The root cause of war is arrogance and discontentment.

The root of the battle is self-esteem and the desire to survive.

Between multiple countries, wars can arise when what a country (and its leaders) need cannot be met by its own resources or the status quo, and the state of dissatisfaction is detrimental (subjective) to the long-term development of the country (or its leaders).

Within a country, war can arise when the interests of a class are not satisfied by the domestic status quo, and when the state of dissatisfaction is detrimental to the expansion and survival of the class and its future development.

A nation (and its leaders and people) respond when they find that their homeland or their fellow citizens are harmed, and that harm is spreading and may affect itself.

The subject's two inferences are very realistic and utilitarian, and if you put it in the context of war, there will always be officials or ordinary people at the national level who hold this idea, which is normal. War is not good, war is going to kill people, it is going to produce losses, if we don't do it well, the country will become tattered, and if we lose the war, we all have to die. Don't fight, don't fight. The most important thing is to return quickly, and to survive is the most important thing. Staying alive is the most important thing.

The first corollary, let alone large and small countries, is possible to be extended to any country. What is important is not the big and small countries, but the war power that the country can gather in the event of war. This kind of war force is the so-called synthesis of human, natural, and scientific and technological resources. But it is far from enough, it is necessary to have the will of the state, whether it is popular or high-level. - This is actually what is lacking in the subject's inference model.

The second corollary only considers war losses, but does not discuss the potential outcomes. It is also one-sided to think about it at the individual level, not to mention the actual national war decision. War is a game, and it is obviously inconsiderate to veto it because the investment exceeds the upper limit of one's expectations without considering the investment and return.

Both of the subject's inferences are a single-factor model, which is judged only by the "availability of various types of resources", which obviously cannot be applied to a wide range of national decision-making and to the war itself.

Even if a country has a huge amount of resources and can gather enough war forces, it is still a matter of people, and if the generals and leaders, those who manipulate these resources, are incompetent, it cannot be said that it can use this disparity to determine the victory of the war.

At this time, as long as the methods of the opponent's generals and leaders are more high, the situation is likely to be different.

If a third country is involved, it's different.

Wars do not stop because of so-called disadvantages. It is not so easy for a country or a nation to be defeated by the facts in front of it, nor is it so easy for a country, monarch or class to be stopped by the so-called potential losses in front of it.

As long as the returns are objective enough, the costs and potential losses are within the permissible range, and the company is confident enough, there is no problem in using war to solve the problem. Especially in ancient times, monarchs were not as patient as the current presidents, prime ministers, prime ministers, and presidents to sit down and negotiate, either ceding to me or fighting a war to snatch it over.

As a belligerent, you naturally do not allow other countries to plunder and destroy at will - just as you will not allow others to break into your home and smash them at will. There are also people who share the same living area and the same sense of belonging, and they will not allow people who belong to the same group to be unjustifiably harmed by the outside world, which is a pure way to maintain the group and the sense of identity and belonging. It is also a primitive counterattack instinct. Of course, it cannot be said that the people have the final say on whether to fight back or not, but when the will of the people points to war, the state will not sit still. Unless, in the balance, leaders find that they will gain more by giving away the country. Leaders also weigh how much it will cost to fight back and what kind of victory they can achieve. But this is just a theoretical backwards, if you are beaten and don't fight back, then you will roll out and change the person who is willing to fight to lead the counterattack.

There have been constant wars in the world all along, first, because the economy is not yet developed, and the ties between countries and regions are not yet close and independent, and it is difficult to find any interconnection other than regional and political alliances. Therefore, the impact of the outbreak of war is relatively small, and it is generally limited to two countries or several countries including neighboring countries or alliance countries. At that time, the economies of all countries were independent, and the costs of war were borne by their own economies, and the consequences of defeat were nothing more than the loss of population, economy, and territory of a certain country, which did not affect other countries and countries with smaller losses to continue to go to war. The cost of defeat, hatred and rekindling is also low, and if you can't destroy me, then I will come again one day to destroy you.

This situation did not change until the end of World War II, when the world was tired and devastated after two world wars, and after the reconstruction began, it followed the original world trading system and then the United States. When everyone is closely connected, war is not a matter for one or two countries, but can be a big question of economic stability involving the other trading partners behind these two countries. At this time, the cost of starting a war is high, because if you don't do it well, you will have to fight with several or even dozens or dozens of countries, which will be a big problem for economic development after the war. Therefore, the countries in the world that are still in a state of war are either in a relatively independent state or a state of extremely high status in international trade, or one of the belligerents has strong economic support behind them.

Another reason may be the existence of the atomic bomb. Because the lethality of the atomic bomb is too great, if a large-scale battle is triggered again, the mass use of the atomic bomb may lead to the destruction of the whole country and even the whole of mankind. Therefore, it is necessary to be cautious about whether or not to conduct a full-scale war.

But this does not mean that war will disappear like this, and as long as the output can compensate for the input and losses, then it is still okay to use war. But whether the output is as expected, or whether the consequences are as expected, is another matter.

In addition, military intervention and assistance in the fight are not the same thing as waging war.

。 Book Fun Corner_