There are societies in which young men engage in combat from behind civilian shields, and societies in which civilians are shielded while young men engage in combat. Recently a section of our population, mostly young men and some young women, engaged in combat, risking their lives for the elderly, women, and children.
Should 19-year-olds have to put their lives on the line for their parents' and grandparents' generation? We have had a good 20+ years to work out our differences by voting, etc. Since we have failed miserably, maybe we should be the ones putting on our combat boots and going to war, and let the 19-year-olds stay home and watch TV.
I wouldn't be too successful at fighting. For one thing, I don't go anywhere in which coffee is not available. My mom wouldn't do too well either, as she needs at least one hand on her walker so how would she fire her M-16? The other side would be having similar issues, and we would have to find a better way to resolve the problems.
But we still have to prevent the testoserone issues of the younger generation from making them want to join the party. Using the money saved by not having a war, we could pay droves of ladies of the evening to dress up as virgins and walk around in groups of 72 and convince the young whippersnappers that heaven is here on earth.
Great idea for a big problem. Some people actually wonder if war is a "natural" form of attrition in societies that have too many males (since some societies kill off newborn girls). Not at all funny, unlike your idea, which I think is hilarious. Can't imagine my mother in fatigues, toting a P90 and field pack.
ReplyDeleteAoi - Did you read the article by Gunnar Heinsohn in the Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2009 that touches on this subject? You might like it.
ReplyDeleteThe no coffee thing would present a problem for me as well. I might be willing to consider the combat boots if they come in hot pink. ;)
ReplyDeletePC - with matching helmet and automatic weapon.
ReplyDelete