War should be mandatory

Inevitability of War War, in all its glory, seems to be a constant feature in the human landscape. From the first pile of poo thrown on a hirsute competitor by a presumably worked up proto-ape to the sophisticated nuclear powered explosive devices dropped on competitors by the advanced and enlightened homo-sapiens, the only thing that has changed is the manner and scale of killing. I trotted over to Wikipedia to check on the wars fought over the last century, and was sufficiently surprised to find out that there were 4 years when no war was started. Namely 1923, 1949, 1951 and 1986. (I propose that generous research grants be endowed to study the reasons behind such lack of aggression during these years.) This, however, does not mean that no wars were fought in those years. Wars started previously continued in these years, just that no NEW war was started. [1] It also seems that the century before that was as prolific in wars as this one, so I can conclude that wars are never going away, irrespective of all the oaths taken by the winners of beauty contests. Cost of War Given this, no country can afford to relax and not worry about defending its territory, and reasonably, no country does. Some even go so far as to defend territories of allies, or even territories they have no cause to defend, other than to frustrate an enemy trying to conquer said territory. Needless to say, this leads to considerable expenditure in terms of resources and manpower, especially since they don't know when they'll be attacked, leading to them maintaining a standing army all the time, as well as employing diplomats and spies to find out if enemy nations are preparing for war. To be frank, this is a drain on the economy of under-developed and developing nations, who have other better things to spend their money on. Even highly developed nations find it difficult to balance their books, so it's high time that some steps are taken to put everything in order. Benefits of War On the other hand, many of the inventions made by humans that are highly useful now, have been made/popularized because of warfare. From tampons to trench-coats, microwave ovens to Medevac helicopters, VW Beetles to Hummers, nylon to plastics, rockets to satellites, radar to the Internet. Life as we know and live it, won't be possible without war. So, in a roundabout way, war is beneficial to humans (the ones that don't die in it, of course) and so must be preserved. [2] [3] [4] Proposal How do we balance these two things out? To this end, I propose the following: 1.Do away with the uncertainty of war, and make it mandatory. 2.Fix a time period in which the war will be fought, as well as the duration of the war. 3.Fix the period between wars. 4.Limit the weaponry and manpower on both sides to a pre-arranged minimum. 5.Fix locations on a home-and-away basis. 6.Finally, the victor should be compensated accordingly. These steps will provide manifold benefits to every country, however ahead or behind it is, in terms of economic and social progress, relative to the other nations. Due to its mandatory nature, the people of each nation will have no choice but to contribute to the war effort in some manner. This maybe in terms of either signing up to be a soldier, or working on doing research, as well as having benefits in terms of encouraging fiscal restraint and promoting socially inclusive behavior by uniting all the peoples of the country against a common enemy. As everybody will be working, it might boost the economy in some manner, as some economists like to argue. Fixing a time of year for the war will enable people to make travel plans accordingly, as well as allowing both sides to prepare strategies to tackle the physical conditions that might be prevalent at that time. Also, a fixed duration for the war will help no end in planning the resource allocation and keeping up the morale of the soldiers, who can look forward to a well-earned rest, if they come out alive, that is, or if they have been good all through their life. [5] The periods of "rest" between the wars will enable the nation to enjoy peace without worrying about defending themselves from attacked. This time period will also help in recruiting new soldiers to replace the ones that have died, to drum up war hysteria against the next enemy on the calendar, enabling the people to learn the history and culture of their enemies, thus helping in education. Of course, it all becomes pointless if any side is allowed to use weapons that can annihilate the opponents instantly. To ensure a fair fight, a worldwide campaign must be mounted to erase the phrase "All's fair in love and war" or at least the war part, from the minds of the people. Then both sides must agree in advance as to which weapons can be used and how many soldiers can be deployed, etc. etc. (not so difficult, as warring nations currently agree on methods of treating prisoners of war and many such matters). We can call this the Swiss Convention. To ensure maximum variety in terrains and physical conditions, wars should be alternated on the home and away basis, so that every nation gets a taste of war, which is ultimately the point of the whole exercise. Nothing hits as hard as a home run, or a run in one's own home, or some such. This will also keep the tradition of a war being fought every year in some place in the world going. What's the point if the victor does not get anything? What should the nations fight for? Territory? Resources? Ego? Doesn't matter. This can also be arranged beforehand. As this whole exercise is an exercise in fairness, the manner of victory will be decided by the United Nations, which will take into account factors such as body count, GDP, population, technological advances, etc. before deciding the victor. For example, in a war between the US and Afghanistan, the loss of even one helmet will consign the US to defeat, while victory for the US can be achieved only if they manage to wipe out every single soldier without suffering even a nail scratch. Such terms can be discussed in the UN Security Council. Since there's a high chance that the soldiers might die, every nation should see to it that soldiers are the highest paid people in the whole country. This will ensure that there's no dearth of applicants for this position. Summary Thus, if you favor a balanced budget, technological advancement, social unity, fiscal responsibility, education, minimal loss of life and undisturbed peace for civilians, I urge you to vote pro. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.history.com... [3] http://www.cracked.com... [4] http://abcnews.go.com... [5] http://www.christiananswers.net...