Modern day wars are more likely to be fought on battlefields where the spoils of victory are the hearts, minds and wallets of those who make up the numbers.
In spite of the aggressive actions of those rogue states that want to supplant our values and traditions with their own ideological thinking and lifestyles, there appears little appetite amongst even those who have the ability to push back for an “all out” military conflict.
The reason for this reluctance is understandable given the shear destructive power of the world’s arsenals and the knowledge that the end result would probably render the surviving planet uninhabitable.
So, this scenario has led to a situation where nations that are not accountable to their populace via democratic elections become emboldened to the extent that any expansionist activity that increases territory (geographical or intellectual) over which they maintain dominance goes ahead unchallenged.
Yet that is only half of the story ie. the military takeover type invasion where only those who resist are likely to be numbered amongst the dead, injured or enslaved. The Russian annexation of Crimea and China’s usurping of the Himalayan kingdoms are modern examples where it happened almost without a shot being fired.
But in the future, traditional military conquests are less likely to occur simply because dominance can be obtained by other much more subtle and less detectable aggressive campaigns.
We have seen what can happen with the COVID 19 outbreak that has crippled some less able countries almost beyond repair.
It is no secret that prior to the outbreak, most of the major world powers were engaged in largely secretive programmes aimed at developing viruses that could be used to destroy an opponent's ability to function. The good guys justify their necessary involvement as a moral obligation and responsibility to be prepared with vaccines that can counter such aggressive activity. The other side may have alteria motives.
However, viruses may not be the only weapon of choice and in our defence against these clandestine operations, we also need to recognise the full extent of the arsenal being used to weaken any ability to respond to the more obvious threats .
It is perhaps ironic that the leading contenders are often those “in house” campaigns waged in the name of a more equitable society - a more “caring, diverse or multi cultural “ community. Where have we heard those words before?
The subtlety of these campaigns are not lost on those who have been unable to achieve their objectives through the peaceful or democratic means available to all citizens adhering to the laws that govern the society we owe allegiance to.
Consequently, in a “WOKE” society, which is what most western countries have become, campaigns like “Black Lives Matter” or our own “race based” introduction of seperate representation in the form of guaranteed Maori wards are intimidatory in the extreme, and as such, difficult to defend against.
Governments are prone to appease the advocates of these undemocratic policies who ride roughshod over the institutions that have been proved to work for generations.
All the radical proponents have to do is accuse any individual or group who has the temerity to pop their heads above the parapet in defiance of this mob rule as being “Racist!” - game over! A house divided against itself cannot stand.
It’s time to say “ENOUGH!”
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.