The War

One of the coaches at work has been watching "The War" with some interest. His father fought in WWII and was held prisoner in a German Stalag for two years or so before being liberated. He theorizes that, if placed in a similar situation today, we would never again be capable of fighting a global conflict like WWII; I am forced to agree.

My colleague argues that kids today have had things too easy. They are unwilling, in fact, UNABLE, to sacrifice the way people did back then. They'd rather be overrun by Japanese or Germans than fight for their freedom or give up any of the luxury they've come to depend on to keep their liberty intact. I find that argument compelling, because all of the evidence I've seen in the classroom tends to support it. I don't think that it's the main reason we'd lose another global conflict if involved, though. I think we'd have a hard time competing in such a conflict because we are no longer the industrial giant we once were. One thing has been true in every war since the cavemen; the combatant nation with the greatest industrial output wins. In WWII, our tanks were not the best. They probably came in third in fact, behind those of the Germans (the Tiger was arguably the best) and those of the Russians. The deciding factor was the fact that we made so many of them and constructed ships to have them delivered at an astonishing rate ("Liberty ships"). That combined with overwhelming air power that decidedly reduced the industrial capabilities of our adversaries gave us the edge in Europe. Our ability to produce warships at an equally astounding rate overwhelmed Japan in much the same way. Would we have the ability to do so again if the need arose? I don't know, frankly, but I sincerely doubt it.

"But Dan," you say, "we don't fight wars that way anymore. We lob cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away. We fly stealth planes and disable advance radars before we overwhelm our opponents with smart bombs and satelite-guided missiles. We don't need numbers like we once did." Oh, really? If we ever fought another multiple theatre war like the last big one, our military would have to quadruple or perhaps quintuple in size and the numbers of planes, bombs, and missiles produced would have to rise exponentially. I'd have to argue that we don't have the capability to meet such production demands any longer and we definitely don't have the will to fight for a righteous cause like WWII any longer.

How can I think that we don't have the will to fight that way anymore? During WWII, this was predominantly a Christian nation. We tended to see things in terms of good versus evil much moreso than today. Hitler was seen as evil incarnate, a demon who needed to be defeated at all cost. I don't think he'd be seen in such black and white terms today. We'd adopt our usual "if it doesn't affect us, let's leave them alone" attitude, just like we did with Rwanda, and Bosnia in some ways. Would we eventually join the fight? Well, even in 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, we didn't join in immediately. During 1940, when Germany overran all of Europe except for England, we still had no direct involvement. Not until late 1941, when Japan attacked us directly, did we join the war against the Axis. Much like with our more recent national outrage at 911, the nation joined together against the evil Axis. Would we react similarly today? Let me ask this; have we remained outraged at the AlQaida attack on American soil on 911, or have we mostly forgotten that day and our short-lived resolve to fight terrorism, tired suddenly of fighting when body bags start coming home? I think it's more the latter; we're already tired, yet terrorism isn't gone. It's as big a threat now as it was then, if not moreso.

Could we win another global struggle if we were to be involved in one? I'd assert that we ARE involved in just such a struggle and we've already lost our taste for it.

I pray that God will bring us peace, but I believe that wars and rumors of wars are our fate from now till the day that Jesus returns. - Dan