Le militarisme est il le meilleur moyen pour faire la paix?,on peu se poser des questions en regardant les expériences passes de l'empire romain,du troisième reich et de l'empire japonais,est il nécessaire de soumettre les relations internationales et régionales au rapport de forces,la force peut elle être le meilleur moyen pour assurer la paix?,ou faudrait il adopter une politique de paix?,basée sur l'optimisation des ressources financières et humaines?
A quoi sert l'argent dépense pour les armes?,surtout quand ce sont les pauvres qui le depensent?
----------------------------------
Militarism expounds that the foundation of a society's security is its military capacity, and claims that the development and maintenance of the military to ensure that capacity is the most important goal for that society. It consists of a preferential positioning of military considerations in policy by a nation or other political entity and preferential treatment for persons involved officially or tangentially with the military in service or supply. Such policy when adopted causes a militarization of the society in relation to other contemporaneous societies as the militarized society exerts its influence and power over them. These influences are most clearly observable in the history of nation-states and empires when they engaged in Imperialism or Expansionism; viz. Empire of Japan, British Empire, Nazi Germany, New Roman Empire of Mussolini, the expansion of the Russian SFSR into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and later reign of Stalin, Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein, and the United States during the period of Manifest Destiny and army reform.
Ideologically militarism consists of jointly supremacy, loyalism, extremism, emergency-protectionism, and nationalism or its minor form patriotism. Under the justification of potential application of force it asserts that civilian populations are dependent upon — and thereby subservient to —the needs and goals of its military. Common tenets include advocation of "peace through strength" as the proper method to secure the interests of society — and is expressed as one that overrides all others; including traditional precursory diplomatic relations and issues related to social welfare. Militarism is sometimes contrasted with the concepts of comprehensive national power and soft power and hard power.
source
A quoi sert l'argent dépense pour les armes?,surtout quand ce sont les pauvres qui le depensent?
----------------------------------
Militarism expounds that the foundation of a society's security is its military capacity, and claims that the development and maintenance of the military to ensure that capacity is the most important goal for that society. It consists of a preferential positioning of military considerations in policy by a nation or other political entity and preferential treatment for persons involved officially or tangentially with the military in service or supply. Such policy when adopted causes a militarization of the society in relation to other contemporaneous societies as the militarized society exerts its influence and power over them. These influences are most clearly observable in the history of nation-states and empires when they engaged in Imperialism or Expansionism; viz. Empire of Japan, British Empire, Nazi Germany, New Roman Empire of Mussolini, the expansion of the Russian SFSR into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and later reign of Stalin, Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein, and the United States during the period of Manifest Destiny and army reform.
Ideologically militarism consists of jointly supremacy, loyalism, extremism, emergency-protectionism, and nationalism or its minor form patriotism. Under the justification of potential application of force it asserts that civilian populations are dependent upon — and thereby subservient to —the needs and goals of its military. Common tenets include advocation of "peace through strength" as the proper method to secure the interests of society — and is expressed as one that overrides all others; including traditional precursory diplomatic relations and issues related to social welfare. Militarism is sometimes contrasted with the concepts of comprehensive national power and soft power and hard power.
source
Commentaire