Third Parties Stirring Up War Between Two Nations--Something to be Beware of
When nation A finds itself approaching a state of war with nation B, the logical thing for nation A to do, before actually jumping into war with nation B, is to investigate whether group C (defined below), is promoting the war between A and B so that C might benefit from war between A and B--which could coincide with A acting against its own self interest by warring with B.
Group C could be composed of subgroups. One subgroup could be persons inside of nation A, who are distinct from the mainstream element in nation A, due to differences in areas such as wealth, ethnicity, religion, nationality, identity of employer, source of income/wealth etc. This subgroup could benefit from wars fought by nation A that harm more than help nation A; it could benefit from government policies in nation A that damage the mainstream element in nation A.
Another possible subgroup of group C the group inciting nation A into war with nation B, is those who are citizens/residents of neither nation A nor nation B, who stand to benefit from war between nation A and nation B, war through which nation A despite accomplishing something could dis-serve its own self-interest. This subgroup might find its status in the world enhanced through nation A's fall into global disrepute and enmity. It might find its level of control over the world's natural resources enhanced by a war between A and B in which A loses valuable troops and equipment and wastes limited resources of time, physical energy, mental energy, and money.
The possibility always exists for nation A, that the security advantages nation A derives from a war with nation B, are outweighed by the growth in power of group C, relative to the power of nation A--as a result of the war between A and B, C could conquer a weakened A.
It behooves nation A to, before embarking on a war with nation B, double-check questions such as, how dangerous is group C compared to nation B? How do group C and nation B compare in terms of power and intent; how would nation A being occupied and conquered by group C, compare to nation A being occupied and conquered by nation B?
A war between nation A and nation B could result in A possessing dramatically enhanced security with regards to potential threats from B, while at the same time A's security dramatically declines with regards to potential threats from the elements other than B in the world such as group C.
(When you have a situation where a war between A and B would enhance A's security vis a vis B specifically while reducing A's security vis a vis all of the threats in the world in general, it is of course nonsense to accuse the leaders of A of treason or disloyalty to the troops if they act to pull their nation A back from a war with nation B. Only a nutty prima-donna-ish brat of a soldier would have the attitude that every time the bosses redeploy me or retreat me they are being disloyal to me).
Seems it is psychosis to look at the various elements of the world from the point of view, what level of threat are they to me and my group? Another way to look at things (for a given nation A) is, what potential do they have compared to each other in terms of possibly becoming valuable allies and friends of nation A? Nation A could find that group C, the third party benefitting from war between A and B, is not superior to the targetted nation B in terms of its potential friendly usefulness to nation A.
@2007 David Virgil Hobbs
Group C could be composed of subgroups. One subgroup could be persons inside of nation A, who are distinct from the mainstream element in nation A, due to differences in areas such as wealth, ethnicity, religion, nationality, identity of employer, source of income/wealth etc. This subgroup could benefit from wars fought by nation A that harm more than help nation A; it could benefit from government policies in nation A that damage the mainstream element in nation A.
Another possible subgroup of group C the group inciting nation A into war with nation B, is those who are citizens/residents of neither nation A nor nation B, who stand to benefit from war between nation A and nation B, war through which nation A despite accomplishing something could dis-serve its own self-interest. This subgroup might find its status in the world enhanced through nation A's fall into global disrepute and enmity. It might find its level of control over the world's natural resources enhanced by a war between A and B in which A loses valuable troops and equipment and wastes limited resources of time, physical energy, mental energy, and money.
The possibility always exists for nation A, that the security advantages nation A derives from a war with nation B, are outweighed by the growth in power of group C, relative to the power of nation A--as a result of the war between A and B, C could conquer a weakened A.
It behooves nation A to, before embarking on a war with nation B, double-check questions such as, how dangerous is group C compared to nation B? How do group C and nation B compare in terms of power and intent; how would nation A being occupied and conquered by group C, compare to nation A being occupied and conquered by nation B?
A war between nation A and nation B could result in A possessing dramatically enhanced security with regards to potential threats from B, while at the same time A's security dramatically declines with regards to potential threats from the elements other than B in the world such as group C.
(When you have a situation where a war between A and B would enhance A's security vis a vis B specifically while reducing A's security vis a vis all of the threats in the world in general, it is of course nonsense to accuse the leaders of A of treason or disloyalty to the troops if they act to pull their nation A back from a war with nation B. Only a nutty prima-donna-ish brat of a soldier would have the attitude that every time the bosses redeploy me or retreat me they are being disloyal to me).
Seems it is psychosis to look at the various elements of the world from the point of view, what level of threat are they to me and my group? Another way to look at things (for a given nation A) is, what potential do they have compared to each other in terms of possibly becoming valuable allies and friends of nation A? Nation A could find that group C, the third party benefitting from war between A and B, is not superior to the targetted nation B in terms of its potential friendly usefulness to nation A.
@2007 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 8:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home