These three insights find thoroughness because of their durability. The first of Clausewitz’s insights which we discuss is the right understanding of military history. Clausewitz asserts that history confines war to be just that, and only that. This assertion relies on another Clausewitz’s assertion that war is the continuation of policy by other means. Political ends necessitate the need for military force (war) as a mean.
Of all the ideas and theories Clausewitz presented in On War, my belief is that the most important and enduring elements are his idea that war is an extension of policy, his analysis of strategy, the trinity theory and his explanation of the components of war including friction in war, the fog of war and his centre of gravity theory. These ideas and theories from Clausewitz’s On War will be discussed in this essay and presented as his most important and enduring contributions to the theory of warfare. Clausewitz defined war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will” (Clausewitz, P101) but argued that war should only be entered into when diplomatic methods fail as war is a continuation of politics and controlled by a political objective which is aimed at improving the situation. However war can therefore can vary depending on the nature of the policy and society of the time in which the war is waged. Clausewitz stated that success in war requires clear political aims and an adequate strategy (Clausewitz, P101).
My partner and I disagree with the resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation A few definitions to set the stage for the debate: Unilateral- a unilateral action or decision is done by only one of the groups involved in a situation. <http://www.ldoceonline.com/Government-topic/unilateral> Justified- Demonstrated or proven to be just, right, or valid. <http://www.answers.com/topic/justify> Prevent- to stop something from happening or someone from doing something. <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/prevent> Nuclear proliferation- a term used to describe the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information, to nations which are not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States" by the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or NPT. < http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/nuclear-proliferation%20/> In order for the Pro to win this debate, unilateral military force by the United States must not only be proven to effectively prevent nuclear proliferation, but also be justified.
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?
Module 4 PE1 Based on a scenario and based on the laws of war, I could not obey the order this order, it would be illegal, with all the respect that my commander deserve I would advise him to reevaluate his decision on the order issued and ask him to make changes to it, because if we continue with it, we will create a conflict of an international character. If we continue with this order we would be violate the civil rights that we defend. To fulfill the purposes noted above, the laws of war place substantive limits on the lawful exercise of a belligerent’s power. Generally speaking, the laws require that belligerents refrain from employing violence that is not reasonably necessary for military purposes and that belligerents conduct hostilities with regard for the principles of humanity and chivalry. We are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat.
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.
There are two reasons as to why Hitler would not go to war with Germany. One would be that Hitler has violated the Treaty of Versailles and had worked very hard to make Germany strong again. He would not want to waste his resources by going to war with the West. The west was also already threatened and was more concerned with self-interest. For example, the British claimed that Germany was only marching into its own backyard when the remilitarization of Rhineland and did not support France.
“Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.” In those quotes, Lincoln doesn’t clarify which region of the nation wanted war and which one accepted it, also who wanted to make the negotiations. With that vague description, the audience could not tell if it were the North or South. This implies that no one region is really at fault for the outburst of war, but it is the fault of the whole country. This makes the audience feel that they were the reason for why a war started. The South cannot be overlooked as the catalyst of war, for the North is equally at fault for not being able to avoid the war.
Preemptive war and pre punishment are similar in that they both act first before an attack is made or a crime is committed. Based on my understanding of the readings thus far, I have come to the conclusion that there is a difference between pre punishment and pre emptive war. The main difference between the two is that preemptive war is in response to imminent aggression from another state while pre punishment is the act of punishing a person(s) for a crime they have been perceived of committing and have yet to commit. Michael Walzer describes preemptive war as an always justified war occurring to stop an imminent attack as opposed to sitting back and waiting to be attacked. Walzer gives an example by describing the Six Day War
President Obama: A good choice for this country? By: Rebecca Ramsey Both arguementive sides to the debate: whether Obama is a satisfactory president or not. Topic: President Obama is not the best choice for President. Opposing Topic President Obama is the perfect choice for President. Thesis Statement: President Barack Obama is not the best choice for President of the United States due to the fact he is pro war, he does not put the American people’s needs first, and he is a liar.