1.
Summary
-
There are various scholars' interpretations
of how war happens. First, historians have argued that war is a accident, which
is very contingent and unpredictable. Psychologists explain why war is taking
place on the grounds that men are essentially violent. On the contrary,
anthropologists claim that wars take place through acquired learning.
2.
New/Interesting things I learned
-
I learned from the psychologists' arguments
that a war can appear when a man with an unbalanced spirit is in control of the
state, and that election-like processes can prevent war. Thinking of Hitler,
Stalin's example, which caused a war so far, it seemed right. It was also
interesting that many of the people with normal minds could stop their
dictatorship and war through democratic processes of election.
3.
Discussion point
-
War opens new markets and creates new
wealth. So from this economics point of view, is war a positive factor? I agree
with the development of the weapons industry and the formation of new markets
through the war. But in conclusion, I can not agree that this creates a new
wealth. The damage caused by the war must be considered.
I think that the outcome of this debate depends on the viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteWar is profit when it comes to weapons.
But when it comes to national loss, war is a loss.
I think that human is the greatest asset.
So, from my point of view, the war that a person dies is a loss.
Even though it is a cruel story, the war is an event that activates the market. However, this is only true of the position of vested interest, from a macroscopic perspective. For those who with weapons, safe house and capital, wars are a good market. However, wars that consider the lives of millions of people as a means of making money should not be justified.
ReplyDelete