Technology advances protect only soldiers and not civilians.
The percentage of civilians killed:
In Iraq and Afghanistan, civilian casualties increased to 90% of all casualties (from Lancet estimate to Iraq Body Count). Advancements in military technology only save the lives of high-tech army soldiers, rather than civilians.
The percentage of civilians killed:
- in WWI was 5% of total casualties.
- In WWII it was 65%.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, civilian casualties increased to 90% of all casualties (from Lancet estimate to Iraq Body Count). Advancements in military technology only save the lives of high-tech army soldiers, rather than civilians.
Should soldiers from high-tech armies be killed more efficiently?
No. Talk to the families and loved ones of killed soldiers and civilians rather than politicians and you will know why not.
Of course, there are always people using their voting rights to use devastating force on some other people living far away in Congo, Cambodia or Syria. But they never think how much it really hurts and how utterly useless such violence is.
Mainstream media all over the world hardly criticises the efficacy of war as a means of achieving peace as politicians starting wars claim.
Even in functioning democracies, which are proud of their 'freedom of speech' or 'way of life' people take it for granted that war conducted by their governments are justified. Hardly anyone flinches at news items like:
'35 terrorists killed' or 'NATO soldiers kill 45 extremists' or
"Car bomb kills 35 in Pakistan".Like sheep, we buy the justifications given by our governments. It is comfortable for us to assume, against all historical data that governments do lie, corrupt the public trust and serve special interest groups in differing degrees in every human society.
Wars or armed conflict going on in different places around the world currently.
Isn't it time we considered if using war to achieve peace ever worked?
Isn't it time we considered if using war to achieve peace ever worked?
Have wars ever brought peace?
If the wars going on today would all end mysteriously, would the dark entities and the angels of death gather to put pressure to start a new war, let's say in Venezuela or Syria?
Yes, says world history.
Here is an article exploring this issue and alternatives to using war to achieve peace.
Global Military Expenditure is Increasing Alarmingly Fast
Global military expenditure stands at over $1.7 trillion in annual expenditure at current prices, and has been rising in recent years at about 1.3% per year. Roughly military spending is about 2.6% of the world's GDP (gross domestic product) or about $236 per person.
Photo source:
Eliminating the enemy never created peace. There are other alternatives to using war for peace.
Peace is the way, not the end.
If the wars going on today would all end mysteriously, would the dark entities and the angels of death gather to put pressure to start a new war, let's say in Venezuela or Syria?
Yes, says world history.
Here is an article exploring this issue and alternatives to using war to achieve peace.
Global Military Expenditure is Increasing Alarmingly Fast
Global military expenditure stands at over $1.7 trillion in annual expenditure at current prices, and has been rising in recent years at about 1.3% per year. Roughly military spending is about 2.6% of the world's GDP (gross domestic product) or about $236 per person.
Eliminating the enemy never created peace. There are other alternatives to using war for peace.
Peace is the way, not the end.
3 comments:
Are you suggesting that more money should be spent on protecting civilians or avoiding war?
Thanks for your comment. I'd say that avoiding war should be a priority. Conflict is inevitable, in fact good for evolution but not violence.
I couldn't agree more. We are going through three senseless wars now but accept it. Good article.
Post a Comment