War and Business Talking About

War and Business

Talking about war might seem to be a very general attempt: wars have animated the history and have contributed to the development of civilizations; wars have led to the appearance and delimitation of countries and have woken the national conscience in people's minds. At a first glance, when mentioning all these steps which have been followed in the flow of history, wars seem to be a necessary evil; but history itself is the one which can prove the contrary as well: millions of people killed, huge spendings, disappearance of civilizations and many undesired events.

In my opinion, wars should not be studied and I have the possibility to bring two arguments in favor of my statement: first of all, the war is an evil, a big evil, and, therefore, "studying it in the same framework with the economy and politics might seem to illus, illustrate an indifference towards the evil of the war." The second reason postulates the fact that the war should not exist, not only because it is immoral, but also because it is anachronic: it corresponds to a barbarian period, from which the humanity has gone out long time ago. The modern wars are thus the reminiscences of the facts of the barbarian peoples, or when they are leaded by civilized peoples, they symbolize a return to the barbarian period, which causes have to be identified; this idea has predominated during the 18th and 19th centuries and has reappeared in the 20th century as a matter of great concern. Even though the means have changed, the causes of wars have basically remained the same: the need of expansion and of increasing the economic power of the states. Therefore, a tight relationship between economy and war has always existed, and, according to Benjamin Constant, "it is the main cause of the modern wars and modern wars are a means for developing the trade" In a broader sense, "the war has occurred before trade did, the two being only two means for acquiring the same purpose: entering in the possession of what you desire. The trade is nothing else but homage brought to the one who possesses the power, by the one who aspires to that possession. It is an attempt to obtain through good understanding something that you cannot conquer through violence. The person who would remain the strongest would never have the idea of commerce. The experience is the one which, proving him that the war, exposes him to all kinds of threats and failures. The war is related to impulses, the trade - to calculus." Therefore, what it seems obvious from Constant's essay is the fact that the commerce has occurred as a more peaceful alternative to war this being the main consequence on the peoples and on society itself: the chance given to it to follow another way.

On the other hand, "One of the economic effects which affected almost all participants to a certain degree was the increased participation of women in the workforce (where they had taken the place of many men during the war years), though this was somewhat reduced in the decades following the war, as changing societal mores forced many to return to home and family." This has awakened in many minds the idea that men and women were equal and, as a consequence, they had to be treated in an equal manner.

What should not be forgotten are the negative consequences of the wars which have always occurred, no matter the length in time or the degree of participation of the people? It has been commonly assumed that an economy cannot function well in times of crisis. Let's start by developing the argument illustrated above: since women had started to be allowed to work, it is obvious that all countries which have been involved in the conflict of the World War II have been deprived by an important part of their workforce, some of the soldiers being seriously injured and some others even killed, a fact which had a great impact on the social sphere.

Another consequence consisted in the fact that many private goods have been destroyed, such as buildings, cars, lands, etc., and this has dramatically affected the economic status of the owners. In addition the destruction of the public goods also had the greatest impact on the society, since its members had to stand for the spendings which occurred once with the reconstructions. Thus, the decisions of the governments of the nations which participated to the World War II had direct effects on the common people.

This case is similar to that produced by the war in Iraq as well: "At the beginning of his first term, George W. Bush had a surplus of 40 billion dollars in his budget; at the beginning of his second, a staggering deficit of 8 trillion and growing." The issue is not whether Bush was right or wrong in entering Iraq; The United States are fighting a war, and a national debt is to be expected. The issue is how they will pay off this debt once the war is over. It will take decades before the U.S. pays off it national debt and this has also led to the loss of trust George Bush occurred from his co-nationals and to the lack of confidence of the American people in their officials, and this had as a main cause the costs this people had to bear because of the decisions of their elected representatives. To put it in another way, the money needed to be involved in the war had been taken away from the people through the increase of the taxation system.

Joshua Goldstein, the author of "The Real price of the War: How You Pay for the War on Terror," argues that "the average American household currently pays $500 each month to finance war. Beyond the dollars and cents that finance military operations and increased security within the United States, the War on Terror also costs America in less tangible ways, including lost lives, reduced revenue from international travelers, and budget pressures on health care and education. The longer the war continues, the greater these costs." In order to win the war faster, Goldstein argues for an increase in war funding, at a cost of about $100 per household per month, to better fund military spending, homeland security, and foreign aid and diplomacy. He also argues that the Americans need to face up to what the war is costing the average American -- both in taxes and in changes to our way of life. Goldstein contends that in order to protect the United States from devastating future attacks, we must fight -- and win -- the War on Terror, and we need money to fight the war quickly and well. Goldstein critiques President Bush's promises of national security, made even as his administration is cutting taxes and increasing deficit spending. The result is too little money to eradicate terrorism and a crippling burden of national debt for future generations to pay."

The costs which had to be paid by the European societies at the end of the World War II were huge as well: "The Eastern victors demanded payment of war reparations from the defeated nations, and in the Paris Peace Treaty, the Soviet Union's enemies, Hungary, Finland and Romania, were required to pay $300,000,000 each (in 1938 dollars) to the Soviet Union. Italy was required to pay $360,000,000, shared chiefly between Greece, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union." Even though, the greatest costs had to be supported by Germany, which did not pay Russia in money or goods, but through the transfer of goods.

In what the military sphere is concerned, the World War II marked the coming of the age of airpower. Advanced aircraft and guided missiles have been introduced in the war system and "made the war', together with fixed fortifications and coastal artilleries." While the pendulum continues to swing in this never-ending competition, air powers are now a full partner in any military action. World War II also saw the creation of which, like airpower, are now used in virtually every conflict.

The war was the high-water mark for mass armies. While huge conscript armies would be seen again (during the Korean War and in a number of African conflicts), after this victory the major powers relied upon small highly-trained and well-equipped militaries."

Despite these advanced fighting techniques, the absolute novelty introduced by the World War II was represented by the use of the atomic bomb on Japan in 1945.