a reply to: RAY1990
I think the issue is perhaps somewhat more complex than a mere double edged sword, but I also think that it is important to realise that due to the
very concepts you put forward, even a nation whose intentions are noble, even a nation whose people do not desire war, must be at least prepared to
account for themselves if they are invaded. Why? Because such a nation would automatically become chum for more ill tempered entities.
We are at a stage where a state cannot reasonably expect peace, even if its policy is non interventionist, where a state cannot stand unless it has
the physical resources to do so in spite of whatever hail of spears might seek its heart.
However, having reasonable people at the head of a nation, promotes peace, because reasonable people would rather do just about anything than make
war. Slide down a greased pole covered in sandpaper on their nuts? Check. Use a cheese grater to massage shampoo into their skulls? Check. Swat a fly
on their own face using a house brick? Check. Go to war? Naaaaaah.
We do not have reasonable people at the head of our nation, nor does the US, nor does Russia, or any nation which has pledged to make war on another
nation in the last five decades. Stupid wars, fought for entirely stupid reasons. No one is saving the world by the act of war at the moment. It is
purely being made for its own reasons, so that the next war is better funded, better justified to parliaments and congressional hearings, better
understood by the next batch of young people to be duped into serving a nation, when all they will really be serving is the needs of a corporate
machine which runs on human blood, and chews flesh in its gore soaked gears and cogs, producing only misery and conquest, ruination and oppression.
My grandfathers were both warriors. They went to war, they killed men, and they came home broken. They were the lucky ones, because not a single
physical blemish remained upon them from their time in conflict. Their minds were ruined, because between landing on beaches and manning guns aboard
destroyers, those men saw countless human lives extinguished in fractions of a moment. Friends evaporated under weight of enemy fire, colleagues blown
into expanding clouds of gristle and blood by grenades, artillery fire, and mines, and enemies, brain pans and chest cavities emptying at the speed of
a passing bullet, the bullets they fired...they sacrificed their minds, and offered their bodies, rather than making a stink and staying at home,
because there WAS a threat to peace in their doorstep, an enemy at the gates capable of laying waste to entire cities in an evening.
If you had told either of them "let's go to war with this nation over here, because there's a group there whose idea of force projection is to hope
that one of their men gets through with the instructions for a bomb to detonate in a public place, MAYBE killing a hundred people with a success rate
of once in a blue moon" do you know what both of those old warriors would have said to you? They would have said "Get stuffed. That's a matter for the
intelligence services." And they would be quite right too. Why would they be right?
Because war is not small, it is indiscriminate, and about as surgical as a claymore to the eyesocket. War is for solving the big problem, using the
big methods. Small problems require small, quiet, and deniable responses ONLY.