I Am Talking More Than Technology

War leads to oppression and leaves negative implications on all people and societies by impacting the poor, women, children, and nations as a whole. "War is a state of violent conflict between one or more groups" (Rasenberger 3). Rasenberger defines war as a state of conflict between one group within itself or several groups in combat with each other, what is not mentioned are the after-effects of war. War itself leads to many civilian and military deaths, an estimated 1.5-3.8 million people died during the Vietnam War and an approximate 500,000 people died in the Iraq war. The biggest tragedy of War is that it always results in fatality, but another key, negative, factor to understand is that after the War many adverse implications arise. Post-war ramifications in the nation fall upon the poor, women, and children, making them weaker and less motivated leading to the downfall of a society. Regardless if a nation wins or is defeated in war they have to deal with consequences of war and find solutions to the impacted people and society. It is essential to understand that there is never a true victor in war because regardless of the outcome, fatality and a fall of morale within society on both sides are inevitable. War has often been the solution to situations that required force or violence, but in recent times this has

Realists’ belief that, “war is unavoidable and natural part of world affairs.” According to Bova, there are over 200 sovereign states, and they all interest to gain power to defend themselves. As a result, state’s feeling of insecurity causes it to take any means to feel secure whether it is through the formation of ally with another powerful state or accumulation of military and economic power. Such action threatens other states provoke them take similar actions. This cycle applies to all states, and the feeling of threat and desire to survive is innate in humans In understanding International Relations, McNamara’s lesson is useful in the regards that actions that state takes to protect itself causes the complexity and conflicts of foreign policies that human beings are incapable of

The term ‘war’ as defined by the Oxford Dictionary is explained as “a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country” (Oxforddictionaries.com, 2016). The concept of war has created contrasting views on the relationship between war and genocide as well as the effect that war has on genocide. The term ‘genocide’ literally means ‘the killing of a race’ and is arguably the most atrocious crime conceivable (Gunter, 2011). It is a specific term that refers to crimes that are committed against groups with intent to destroy their existence (Ushmm.org, 2016). There are various motives and numerous reasons as to why genocides may occur, however this paper will seek to address the extent to how, if at all, the concept of war being a necessary condition for the occurrence of genocide, as well as looking at correlations between war and genocide using specific examples to determine whether war is a necessary condition or not.

Wars have been apart of this world almost as long as anything else has. Even in the Bible days there are records of wars. There are many reasons that states choose to go to war. Sometimes it is for the expansion of a nation or state, other times it is for financial gains, and it also could be for security or defense purposes. Whatever the case may be, wars have been apart of human life and will always be. There were no differences when it came to the Persian Gulf War. This war involved the United States, Iraq, and Kuwait. When trying to determine the purpose behind this war I chose to view it from a comparison of both the realist and liberalist views on the war.

This course is an introductory course, surveying major issues in international politics. The first section

With war, there are politics. With politics, there may be war. The perspective of man has a monumental impact even on the most minuet things to greater issues that affect society as a whole. Within the realm of politics, specifically the United States, there is democracy in which constituents choose their representatives. There is a general understanding that these representatives are elected to provide the best representation and voice of the people; however, the public’s opinion and the responsibility of utilitarianism of the country that the President must consider can sometimes collide. The rise of Osama Bin Laden and formation of the terrorist group, al Qaeda, with its terroristic

“What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.” Said Robert E. Lee. Who actually wins in war? In a sense, war is the killing of our own brothers & sisters. The fact that war is used to resolve political issues is sickening. Our newest generations are being born into this world thinking that war is common and necessary depending on the circumstances when it’s not. It’s obvious what this means, it only means more war is to come

Throughout much of the history of civilizations, states have declared war for land, valuables, and resources. In the course of the mid-20th century and the 21st century, ascendant super powers have invaded foreign lands for resources such as oil, and weapons companies have profited from the ongoing cycle of war these super powers promote. The populations of these states have been fed lies vis-à-vis the media; propagandizing these “rogue nations” and promoting an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality, to garner support for these armed conflicts. War is our primordial instinct, as humans are territorial and aggressive. That is our nature, and by looking at events in our history, one may see that war appears to be timeless and inevitable.

There are no universal theories to explain the true nature and character of war, and any war theories are not a fact or absolute truth. All strategic principles are dynamic and contextual, so “every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” The battlefield environment of the 21st century will be the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, and nature of war will be completely different because of the Revolution in Military Affairs. Highly advance communication and information technologies, a dramatic increase in computing capabilities, developed of precision munitions, dominant air and space power ‘war could be waged by the projection of

Realism is a theory which believes that sovereign states are the primary actors in the international system. It also believes that the international system has always been anarchic due to the nature of states not trusting each other and each state seeking to gain or maximize its own power capability. The Realist approach to the Cold War was also that of an “anarchical constitutive” and had seen the Cold War as something that was not out of the ordinary. The realists believed that states are always competing to maximize their own power, “the basic premise of its understanding is that the Cold War was not historically unique. the Cold War rather reflected in general terms the ongoing logic of inter-state conflict derived from the anarchical constitutive nature of the international system, and the ‘power maximization’ policies of states” R.Saull (2001:7).

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.

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

War has been going on just about as long as people have been alive. Whether it is just some cavemen fighting over a fire, or multiple countries going to war for justice, there has always been some scale of war. I am going to be analyzing way through functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspectives.

Martin van Creveld wrote The Transformation of War book in 1991 when he detailed a predictive hypothesis about the changing character of war into what he called ?Nontrinitarian War. There were conflicts arise as intrastate wars and were not based on the simplified version of Clausewitz?s ?remarkable trinity? of government, people and military forces (Van Creveld, 1991, pg. 49). In his book, Van Creveld offers an account of warfare in the previous millennium and suggests what the future might hold. The drive was that major war was draining and the emergence of forms of war ?that are simultaneously old and new? now threatened to create havoc.

The approximate number of war casualties in the past 100 years is estimated to be 180 million. The Second World War (1939-1945) alone accounts for 60 million fatalities, which commenced with a fascist aggression to the European peace. War has been inevitable over centuries, which has been fought for several reasons; competing ideologies, wealth, religious reasons, chase for power through its military actions, which exercises the real power of the state. Power arises from ‘great military powers’ and ‘great economic powers’. Indeed, the greatest powers obtained permanent seats on the Security Council of the United Nations. Can such security organisations including, non-governmental organizations really prevent conflicts? We have seen the inevitability of wars through the history, from which has arisen decades of theoretical debates (First ideologist-realist great debate took place between 1930’s and 1940’s, which focus was on the Nazi threat as well). Why is security crucial? Is there any alternative solution to abolish armed conflicts and struggles between states; or can we conclude, that war is inevitable?