This means that politics places itself above war and modify it to suit its needs, with Clausewitz arguments, it is difficult to think of war as something apart from politics. The Clausewitz's theory underwent a lot of criticism by the end of the Cold War due to the transformational changes that took place in the international system which altered the nature of war (Shaw
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?
All countries have the entitlement of attempting to win, but unlike war, just war cannot for everything or anything that is or seems to be a necessary way in achieving the one goal: victory. A war cannot be just, due to the act of mass violence and destruction is evident from the very beginning to the absolute end. From the Latin “Bellum Justum”, just war is a war that is deemed to be either morally or theologically justifiable. In other words, a just war is a war that can be justified. For example, if a country was to attack another country for no real profound reason, and then the attacked country decides to fight back it is then considered a just war because of reasonable justification.
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.
This is demonstrated through the questionable policies such as Brinkmanship, Massive retaliation, and how the culture of paranoia and secrecy caused both sides to constantly create more nuclear weapons to feel protected against the other side. The role of each side reacting to the other during the nuclear arms race proved to be a threat to world peace. One crucial feature of the race was the difference between what each side perceived of the other, and what the actual reality was. It is clear that mutual over estimation of each side’s capabilities led to an environment in which the usual mood was to increase their own arsenal, based on the assumption that the opposing side was superior. This resulted in a reaction from the other side on the assumption that the opposing side was building up to gain a measure of superiority.
Based on Hitler’s foreign policy, will Hitler go to war with the west? The possible reason as to why Hitler would go to war with the West was because Germany may become more powerful. This would have caused the West to feel threatened. Germany portrayed that they wanted to go to war by getting more weapons and more soldiers. This was so as to get more land and fight communism.
Just war theory, what is that? In March 2003, the “coalition of the willing” , consisting of the United States of America, Great Britain and Australia, invaded Iraq, starting a war later referred to as the “Iraq war” . This war has raised eyebrows, not only questioning the intentions of the coalition, but criticizing the operation itself and the outcome as well. When thinking of the war, one could argue that it was necessary to protect the international community against the possible dangerous movements of the Iraq government under Sadam Hussein. However, after doing extensive research on the situation in Iraq before the invasion, the intentions of the coalition, and the outcome, one could question the necessity of the invasion and whether there was a
There are many main causes of war, including short-term causes and long term causes, and I will be elaborating on them and why the war broke out. This was because in 1914 ,the 6 most powerful countries in Europe were divided into two opposing alliances: the triple entente and the triple alliance. Politicians at the time called this system of alliances the “balance of power”. They believed that the power and size of the two alliances would prevent either side from starting a war. This is why it took a long time from starting a war, due to the “balance of power”.
Some people believe that violence is needed to lead a nation and to win a war, while others follow the policy of pacifism. Pacifism is the opposition to violence or war of any kind. Pacifists believe death to a person due to the cause of another cannot be justified. We’ve read that throughout history, there are leaders who follow violence, and leaders who follow pacifism. Both sides have a good understanding, but they both have there cons as well.
Why Nations go to War “Mortals made these decisions. They made them in fear and in trembling, but they made them nonetheless” (Stoessinger 4). This is something that Dr. John G. Stoessinger implies in his book Why Nations go to War. Stoessinger organized his book to look at the events that led to specific wars of the twentieth century. He discusses prime wars such as, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam, and the wars in the Middle East.