War is going to be looked at as a problem of bargaining over goods. When war actually does break out, it is seen as the result of bargaining failure which is essentially explained by two causal mechanisms: the problem of incomplete information as well as commitment problems. These two components will be elaborated in the following paragraphs. Later, criticisms from the realist theory will be evaluated. Prior to diving in more profoundly into the causes of bargaining failure, let us first briefly define what this entails.
P1: Write a report to describe the causes of war & conflict. What is war? War is a conflict between different individual countries or a conflict involving one country with enemies from different regions of the same country. War must be declared before an attack has occurred; if the countries do not contribute to the meaning of declaration then other countries may join forces against that country. What is conflict?
Both of these essays show the history behind the war and the reasons of why it took place and why it should not have transpired. Fredrick’s Logevall convincingly argues in his essay Choosing War that the Vietnam War was a choice and not a necessary war to fight for the United States and how it could have been avoided. In his book, Logevall agrees that the Vietnam War is a significant part of our history that had huge impact on our nation and should not have occurred. He begins his essay by describing the events that took place in the beginning of the war. In this essay, Logevall communicates to us his philosophies that the Vietnam War was an error of judgment.
Walzer distinguishes between guerilla warfare and terrorism, arguing that the latter’s conduct is not justified according to the established rules of war. While guerilla warfare and terrorism share similarities with respect to the foreseeable killing of noncombatants, terrorism is never justified firstly because of the random nature of its targets. Second, the fact that terrorism is a useful tactic for avoiding engagement with an enemy’s military makes it far more dangerous for civilians than guerilla warfare. Finally, terrorism’s lack of moral limitations and restrictions on killing make it rather difficult for any compromise or reconciliation to be possible. While the element of surprise is one of the key tactics employed in both guerilla warfare and terrorism, it is the latter’s employment of this tactic that Walzer takes issue with.
To what extent was the First World War either a Total War or a Limited War? “If we don't end war, war will end us”. It is human nature to fight. Either for survival, hate or power they all have the same devastating consequences. Throughout this essay I will be analyzing World War 1 as a total or limited war.
The first part of the essay will focus on the question of ‘what is terrorism?’ I will outline the key aspects of what classes an act an act of terrorism. I will then go onto define the act of freedom fighting. The second part of the essay discusses the differences and similarities between the tactics used in these two acts. Lastly I will argue that the biggest difference between terrorism and freedom fighting is ultimately how one perceives an act as either legitimate or illegitimate and also how the outcome of the conflict affects this distinction between these acts. To understand the differences between an act of terrorism and an act of freedom fighting it is important to understand the true definition of ‘terrorism’.
War was fundamental to political and social organization. It was only through necessity that wars arose . Wars arose due to necessity in ancient Rome, mainly because the land was limited and it was tightly controlled by the leadership of the day. Thus, people were called to war to defend their lands. For instance, the post-Roman authorities had called upon war-bands to defend the land.
Christopher New discusses pre punishment and how it is similar to post punishment. He describes pre punishment as the act of punishing a person before they commit a crime. Michael Walzer talks about preemptive war being the act of going to war based on facts that an attack is imminent and literally about to happen. Now that there is a foundation given the basic definitions of the topics at hand we can begin to discuss whether or not there is a difference between pre punishment and preemptive war. Preemptive war and pre punishment are similar in that they both act first before an attack is made or a crime is committed.
War has then become a natural extension of this role, and whether it is defined as just or unjust is determined by its effect on the position of the US and its allies. Inevitably, all civilizations have to deal with war, whether purposefully waging it or defending against it. World history is filled with bloody conflicts between states, the results of which have changed the way the world interacts. Our country was even formed as a result of a war against colonial oppression. At the time it was endlessly debated as to whether going to war with the British was the right thing to do, but it was eventually decided that it was necessary in order to gain our independence.
Although nationalism is a factor that contributed to World war 1, to say that it is the primary cause of the outbreak of the war is incorrect. Many factors, adding up together, led to the outburst of World war 1. Alliances and Imperialism can both be seen as much of a cause to the war as Nationalism. All these three factors: Nationalism, Alliances and Imperialism are as important as the other in the lead up to the war. Nationalism refers to nations trying to take over smaller nations and making them subject to their rule.