Scholars and policy makers often consider armed international conflicts as a range of negative effects for the military. But they ignore the adverse consequences of war for the civil population. War is nothing more than a battle for political might and economic power. Politicians ignore the potential destructions. Right, soldiers who participate in the military actions suffer; many of them are hurt by the so-called shell shock while some return disabled. But I would like to prove that the real casualties of war are not so much with those soldiers, but regular citizens who have had their lives disrupted by the fighting.
To begin with, usually politicians take into account only those costs applied for military provision. They are ready to spend national budget to accompany cooperation. Thus, money that could be invested in healthcare or charity are wasted on the military actions. While medicine exists to save human lives, war takes them away. But when it comes to leadership on political and economic arena, most of the rulers are blinded. For instance, Russia spent $ 51.6 billion last year because of the ongoing conflict with Ukraine. As the result, its national budget suffered significantly. Medical expenditures decreased. However, Russia is known for its health problems and expensive medical treatment. For some reasons, its government does not care much about civil population, dedicating most of its time to strengthening army.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
World’s statistics proved that developed countries contribute amazing amounts of money to the army improvement. The United States, China, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, and Russia have the greatest military expenditures. At least three of these countries are involved in regular armed conflicts. This way, war becomes the main agent of social change. As WWI and WWII showed, armed conflict is the main reason for various social classes to appear. As the social division may change dramatically, people can face social difficulties along with financial crisis. For instance, the representatives of the enemy country are being pressed and even killed by the opposition. It becomes too dangerous to exist for the national minorities as when war takes place, racial discrimination activates. Such movements as skin heads start to behave more aggressively than they use during a peaceful time.
At last, war ruins national sites. From architectural and historical point of view, any war has only negative effects. Many buildings then have to be reconstructed. Again, it costs a plenty of money. But as the budget of even a winning country is wasted, most probably the destructed buildings will remain this way for a while.
Sure thing, there is a point of contention. Sometimes, a war is the only way to unite people versus one dictator. For example, Europe would still be suffering under Hitler’s reign if Soviet Union, French, and other armies were not resisting. So, in terms of salvation, it makes sense to take part in war.
In addition, we cannot fully support the point war has only harmful consequences for the civil population. Army expenditures are necessary to create a powerful protection from the possible external threats. No one knows for sure when a foe may attack and why.
To conclude, I would still support the idea that it is better to avoid armed conflicts by trying to solve the issue diplomatically. However, I believe there is nothing left except for resisting in terms of any external military risk. The governments of developed countries should spend just a bit less money on strengthening its armies as it increases their threat to other parts of the word. Besides, keeping some kind of weapon is dangerous for the local population.
