The Necessity of War

For thousands of years, man has fought against other men to achieve his goals. Today's society has forgotten this simple fact, and, because of this, present society has begun to corrode; nations are bankrupt, criminals crowd jails and wander the streets, and the moral climate of the United States is one of permissiveness and hypocrisy. Society has forgotten its roots. War is the only means to improvement of the societies of the world, without war there will be no future for mankind.

To understand why modern society needs war, one must examine the intertwined histories of war and society. Anthropologists agree upon the fact that our prehistoric ancestors were constantly at war. Family units (tribes) wandered the land, hunting animals and gathering edible plants. These tribes would occasionally run into one another, and, in doing so, would start a fight. Such fights would end with the victorious tribe subjugating or destroying the weaker tribe. At some point in time, these tribes began to develop a more sophisticated way of life. Agriculture and domesticated animals made it possible for tribes to stop foraging and settle down. People began to value possessions and land-tribes were apt to defend their accumulated wealth.

The desire to maintain and acquire wealth lead to the formation of larger groups. These groups consisted of several tribes, providing much better protection for each individual and his belongings. These larger groups began fighting over land or attempting to conquer (steal) other groups' land. As groups grew to increase the effectiveness of these attempts, the size of the conflicts increased. The conflicts came to be called "wars".

The idea of "war" remains the same in modern times. Two opposing factions (geographically organized into nations, for convenience), following a dispute over land or in an attempt to conquer others' land, will initiate a war. Whereas ancient wars were fought with sticks and rocks, and, later, swords and arrows, modern warfare is conducted with guns and bombs.

Because modern weapons are highly efficient-perhaps too efficient-modern warfare is generally avoided. Instead, war has reverted to a more primitive level known as "diplomatic relations". Countries exchange treaties rather than casualties, insults rather than missiles. While this is enough to please the progressive desires of most, it is not nearly as productive as a real war.

The efficacy of war is manifest in many ways: technological advances, societal refinement, economic benefits, and, most importantly, global unity. Undeniably, war is responsible for the marvels of today's society, and, inversely, the absence of war is the cause of American society's current state of stagnation. If it is not proof enough of my point to see the sordid happenings proclaimed by newspaper headlines, perhaps the following examples will illustrate the necessity of war.

World War II, arguably the most productive war of this century, is best remembered for the invention of the atomic bomb. The principles behind this prodigiously powerful device, while ideally suited to reducing enemies to glowing dust, have found equally practical application in the production of power. In the midst of the conflict, the military also funded vast experiments into the field of computer science. Designed for trajectory calculations, military computers represented the infant stage of a new technology so profound it has yet to be fully exploited. Accredited with the incredible leaps in atomic power and computer development, World War II was a very productive war for science.

The Cold War, fought with phantasmagoric warheads and imagined attacks, was another essential war in the development of modern technology. Computers (courtesy of World War II advancements) and rockets (first used as weapons by medieval Chinese pyrotechnicians, employed centuries later by Nazis) were further researched in a race to achieve interplanetary travel, which was finally achieved by the United States in 1969 (as a sign of superiority over the communists). The tense relations between the communists and capitalists also lead to the development of other useful technological developments, most notably, the communications satellite. Advanced relentlessly by the "Star Wars" program of the 80's, the satellite allowed for previously impossible communications gaps to be bridged. The Cold War, unfortunately, never quite evolved into a real war. Had the anxious distrust between the US and USSR ever come to blows, today's technology could have been advanced years beyond its current state.

Of course, the Cold War and its predecessors were not beneficial solely to the world of technology. Social refinement is also one of War's many flunkies. This, naturally, is due to the fact that war forces societies to fight or be annihilated (refinement is often a matter of eliminating impurities with extreme prejudice). Many weaker-and, therefore, less desirable-societies have already been eliminated, making way for the more productive societies. War not only removes useless societies, it also functions to improve the societies involved by strengthening morals, increasing patriotism, and reducing crime.

Because war and propaganda are nearly inseparable, moral revival is a common byproduct of war. A perfectly logical byproduct, considering the following analogy between propaganda and religion: While preachers may never tire of preaching the perils of sin and the possibilities of damnation to their congregations, the finger of blame is more enthusiastically turned towards enemies while at war. Thus, instead of passively listening to "you'll go to hell" every Sunday, people thrill to the sound of "they'll go to hell", and, consequently, become more active in their religion. This is sometimes less an allegory than a description of actual events (I state this in concurrence with being labeled a part of "The Great Satan" by certain Arab countries).

Obviously, a national consensus of good (us) against evil (them) is bound to arise in every war. Upon deciding that they are on the "good" side, the people of a nation are pressed to accentuate their moral virtues while apodiabolizing their enemies. This polarization of right and wrong leaves people with stronger morals, regardless of the fact that those morals were derived from an imagined aura of inviolability. On an interesting note, this phenomenon usually takes place in both participants in a conflict, generating a far more vicious, prolonged, and productive war.

While strengthening morals, war provides a nation's occupants with a greater sense of patriotism. A step above morality, patriotism is the sense that one's nation is morally inviolable. This belief drives taxpayers to happily pay their taxes and enlist in the military. The government, hoping to elicit this belief, is readily prepared to issue propaganda (information pertaining to nation-similar to travel brochures) which will convince people of the fact that their nation is morally inviolable, fighting for the right cause, better than others, et cetera.

Patriotism is a very salutary effect of war. Patriotism quashes pacifistic pleas such as "What if we're wrong?" with its irrefutable (while all pacifists are dissenters, none will wish to disagree enough to be labeled a traitor) argument of superior righteousness. Not only does patriotism prevent dissension, it always (unlike technological advancement or a burgeoning economy) results in more war. This self-perpetuating aspect of patriotism is the ultimate example of war's productivity.

War provides yet another social benefit which, while it does not affect as many as improved morality or greater patriotism, should still be taken into consideration. It is accredited to "aggressive instinct" (which is a mislabeling of the desire to be productive) that youthful males perpetrate the vast majority of crimes. Youthful males are also the first selected for military service. It is not a very difficult question to answer when one asks, "Is it better for our young men to be murderers, killing their own countrymen, or soldiers, killing people I have never met before?" As it is unavoidable that some men, whether due to environment or psychology, become killers, this question is especially pertinent in consideration of the problems of prison overcrowding and the costs of housing inmates.

The third item which war elevates is that of national economy. This benefit expressed in several ways, most strikingly, in war's effect on population size. The most obvious of war's objectives is to kill as many of the enemy as possible. The reasoning behind this is magnificent in its simplicity: with those who would oppose one's goals dead, there will be no opposition to one's goals. Killing one's enemies, however, does not only allow for fulfillment of one's goals. With a smaller population, problems of famine and overpopulation are immediately solved.

The problems of famine and overpopulation are the result of too many people occupying an area. If war eliminates a good portion of these people, there will be more food, houses, and natural resources for the survivors. While war may, indeed, destroy valuable farmland or require large amounts of natural resources for its weapons, a prolonged war is sure to remove the excess population and make up for the destruction and consumption of goods. Thus, by reducing the number of mouths to feed, war allows for people to be better nourished. Following this idea, a sustained world war could result in a population of well fed, wealthy, and, therefore, contented individuals (albeit a relatively small number of individuals).

This brings us to the final offering war bestows upon mankind: world unity. Today's nations bicker and stagnate in futile attempts for peace; an apocalyptic war could easily erase the problems of different races and customs. More realistically, the world's nations could unite to form two separate factions, fight until one faction conquered the other, and separate again. This process could continue until the world reached a utopian state in which humans, united under one cause, could begin to fight against far more important opponents (such as time and space) and evolve to an unimaginable level of excellence.

I propose that the United States initiate war with its enemies in order to solve its current dilemmas and save the world from economic collapse and moral decay. It is the responsibility of the United States as a major military power to destroy any and all nations that are currently unwilling to fight. Such "neutral" nations are extremely unproductive and should be regarded as a danger to the progression of the human race. Once the world has been rid of all parasitic elements, war should be initiated with other major military powers, and, with luck, wars will commence in accordance with my previous plan.

In conclusion, were it not for war, today's society would never have reached its current state, and without war the world cannot hope to continue growing. It is time for people to disabuse themselves of the outdated notion of "peace" and take up arms against their enemies. Mankind has progressed this far with war-why stop here?