|
In light of the devastating experiences of two world wars,
responsible citizens of all nations have come to hate and mistrust warfare as a
means of resolving international disputes. The League of Nations, established
between the wars, aimed to substitute negotiation for warfare and to press for
disarmament. However, some ambitious powers treated it with cynical contempt,
and it was powerless in the face of empire building by Germany, Italy, and
Japan. Since 1945, the United Nations (UN) has been a more realistic
organization, using its international "police" forces to quench many conflicts.
Nonetheless, it is doubtful whether the UN could stop a major power, and some
ignore its decisions or absent themselves from its councils.
While most individuals condemn warfare absolutely, not all governments do.
History has shown that governments may display the lowest common denominator of
human characteristics and act upon it. Accepting that war is a periodic fact,
peace-loving nations feel compelled to arm themselves with the most powerful and
effective weapons of defense, including nuclear weapons, and refuse to part with
them unless their competitors do the same. This results in an armed truce, based
on parity of weapons, and the paradoxical situation of having to avoid the evils
of war by manufacturing the very weapons and training the very armies that alone
can bring them about.
The alternative is pacifism, and some advocate for the abolition of arms and
armies, believing that non-resistance to aggression, even acceptance of
invasion, is the only sure way to peace. But is it? In Britain in 1939, the
declaration of war called a halt to German expansion, and without an all-out
arms effort, Britain would have been overrun, and its people enslaved or
exterminated. The true evil of war, deprivation of freedom, was avoided by the
very act of going to war. While every sane person must condemn warfare,
realistically viewing the world in which we live, we must distinguish between
the greater evil of losing freedom and the lesser of both suffering and
inflicting the evils of warfare. In certain clearly defined circumstances, it is
right to inflict the evils of war.
However, nobody doubts the miseries that are inevitably caused. Psychologically,
the effects are disastrous. A people at war ceases to think of the enemy as
"people" like themselves. Propaganda creates hatred of the enemy, and the "other
side" becomes targets at the end of a gun, vermin to be exterminated by the
napalm fire-thrower or the nuclear bomb. Actual horrors of experiencing warfare
cause frequent mental breakdowns, self-reproach, and psychological scarring that
are often indelible. Fear, both experienced and imposed, has shattering effects.
Brutality is at a premium in the prisoner-of-war and concentration camps. Racial
hatred is stirred up, and greed becomes paramount. War means food and luxury
rationing, and "black market" operations begin. Unscrupulous people grow rich at
the expense of the poor. Personal freedom is inevitably lost. All fit men are
expected to join the forces or be branded as cowards, and all civilians exist in
a welter of government controls that completely regulate their lives. Overwork,
fatigue, and irritability are minor by-products. Much more important is the fact
that everything is geared to the war effort, and cultural and humane discoveries
and developments come to an abrupt halt.
Physically and materially, the evils of war are catastrophic. Enemy control of
the seas and skies may reduce countries that rely on imports to famine. The poor
and children suffer most. Cities and countryside are laid waste, and hospitals
are filled with those who are injured, blinded, crippled, or poisoned by gas or
radioactivity. Wealth and resources are wasted, fine men and women are
squandered. |
