According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, war is described as “a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism; a state of usual open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations; a struggle between opposing forces or for a particular end.” This is a logical explanation, but it brings up a question. Is war all bad? Can’t war have good points as well as bad ones? There are good things, too. You don’t believe me?
The economic side effects of entering a war can be beneficial to a country. The need for weapons and machinery can jump start industrial production. World War I, as well as WWII, was considered total wars, which means that a country put all of its resources into the war. When America officially
The way that the nation has settle conflicts with other nations by going to war has impacted each individual that calls the United States home. Inevitably, war has both positives and negatives aspects that would create a great research paper. “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for
In Why Nations Go to War, Dr.John G Stoessinger talks about the role of individuals in starting wars. He is of the view that factors like economics, nationalism, alliance networks and even fate are often put forward as the primary reasons for the outbreak of a war, but the human element, the personalities, the hopes and fears and the particular worldview of the individual leaders of the country are not given nearly as much importance. The writer points out that wars are after all, started by people and to a large extent, the book deals with the lead up to the moment when people finally decide to go to war. The author holds a Ph.D. from Harvard and has taught at Harvard, M.I.T, Columbia and Princeton. He won the Bancroft Prize for his book, The Might of Nations and he has served as acting director for the political affairs division at the United Nations.
Some historians have stated that the “ beat Hitler first policy “ was the best war strategy the United States could have followed during World War II. I also believe that this was in fact the best war strategy for the United States and led to her success. The reasons why I support this position are because it was necessary for the United States to help the Winston Churchill and the British defend their land, or we risked dividing our allies politically, and at the time the British and Russians were struggling against Germany and needed immediate assistance for survival, and along with our help it allowed us to secure allies with which to fight Japan with, and by defeating Hitler first the U.S would be cutting of Hitler’s support to the Japanese which would ultimately weaken the Japanese making her ultimately weaker having access to less resources. The “Beat Hitler First Policy” was a very crucial decision in defeating Nazi Germany as well as the Japanese in World War II. This was somewhat a political decision that the United States needed to make in support of her allies.
Who would have the most happiness (qualitative). However Act Utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) would argue that in some situations like war there is not enough time to think about the consequences and so should use the hedonic calculus. The hedonic calculus has 7 elements about how much pleasure is made: how deep, how long, how certain/uncertain, how near or far, how continuous, how secure, how universal? This method gives Act Utilitarians a method of testing if an action is morally right (if war would be morally right). However critics say that the calculus would only help you guess the future and therefore would act on what would cause the largest quantity of pleasure.
Thus, countries adapted, copied, and utterly shattered the old ideals of warfare. The war of the past has become the war of the future through intoxicating and gunning down millions. Compare that to the atomic bombs that we have today. The weapons and strategies of the Napoleonic era were futile with these new inventions, chemical gas and the automatic weapon. This new technology forced generals to refute the strategies of old, and embrace a new, modern, tactic.
The author believes that Napoleon won many battles because of his enemies’ mistakes and not because of what he actually was…the greatest military mind that ever lived. I did some research of my own and found out that he is also remembered for his Napoleonic Code and his military campaigns are still taught in some military academies. Owen Connelly wrote in his book that Napoleon insisted that he would be remembered for the Napoleonic Code. And, in fact, he is. Owen Connelly’s perspective on the way Napoleon won battles is his opinion and he tries to prove it in this book.
To go to war in Vietnam was a risk the US felt it had to take in order to contain Communism, thus securing its economic prosperity and worldwide dominance. Though US casualties were large and its psychological effects profound, the Vietnam War was an absolute necessity in order to maintain the greater interests of America for generations to come. Hoffman et al. Major Problems in American History Volume 2: Since 1865. Houghton Mifflin Company,
Given the fluid and dynamic nature of the war on terror as it has been presented, the United States has not been able to pursue one particular defense policy. The policy of defending the world against terror is very sweeping and commits the United States in many areas of the world. At one point, focus was on Iraq, as a haven for terrorists who were supposedly promulgating the war from Baghdad. This allowed obliviousness to fomenting in Afghanistan, which now might be where our focus is on at this time. The reality is that both defense and foreign policy have had to be malleable and somewhat pliable because the justification for the war ended up constricting the hopes of definite and static foreign policy.