nuclear technology and subsequently nuclear weapons, many feared a nuclear holocaust, especially with the harrowing experiences from Nagasaki and Hiroshima in which human civilizations were reduced to sheer desolation in the blinking of an eye. Yet the interesting observation is that nuclear weapons have kept relative peace among their possessors. As the saying goes, “with power comes responsibilities”, possessing highly lethal weapons has arguably made countries less inclined towards wars and made them more responsible stakeholders of world peace, thereby preventing wars. As long as rogue nations like North Korea do not acquire nuclear weapons, the countries possessing nuclear weapons will be keen to maintain peace and a nuclear war is unlikely to break out in the near future.
However, on the other hand, many also view military build-up as the biggest threat to world peace. To illustrate this point, we should look at the example of the Cold War (1947-1991). While a full scale war did not actually break out between the United States and USSR, the protracted geopolitical, ideological and economic antagonism that existed between these two global superpowers and their allies did make the world more dangerous. The ensuing arms race resulted in a major influx and proliferation of military weapons, which teetered the world closer to war. In fact, the Korean War and Vietnam War were a direct result of the differing political agenda between the United States and USSR, i.e. proxy wars. This shows that wars have not been avoided totally and military build-up will probably result in some form of military clashes.
Nonetheless, war preparation is not confined to the sole purpose of organizing wars. It also acts as a form of deterrence. As US President George W. Bush once described, the role of the military is to “prevent war from happening in the first place.” In fact, the Singapore government seems to follow such a doctrine. Although Singapore is not interested in war, it is constantly preparing itself for war. For instance, the Singapore Army is constantly improving and leveraging its technology and weapon systems, while also procuring some of the most advanced military hardware in the world. All fit male Singaporeans also have to go through a compulsory military training in National Service. This is apparently a deterrence strategy to put off potential aggressors, erecting a psychological barrier.
On the other hand, such maneuvers may send the wrong message across. For example, Japan received fierce criticisms from its neighbors for attempting to revise its constitution and upgrade its self-defense force to a military force. In this case, Japan’s moves do not distinguish self-defense from expansion, therefore causing anxiety and apprehension among its neighbors. While this may only be a domestic military policy and a largely peaceful act, it can have long lasting negative impacts. Japan’s neighbors, including China and Korea, are likely to be perturbed by this act and may seek to upgrade their military capabilities, culminating in a regional arms race. This would also increase tensions on regional flashpoints like the Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan Straits, increasing the possibilities of a war between Japan and its neighbors.
As the saying goes, “failing to prepare is preparing to fail”. Indeed, many believe that preparation for war is the best form of self-defense. History has shown that if a country demonstrates that it is prepared for war anytime to defend itself, it is unlikely to be invaded by other countries. During World War II, the German army swept across most of Western Europe except Switzerland. Why? Because the Swiss militia system comprises civilians who wield rifles and were prepared to defend their homeland to the last bullet. Therefore, the German army decided not to invade Switzerland.
However, there exists only a thin line between preparing for war and actually entering a war, which can be crossed too easily. As Sir John Frederick Maurice put it, “I went into the Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I now believe that if you prepare thoroughly for war you will get it.” British Prime Minister Tony Blair infamous said in December 2002, “"Sometimes the best way of avoiding war is to be prepared for war if you have to have it". A few months later, his armies were moving into Iraq, on the pretext that Iraq owns weapons of mass destruction which threatens Britain’s security. As Britain was well prepared for war, it was ready to enter war at the slightest provocation, ironically antithetical to its initial objective, i.e. to avoid war. Such is the risk of preparing for war, as one would be overtly inclined to engage in a war.
Also, there are now new elements of unconventional warfare which has added new dimensions to contemporary warfare. A good example will be terrorism, a form of unconventional warfare which seeks to achieve certain political objectives. Firstly, it is not really possible to prepare for war against terrorism, as it is difficult to target and attack a specific group of terrorists. Secondly, countries which are adequately prepared for conventional warfare, such as the United States, are more prone to terrorism, as the terrorists know they are unable to engage that country in open combat.
I believe the cause of war is due to both “hardware” and “software” factors, hardware being the military weaponry and software being the war-mongers and peace-lovers. To avoid war, we must address both factors. If we only focus on preparing for war and upgrading the hardware factor, not only do we fail to avoid war, we are also preparing ourselves for greater devastation and obliteration.
posted by VITALISM at 5:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home