Site icon Christina Engela: Author

A Better Way – No More War

It’s no understatement to say that there are countries so well armed in the 21st century that we as human beings have the capacity to destroy the Earth many times over. Further, for nearly 80 years, humanity has lived under that threat of mutual annihilation as if it is somehow a “good thing” as presented by various dominating nations who hold the bulk of nuclear arsenals themselves and whose actions – either accidental or deliberate – set the tone of this “Cold War”. A “hot war” would mean a return to open military action, real war, and a threat of total devastation – not only for the warring nations, but for every human being, every other species of life on Earth!

Why any species that considers itself so intelligent as to be worthy of colonizing neighboring worlds, or the stars, would paint itself into such a terrible corner, no-one knows. IF there were a god of some kind, they would most likely marvel at our human capacity for folly and fascination with large-scale industrial level death and destruction, and probably feel a little jealous, even slightly threatened.

As a teen I grew up under the threat of global nuclear war – it set the tone of my youth and given subsequent political and military actions around the world – the Gulf War, Sarajevo, the Balkans, Russia’s war on Ukraine – even my adulthood. Humans don’t seem able to choose a change from the way things have been since Hiroshima. Why can’t things be different? Why must it always be thus? What if there was an alternative to the way things are? Surely there must be?

Let me offer you one.

It could start with an edict from a global body of leaders, like the United Nations, where all member countries agreed to destroy all nuclear and chemical and bio-weapons safely and with immediate effect. All national militaries could be downsized or their scope expanded to include emergency services during national disasters. Armies, navies and air forces could take the place of nuclear devastation in the “mutually assured destruction” clause. Their members could staff the national sports teams instead.

How would wars be fought then? We as humans have demonstrated an incapacity to do without confrontation, outrage, anger, jealousy or war, so there must be an alternative. What about war as a means of determining the outcome of disputes? There must be an alternative to that as well!

There is.

Disputing nations can take their disputes to the other, non-lethal battlefield – one which may be more beneficial: the sports arena. This is aside from issues which are governed by mutually agreed international laws of course.

Thus, warring nations may put away their billion-dollar high-tech soldier-2000 weapons for another day, and instead entire nations can flock to big screens or small, to see how their nation’s first teams fare on the rugby field, or the cricket pitch, or in matches held in neutral countries, which may decide the outcome of a dispute.

Instead of waging full-blown war, which is destructive both socially, economically and in terms of human lives and suffering, nations can instead invest in building sports teams to exercise their foreign policies on the sports field. There can still be “friendly” matches of course, as usual, but “unfriendly” matches would be held to the same stringent rules and codes of conduct – plus the scrutiny of UN mediators – and the progress of every match would be televised for all the world to see. For non-warring countries, this would be likely a source of entertainment, but for those involved it might set the tone for future interactions with nations with which they have a dispute over say, fishing rights, a disputed territory, visa requirements and etc.

The best part is, aside from a few sports-related injuries, nobody would die on the frontline of any dispute. No civilian casualties. No bombed schools or hospitals. No civilians freezing in cold, dark cities because the enemy bombed their power utilities. No more dead children. No more young men dying because they’re sent to fight wars for old men.

As a former soldier myself, and as a student of history, I find that immensely appealing. The message is universal.

If the system is not adhered to, there is still always the tried-and-trusted fallback of actual war, but with the penalties that would be imposed by the UN and its other member countries in consequence, such a regression may not be worth it after all. Over time, the return to actual war would seem increasingly barbaric and unnecessary – as it should.

Aside from ending real war, this system as proposed – with a few tweaks from actual political scientists (and sports enthusiasts) might birth a whole new branch of competitive sport which would also hold huge promise in the sportscasting industry, training methods, sponsorships, and get-rich-quick betting. The possibilities as they say, are endless. Humans could, in so doing, show their true colors and settle their scores on a grand scale without exposing their insides and making things as ugly as they get in real, live, war.

Would this not be a truly advanced, evolved, way of settling disputes? A better way.

Will you, the world, accept my proposal?

I have the rest of my life to wait and see.

#endwar #nomorewar #solution #essay #proposal #UN #unitednations #sportsfan #sport #settledisputeswithsport #Ukraine


Catch me on social media!    

All material copyright © Christina Engela, 2022.

Spread the love
Exit mobile version