War should be mandatory

Before I continue, I'd like to assert that I never had any intentions of moving the goal post. However hard one tries, it's hard to think of all the points beforehand. So, when my opponent points out a flaw that I should have addressed beforehand, I can do naught but accept his point. One other thing. In this debate, if my opponent points out that my proposal will not work because it cannot be enforced, no country will agree to it and more such points of this nature, I'd address all such points with this one statement, as well as reminding the voters, that the contention is not whether this is possible or whether the countries will accept this. The contention is whether mandatory war is good or not. Otherwise, any and all propositions can be shot down at the initial stages itself by saying this can never happen. (For example, when the UN was thought of, people could say, never will all the countries accept the requirements, so let's not waste time in this) Let me proceed with my arguments now. 1. The intellectual problem I'm sorry if my opponent feels like I've shifted the goalposts. It was not my express intention. 2. The social problem My opponent concedes that Japan has to spend such a large amount of resources just to ensure that it does not have to go to war, and that it does not present itself an easy target. This is the core of my whole proposal. There is no way to know how much a country should do to deter anybody from attacking it, and defense budgets could spiral dangerously with just the right amount of paranoia. An opponent need just make the right noises about going to war, and Japan will have no choice but to increase its defense budget. My proposal will ensure that they know well beforehand who, where and how (since the weapons to be used are discussed beforehand) they will go to war. This can ensure that there is no wastage of resources, civilian casualties will be limited (if not nil) My opponent argues that Japan is heavily populated and there is literally no space available for conducting a war. But, almost half the population of Japan is concentrated in only 6% of the landmass and moreover 50% of Japan is forested and uninhabited. [1] I'm willing to go out on a limb and state that almost every country in the world has wide open spaces somewhere, with some city-states as exceptions. Some solution will have to be found to include these countries into this proposal as well. Maybe, they can conduct their wars in some neutral location. 3. The political problem My opponent claims my previous argument is a red herring, and continues to state that international politics is a carefully balanced game. I'm not at all denying that it is a carefully balanced game. I'm just stating that this game is heavily loaded in favor of the "rich" countries. My proposal will ensure that every nation has an equal footing from the beginning. Every advance made and resource exploited from the time when my proposal comes into effect will be fairly won. No more hood-winking third world nations by smooth talking diplomats or by the minions of totalitarian governments (like China strip-mining most of Africa. I wonder how beneficial this will prove for Africa in the future) My opponent then states that most of the tyrants in the world fought wars all the time. Well, I'm not denying it. However, those wars were not fixed. And most of those wars were fought in foreign lands, where the local populace cared for it as much as a certain rodent's backside. Under my proposal, a leader has to not only fight wars abroad, but also at home. Keeping in mind that the wars need co-operation from the local populace, it's hardly beneficial to the leader to become a tyrant. Nobody, not even a tyrant, can last long if they keep losing wars. 4. The economic problem My opponent says that wartime expenditure will be very high. Under my proposal, the wars are for a limited duration. Thus, costs can be kept in balance. My opponent asks what if countries carpet-bomb other countries or break the rules. This argument is absurd. It's like I'm setting up a game with some rules, and then my opponent saying the game is no good when the rules are broken. Well, of course, the proposal will be flawed if the rules are not followed. Then my opponent brings up the most humorous (at least to me) point. "What sane country would agree to this mandate? " The point that is humorous is that any country can be called SANE in the current scenario where a handful of nations possess the power to destroy the whole of humanity, some or the other country in the world is conducting a war all round the year causing civilians to die, rich countries impoverish poor countries by taking away all their natural resources in the name of trade, etc. So, I hope that no country is sane and this proposal be accepted. 5. The enforcement problem. I already conceded that there is no method of enforcement currently. But, if my proposal finds favor, then methods need to be worked out to find an enforcement body. But that is another debate. Summary: If my proposal is correct, then as demonstrated, the result will be a balanced budget, technological advancement, social unity, fiscal responsibility, education, minimal loss of life and undisturbed peace for civilians. I urge you all to vote pro. [1] . http://www.stat.go.jp... A NOTE TO THE VOTERS: Before voting, please remember that this debate is about the benefits that will accrue if my proposal is found to be valid. Do not dismiss this by just thinking, this is ridiculous, this will never happen, no country will accept it, so on and so forth.