Conflict Between Rational And Conflict

Why do notions go to war? What is the reasoning behind their actions? John G. Stoessinger analyzes these questions in his book, Why Nations go to War. Stoessinger believes that to understand the war, you must understand the leaders of the war. When you understand the leaders you understand their actions and when you understand their actions, you have the answer to the question, "Why do nations go to war?" In this review paper I am going to review each chapter individually, 1-10. I will then give a brief summary of the book and what I think as a whole based on my reading.

War is a phenomenon of organized violent conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption and adaptation, and high mortality. Usually a war is a pre-planned activity to begin with by one group or one nation and the group initiates the war by means of violence against the other. The primary feature of this behaviour pattern is a certain state of organized conflict that is engaged in between two or more separate social entities. Such a conflict is always an attempt at altering either the psychological hierarchy or the material hierarchy of domination or equality between two or more groups. In all cases, at least one participant (group) in the

I agree with the quote that “Wars between states can be explained by the distribution of power and capabilities in the international system.” Power distribution among all the great powers plays an important role for the stability and economy of the state. I believe that war determines who will govern the international system, and whose interests will be primarily served by the new international order.

War is easily explained through the lens of social conflict theory, a sociological theory that suggests society tends toward conflict because it is made up of groups with competing interests and unequal resources. The theory proposes that a

‘War’ as defined by Webster’s Dictionary is a state of open and declared, hostile armed conflict between states or nations. Voltaire—the human personification of the Enlightenment period—says the following: “Famine, plague, and war are the three most famous ingredients of this wretched world…All animals are perpetually at war with each other…Air, earth and water are arenas of destruction. Defining war has been a political issue for centuries, and it poses a philosophical problem. Most philosophers will agree on war being a clash of arms, or a state of mutual tension between nations or states, distinguishing it from open rebellions, riots, and personal violence.

The bargaining model of war refers to a war that is motivated by political means rather than social or economical. In the case of the

I really like your thorough explanation regarding the bargaining theory of war. It is true that winning comes at a price, and usually the casualty of citizens are numerous. When weighing between going to war and to not, there is always a strong reason against. However, due to the reasons you mentioned, war ends up happening. For instance, credible commitment is a huge problem because the incentive to default always stand. Take the Russian-American conflict on nuclear weapons. There have been many treaties to safe guard this weapon from being utilized and triggering massive destruction. However, the incentive to attack can rise as simple as the reason to “attack first”. First strike advantages mere means that the party who attacks

Throughout history, neighbor has been fighting neighbor over land. Some of these wars have gone down in history as the most violent or largest of all wars. The study of war must include all aspects of the struggle, including historical, financial, and political ramifications. Insight into the strategy used by military troops, the rational of the military leaders, how the economy was affected, provide an understanding of society during that time. Wars are studied for years after they cease. Studying the causes, results, the economics, the destruction and reconstruction, and other particulars of war offers insight and, hopefully, the wisdom to prevent future ones.

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.

The following wars have been divided between 1.) Wars caused by ethnic issues and 2.) Wars not caused by ethnic issues. After determining the cause of war, I will focus on particular aspects of the war predominantly the death toll, how long the war lasted, if core states got involved in the conflict and if so how far removed were they from the region of conflict. Finally and most importantly, I will compare and contrast the two types of wars (1.) Wars caused by ethnic conflict and 2.) Wars not caused by ethnic conflict) and determine how these wars were ultimately resolved. More specifically, I am determining if wars caused by ethic issues are resolved by internal means or whether they are resolved by external factors such as core states or states that have an invested interest in the matter.

Throughout history, conflict had always broken out between enemies when the appearance of deterrence — the material and spiritual likelihood of using greater military power successfully against an aggressive enemy — vanished. From Carthage to the Confederacy, weaker bellicose states could convince themselves of the impossible because their fantasies were not checked earlier by cold reality. A stronger appearance of power, and of the willingness to employ it, might have stopped more conflicts before they began.

Wars are a critical, global issue, as it is more elusive than ever. Even a disjointed group can mobilize and launch an ideological battle against a perceived aggressor. With increased mobility, travel and technology, battles can surface virtually anywhere. Wars emerge not only between nations, but between non state actors, insurgency groups, and between groups and religions within nations, as well. Even within the United States, battles persist between the population and law enforcement, an ideological battle concerning race and government forces. Wars have evolved since the early days of civilization (Sernau, 2012). Wars generally served one or a few purposes in early humanity, mainly the need to protect one’s tribe or territory (Sernau 2012).

Political Violence has been affiliated with governments and nations since the beginning of political history and plays a huge role in the causes of Wars around the world. What causes leaders to declare war? Many philosophers have based their studies and theories on this question; many have different perspectives. One philosopher, John Stoessinger, has expressed his theories on the causes of war through what he calls his “misperception framework.” Stoessinger shows great interests in the personalities of world leaders; he is less impressed with the roles of abstract forces such as nationalism, militarism, economic factors, or alliance systems as the causes of

Humans have engaged in war for thousands of years. The earliest recorded instance is circa 2700 BCE. Of course, the fighting extends much further back as this was near the advent of writing. Even

The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a