Bluntly, no.
In the modern day soft power is more important than hard power. To the half of you in gateway, I don't know if you sided with cowels or bosco, but I definitely think whoever has the money has the power. A large army holds a lot of power, but it's also very expensive. If a country can keep their economy out of recession whilst growing and maintaining a large army, then all power to them. When issues arise in the economy, the government should cut back on military spending. In a day of globalization, military conflict is illogical. In the long run, everyone will benefit more if two sovereigns resolve their conflict without going to war. Although, a few will see short term economic stimuli if the two sovereigns go to war, a long term unbalance in those economies may occur when the two sovereigns resolve.
Basically, a leader's biggest concern should be the economy.
Buddha
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
While reading your post Machiavelli's conclusion that it is better to occupy other territory by establishing colonies or ruling representatives than by military rule, came to my mind. It costs too much militarily was Machiavelli's point, same as yours. Makes me think that what Machiavelli wrote was considered so revolutionary because it simply stated what is and isn't practical(read economically viable?)
Post a Comment