Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Country Simulation
In class, we did a simulation in which we split into multiple countries and built resources based off a number of economic units that we got per turn. The simulation ended with countries 2,5,6 declaring war on country 4. After the simulation, we debriefed and had a discussion about what the best option for having all of us gain security would have been. There was a lot of disagreement about why countries should or should not have attacked others, and world peace was proposed as an option. My question is, would world peace really have worked, or would it have ended up the same way as it did simply because one of the more powerful countries might decide it didn't want peace, and instead try and conquer the other nations by itself?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that world peace could have worked. If people's goals had been to increase their peoples' happiness, alliances would have benefitted them and allowed for them to gain more power. World peace would only work, however, if the stronger countries as well as the weaker ones recognized each other's power and did not try to infringe on it. If there was more of a balance of power, then no group would be more threatening than another, and fear would subside. While it is true that powerful countries would not want to give others some of their power, it would be possible if each country got something out of the deal.
ReplyDeleteBut like we talked about, how could we insure that everyone got something from the deal? The powerful countries don't need things from the other groups, making them less inclined to participate in the alliances.
Delete