Military War cause and effect
All living things need the resources provided by our natural world to live, leading to them adapting to specific environments. Animals in particular are mobile creatures that move from place to place searching for the best environments for their survival. The most intelligent creatures in our animal world are human beings and like other animals, they moved from place to place while organized into races in search of the elusive desirable environments. However, there is always the likelihood of finding fellow humanity already thriving in that environment. This resulted to conflict as competition for the inadequate resources arose. Consequently, human beings formed nations, allegiance to the national system meant loyalty to the governance, and regions and they formed military groups to defend their resources. However, the military warfare has changed with international understanding, though the idea still rests heavily on fight for resources. Further, international politics illustrates the causes and effects of modern military war have changed due to chan...
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
Understanding the purposes and motivation of any non-state insurgent group is the key to defeating them . To misunderstand them very likely lead to failure. However, the organization of non-state insurgent groups is fluid characteristic, which means that the purpose of its fighting also often changing rapidly . It is important to recognise this changes as this will also change the characteristics of their war that they waged . Within a fluid non-state...
Morillo, Stephen, Jeremy Black and Paul Lococo. War In World History: Society, Technology, and War from Ancient Times to the Present, Volume 2, McGraw-Hill, 2008
John F. Kennedy once famously said, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” It has been said a few decades ago but the theme of war is relevant at all times. One might share Kennedy’s point of view, when another one not. The most obvious example of different views and approaches on how to deal with conflicts are of the Western and Eastern civilizations. The Western is focused on physical aggressiveness and getting things done through power and coercion, while the Eastern approach is more philosophical, rational, and strategic. We see such method of approach in Sun Tzu’s military treatise, “The Art of War.” Even though he wrote a manual on how to defeat an enemy, Sun Tzu emphasized that a large portion of success is based on the army’s moral duty, which is cultivated by incentives, leaders’ examples, and the ability to listen to their soldiers.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
War is commonly defined as an armed conflict between two entities, one that dates back to the beginning of mankind’s very existence. During this time many have attempted to explain the complex nature of war, its actors, and its origins. There are two authors in particular who have made critical analysis on the topic of war within the international system, more specifically the nature of balanced power and hegemonic war and the role that perception plays in conflict. Glipin asserts that disequilibrium will result in a hegemonic war due to inferior civilizations striking falling civilizations. Whereas Jervis asserts that misperception is the driving cause of war. I argue that it is not an inferior civilization, but rather different economies
War is a universal phenomenon, it is a violent tool people use to accomplish their interests. It is not autonomous, rather policy always determines its character. Normally it starts when diplomacy fails to reach a peaceful end. War is not an end rather than a mean to reach the end, however, it does not end, and it only rests in preparation for better conditions. It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists.
There have been sustained attempts to understand the nature of war. Carl von Clausewitz in his posthumously published book ‘’On War’’ (1832) concludes with the sentence- “War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will”. In basic terms reciprocity and use of force, according to him, are the central elements of any war. However, I strongly feel that every war is deep rooted into many layers of complexities rather than any two identifiable central elements. Whether one wages a war for instinctive rather than deliberative reasons (choice vs. survival) or as a means to an end, it involves a fight not just between armies, ammunitions, states or geographies but also between sentiments, emotions, lives and homes. Any war is never between two armies or states alone, it is the struggle of millions who may not be out there on the battlefield but are nevertheless
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
There is an average of twenty ongoing wars in the world at any given time. Some are internal civil wars, others are between nations. But the purpose of this thesis is not to report warfare, but the act of it. This includes the evolution of conventional and nuclear warfare, the potential effect of a nuclear war and why it is necessary for nations to fight war. This analysis will be based on a study of Gwyn dwyer's seven-part series, "War". The only other references used to compound this thesis will be statements from former heads of state, as corresponding to the subject of war.
War, in all its forms, is tragic. International law was created to establish some basis of rules to abide by—including war—and states have signed on to such a contract. The actions of states in this ever globalizing world are difficult to be controlled. The source of international law operates through the hands of the United Nations. The enforcement of the law occurs through reciprocity, collective action, and a display of international norms (Goldstein, p. 254). War in fact has been given a justification, though it is arguable whether or not the basis of the idea is correct. Wars can be just under certain conditions.
War has been a consistent piece of mankind 's history. It has significantly influenced the lives of individuals around the globe. The impacts are amazingly adverse. In the novel, “The Wars,” by Timothy Findley, Soldiers must shoulder compelling weight on the warzone. Such weight is both family and the country weight. Many individuals look at soldiers for hop and therefore, adding load to them. Those that cannot rationally beat these difficulties may create Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Tragically, some resort to suicide to get away from their insecurities. Troops, notwithstanding, are not by any means the only ones influenced by wars; relatives likewise encounter mental hardships when their friends and family are sent to war. Timothy Findley
Wars - The Results Lead to Further Conflicts During the twentieth century, conclusions of wars created the conditions for subsequent wars. Whether it was the conqueror or the conqueror, few ever remain content past an initial truce. Two examples of this can be found in the events that lead up to WWII and the constant conflict in the Middle East. The conclusion and consequences of World War I created many issues, which helped intensify World War II.
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
In modern military theory, the highest level is the strategic level, in which activities at the strategic level focus directly on policy objectives, both during peace and warfare. In the study of modern military strategy, there is a distinction between military strategy and national strategy, in which the former is the use of military objective to secure political objectives and the latter coordinates and concentrates all the elements of national...