People always use WW2 and the US economic strength to prove this point, that wars are good. However the US was in amssive amounts of debt after the war. WW2 wasnt good for the US economy,it was just less affected by the war than most other European countries and due to the size of the country it could recover much faster. During the actual war the US economy was doing worse than it was in peacetime without a doubt, just relaive to other countries it was stronger.
Seeing as how you don't even live in America I will let you off easy on that comment,but WW2 is one of my favorite topics in school and I don't take it lightly when someone says something inaccurate about that time period.America during and after WW2 actually got out of a depression(the Great Depression) and the economy not only sustained itself afterwords,but grew and prospered,because of other elements that may not have even been possible if it were not for the war.If you want some more detailed info on this then I shall post some links for you to read.
[url]http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII[/url]
[url]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_American_economy_change_after_World_War_2[/url]
[url]http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Us-Economy-During-Ww2/86278[/url]
[url]https://segue1.middlebury.edu/index.php?action=site&site=Geog0214a-6-G1§ion=15504&
age=66488[/url]
Anyways to get straight to the point,even though WW2 was a special case in the way that everything happened afterwords and such,wars can be bad for both the private sector and national government,depending on the economic standards and systems within a government,but mainly the way I see it is the in theory the more money spent on a war then the more money the government will need for it,and the more the government is going to demand from us.(taxes may be raised) and so when we are being hurt by giving more money to the national government then this will make us less likely to go out and spend money on things within the private sector(businesses outside of government ownership) which in turn could cause them to lay off workers who will then not spend money in the private sector causing what theoretically could be an economic downturn.Of course this all depends on how the government is run and whether or not they choose to take more money from the citizens,to pay for the war.Of course while I doubt the number of jobs in the military will increase over a small scale war like the one in Iraq(in comparison to wars like WW2 and even Vietnam and the Korean war) soldiers get paid more to go into a war zone(or dangerous territory at all)which could in turn dependents of those soldiers could spend on things that are either owned by the national government(such as a tax free department store that is runned in my local area for example)Truthfully nationally owned jobs are probably the most secure within the U.S.A. as the national government doesn't really go bankrupt.It can get itself in alot of debt,but not be foreclosed upon.So in times like ours it really doesn't increase the number of jobs too much,but probably recruitment.Again it all depends on all of the conditions circulating around the economy and the politics that are tied to it.
