The world is becoming alarming.Military themes come to the fore, and with it the lexicon.Citizens have to learn new terminology.Among them there is the word "warlord".This is multifaceted, political definition, more often glimpsed in the media.To avoid confusion in the perception and understanding of the material, you must own the lexical base interest subjects.Let's analyze who the militarists.This is dangerous or not?
rummage in dictionaries
Okay, that smart people work for ordinary readers to understand the unfamiliar terms.Open any dictionary and see what the word "warlord".It is he who supports the appropriate policies, it is written there.Not much.Although it is clear that the person sticking militaristic views, hardly a pacifist.Just the opposite.This person acts for the implementation of militant programs.That is, a person is a supporter of militarism.It is written in many sources.What does this mean in practice?Let's deal further.Let's read the examples, the following definitions.A typical militarist believes that it is necessary to spend money to strengthen the state of the armed forces.I have something specific!
As militarist thinking?
This, incidentally, applies to everyone.The reader, too, adheres to the described views, only the term does not refer to itself.In fact, the militarists and the aggressor as many are not the same.The first stands for what is necessary to defend the country.Second - for attacking the weak.However, there is a difference?However, between these concepts sometimes equate.It is believed that a typical warlord has plans to capture the states or territories.And most of his policies implemented by military means.That is, the warlords arm themselves with a purpose.They think that in this way they increase their influence on neighboring countries and on the whole world community.It turns out that the path of militarism is closely linked with aggression, pressure increasing role in the geopolitical arena.Interestingly, the economy, the term has a direct relationship, although at first glance do not think so.
militarist state
We have found that supporters described the views tend to arm themselves.For this purpose usually requires a lot of money.But not only.Indeed, in the global world, other countries try to limit the overly zealous supporter of militarization.No one wants to be over time the object of attack.Therefore, the militarists in power seek to develop its own arms industry.They are building plants to stimulate the science is clear, train soldiers and officers.The Company is also required to direct accordingly.After all, people will not support the power that creates strange things.We have such a hypothetical state governors to invent (or designate) of the enemy.Then comes the corresponding legend.Under her selected facts from history.All this propaganda machine spins.People aware of the need to tighten the belt and engage in weapons country.After all, "the enemy does not sleep!"
Use militarism
This information is strictly hypothetical.It does not describe any of the States now existing.While some do not stop the policy of militarism.We are seeing this problem with only one hand.There is a second, so to speak, progressive.To understand it, let us turn to the history of Russia.Before the Great Patriotic War of the USSR often accused of militarism.It is no secret that the country's leadership has done everything possible to quickly develop the defense industry, to create a modern army.And it paid pods.USSR, though with difficulty, but defeated Nazi Germany destroyed the "brown plague".And if the country at that time led people to have different views of what kind of world we would be living now?When there is a real aggressor no matter who you are a pacifist or a warmonger, you must take care of the interests of the people, and not to talk about the world.It turns out that, contrary to popular views about the negative desire to strengthen the armed forces, this policy could save the country from total destruction.
Fine Line
You know, in this world of militarism it loses its original meaning.The weapon becomes so dangerous and expensive that the mere possession of them makes the state invincible.No one would want to communicate, do not try to argue with.This, incidentally, the last twenty years, the United States enjoyed, and now their president calls to "exclusively".But the world has agreed that the States will be the custodians of the world.And they were a few decades from now become the aggressor.Countries in which they unleashed armed conflict set.US policy shifted the fine line that separates defenders of unscrupulous warmongers.It turns out that militarism - is a very dangerous thing.If the weapon is, it "will shoot", as the classic.On the other hand, today's world without it can not do.Easily become the victim of a stronger and better armed.
