Would you send your close relatives to war?
Just read that the world military expenditure increased by 37 per cent since 1997 to about $1200 billion in 2006. A really huge number…
Somehow that made me think whether there is a “simple” way to avoid wars.
Usually, those who decide to start a war are not those who effectively fight (and die) in that war. The decoupling of those two groups makes it “easier” to start a war, as “only” anonymous soldiers have to die. So maybe we could avoid some wars if those who decide to start a war are also involved in its execution by providing a close relative to the front lines. Then it becomes personal. They no longer send anonymous soldiers to a war but also a close relative. And maybe he/she won’t come back…
I think such an approach could influence the decision whether to go to war or not, at least it would influence me if I would be in such a position.
What do you think about such an approach, could it decrease the number of wars?
4 comments
Go to comment form | Trackback URL
I can imagine a cold hearted person who cared as little for their family as they did for “anonymous” soldiers, and would have no problem going to war.
Secondly (and perhaps this should be for your other blog) is it ever justifiable for a country to go to war? If the answer is “yes”, then would you want your leader to be influenced against going to war in order to protect his own family?
Finally, one consideration that we had to face here in the UK is “celebratory”: one of the British Royal Family (Prince Harry) is in the army, and his squad was to be sent to Iraq. Eventually they decided that Harry couldn’t go, as he would be a danger to the rest of his squad, as he would be a prime target, which isn’t fair on the rest of the soldiers with him. (Of course you may wonder why they let him join the army… but that’s a different question!) If we did implement your system, would you want to be in the squad with the Prime Minister’s son, and therefore be in increased danger?
@MicroAngelo: Thanks for your comment.
1. That’s possible, yes.
2. Good point. For me the only justifiable reason for a country to go to war is when the country is attacked. And I think in such a situation you would see whether a so-called leader is really a leader.
3. Hm, difficult to say if it really becomes riskier. If there are thousands of soldiers it is probably like looking for the needle in a haystack to hit the celebrity, and so you are back at the usual risks in war.
Any leader who sends his country to war should be imprisoned a year for every year the war lasts. He/she will still have the option of going to war (a useful option admittedly), but will have a small downside to consider after the war ends or after they leave office. So Blair would now be beginning 4 years in jail rather than lucrative book tours…
@Jan: Thanks for your comment.
Interesting idea. I wouldn’t send them to jail, I would rather oblige them to work in an institution which cares about those who return injured from the war.