To what extent could war tourism benefit both the local population and the war tourist?
‘’New terrorist attack in Niger: six French and two Nigerians killed’’ (Pérez, 2020) and
‘’Afghanistan's Taliban attack foreign tourist convoy ‘’ (BBC, 2016) are only a few examples of
stories depicting tragic events involving visitors in war zones, which are far from uncommon.
Tourists do not seem to be afraid of visiting dangerous areas, as described in a Fox News story
by McKay (2019). According to a survey study conducted by the University of California (n.d.),
the most important reasons for people to go on a holiday are to spend time with relatives, to
boost mental health, to relax, to get away from daily life, to learn new things, to celebrate special
events, to save money or time, and to reminisce. War tourism can be described in a variety of
ways, including recreational travel to active or former war zones for sightseeing or historical
research (Wöltering, 2016). A derogatory term for thrill-seekers who seek thrills in dangerous
and prohibited locations is "war tourist”. The past has shown that the visiting of tourists in
dangerous zones leads to tragic incidents. Therefore, it can be posited that “hot” war tourism is
too dangerous and tourists should only be able to travel to places where the fighting has ended.
There is a difference between "hot" and "cold" war tourism (Piekarz, 2014). The hazards that
lurk, the rawness of the visual aesthetic, and the capacity to provoke warm cognition or
dissonance are all things that set them apart. Active conflict zones are referred to as "hot,"
whereas conflict zones where the fighting has ended are referred to as "cold." This heat
dissipation has an effect on the morality of using them as tourist attractions War tourism
sometimes gets mixed up with "Dark tourism," which is described as "the attraction of death and
disaster" (Lennon & Foley, 2001). A war tourist is not often looking for people who are dead or
in pain. They may, however, want to get as close to the war as possible, so they might be
mistaken for dark-tourists (Richard Sharpley, 2009).
According to an interview with ABC News (2016), the adrenaline rush, the adventure, and the
chance to learn more about the past are the primary reasons for visiting ‘’hot’’ war zones on
vacation. In a YouTube vlog, Drew Binsky adds to the reasons for visiting war zones on vacation
curiosity, a desire to see how people live in war zones, and a desire to see the whole globe, as
well as the fact that countries in turmoil are still part of the world (Binsky, 2020). As a result,
"hot" war tourists have various motives for visiting war zones.
First and foremost, conflict areas and former war zones are dangerous locations to visit.
Soldiers, diplomats, and naval officers are among those whose jobs require them to travel to
these locations. These people have received advanced training and can be given a lot of help, as
‘’New terrorist attack in Niger: six French and two Nigerians killed’’ (Pérez, 2020) and
‘’Afghanistan's Taliban attack foreign tourist convoy ‘’ (BBC, 2016) are only a few examples of
stories depicting tragic events involving visitors in war zones, which are far from uncommon.
Tourists do not seem to be afraid of visiting dangerous areas, as described in a Fox News story
by McKay (2019). According to a survey study conducted by the University of California (n.d.),
the most important reasons for people to go on a holiday are to spend time with relatives, to
boost mental health, to relax, to get away from daily life, to learn new things, to celebrate special
events, to save money or time, and to reminisce. War tourism can be described in a variety of
ways, including recreational travel to active or former war zones for sightseeing or historical
research (Wöltering, 2016). A derogatory term for thrill-seekers who seek thrills in dangerous
and prohibited locations is "war tourist”. The past has shown that the visiting of tourists in
dangerous zones leads to tragic incidents. Therefore, it can be posited that “hot” war tourism is
too dangerous and tourists should only be able to travel to places where the fighting has ended.
There is a difference between "hot" and "cold" war tourism (Piekarz, 2014). The hazards that
lurk, the rawness of the visual aesthetic, and the capacity to provoke warm cognition or
dissonance are all things that set them apart. Active conflict zones are referred to as "hot,"
whereas conflict zones where the fighting has ended are referred to as "cold." This heat
dissipation has an effect on the morality of using them as tourist attractions War tourism
sometimes gets mixed up with "Dark tourism," which is described as "the attraction of death and
disaster" (Lennon & Foley, 2001). A war tourist is not often looking for people who are dead or
in pain. They may, however, want to get as close to the war as possible, so they might be
mistaken for dark-tourists (Richard Sharpley, 2009).
According to an interview with ABC News (2016), the adrenaline rush, the adventure, and the
chance to learn more about the past are the primary reasons for visiting ‘’hot’’ war zones on
vacation. In a YouTube vlog, Drew Binsky adds to the reasons for visiting war zones on vacation
curiosity, a desire to see how people live in war zones, and a desire to see the whole globe, as
well as the fact that countries in turmoil are still part of the world (Binsky, 2020). As a result,
"hot" war tourists have various motives for visiting war zones.
First and foremost, conflict areas and former war zones are dangerous locations to visit.
Soldiers, diplomats, and naval officers are among those whose jobs require them to travel to
these locations. These people have received advanced training and can be given a lot of help, as
