As there is no war without deaths, there is no peace without sacrifice as well.
In order for sacrifices not to occur, those responsible for wars, are always trying to prove that they don't produce death.
Although this evidence can only be mediological, many regard it as geostrategic, especially when they are not aware of the combat facts, and the mental schemes of strategy.
In the modern conception of the new form of war, which we analyzed in a previous study, and which combines it with the concept of the battle, there should be no losses, while we know that this comes in contradiction with the idea of frictions as noted by Clausewitz.
In an absurd way, there is a form of appropriation of the perfect war, which only creates a positive situation. One of the reasons of its existence, is the relatively greater value we place upon the individual life in modern society, and of course the natural fear of subversion of prosperity, especially when that is artificial.
This attitude, of course, can not be applicable, and those responsible out of necessity resort to the idea of the perfect war, giving it the form of the pure war. But the problem is that the microwar exists.
Because when there is no longer a system of deterrence, and war becomes a tangible reality, the microwar is the only way for a weak opponent to respond to the enemy.
The microwar idea is based mainly on the role of the nation, and no longer of the population. The supply and the resistance comes from the people even if they do not obtain the combative initiative. Therefore inevitably with the microwar, the system of the perfect war collapses completely. This of course is basic knowledge to any strategic expert, and does not constitute an innovation.
But those responsible for war, deliberately hide it from the population they are addressing, for obvious reasons.
What's just, does not matter to them, but merely the right to wage a war in the name of the population.
Thereon, the problems are no longer social but only polemological, so the population feels inexpert, even if as days pass, it objectively sees that, the "pure" war was trasformed into a dangerous microwar.
For those responsible the start is what matters, as far as their populations are concerned.
Whereas for the population, what's of importance is only the end.
And it often understands when it's too late, that a war which ends well, is a war which never started. And because some have interests, and others want their tranquility, most are legitimizing the war, in order to supposedly opt for peace.
While the error lays in the beginning: Peace does not mean tranquility.
And of course, even though they all know that when you want peace you prepare for war, that does not necessarily mean that you go to war.
The greatest achievements in strategy occurred from wars that never happened.
In order to live in peace, you must sacrifice time. Peace is not the norm, you have to fight for its conquest.
Without resistance, without substance, there is no peace: the spring is expensive!
In order for peace to exist we should think the war, and not to make war in order to think of peace.
War is not a solution, but a problem.
We may not all be responsible for war, but we are all responsible for peace.
After thousands of years of evolution, humanity obtained a thought, and with the help of technology and the Internet in particular, the world is thereon small, in the sense of the theory of graphs. And now that everything is somehow connected, there is a need of consciousness.
Everyone must realize that the future of humanity is intelligence and without altruism we are doomed.