Would you die for your country?

Before you answer, when it comes to war, shouldn’t those who have the most to lose be the ones who fight and die first?

If you’re one of the poorest 50% of Americans, you share less than 2.5% of the USA’s wealth.

At the same time, the wealthiest 10% of Americans hoard 67.4% of the country’s wealth.

If America is attacked, they have much, much more to lose. Shouldn’t they be the ones to fight and die first? That’s 34 million soldiers. They’d whip everyone’s ass.

Though, thinking about it, perhaps you only need the top 1% to fight. That’s 3.4 million people fighting to protect their 31% share of America’s wealth. Don’t you reckon they’d be super-motivated to protect all their money?

Actually, if the war’s not even against a near-peer adversary, the top 0.1% could probably handle it on their own. Don’t you imagine those 340,000 people would surely fight like utter maniacs to protect their 13.9% wealth share. I imagine they’d find fighting to save their $23.33 trillion (more than $68 million each) really very motivating.

Don’t you?

So, isn’t it odd that wars are always fought by the poorest members of society?

And, thinking about it, is every war about fighting for your country, anyway? Guess that’s another question for another day.

What you just read? ☝ Shouldn't more people read it?
Share it now, before you forget

Feel free to share the complete post (include the backlink)

Click to copy post textBefore you answer, when it comes to war, shouldn't those who have the most to lose be the ones who fight and die first? If you're one of the poorest 50% of Americans, you share less than 2.5% of the USA's wealth. At the same time, the wealthiest 10% of Americans hoard 67.4% of the country's wealth. If America is attacked, they have much, much more to lose. Shouldn't they be the ones to fight and die first? That's 34 million soldiers. They'd whip everyone's ass. Though, thinking about it, perhaps you only need the top 1% to fight. That's 3.4 million people fighting to protect their 31% share of America's wealth. Don't you reckon they'd be super-motivated to protect all their money? Actually, if the war's not even against a near-peer adversary, the top 0.1% could probably handle it on their own. Don't you imagine those 340,000 people would surely fight like utter maniacs to protect their 13.9% wealth share. I imagine they'd find fighting to save their $23.33 trillion (more than $68 million each) really very motivating. Don't you? So, isn't it odd that wars are always fought by the poorest members of society? And, thinking about it, is every war about fighting for your country, anyway? Guess that's another question for another day.

Thank you