Reviewing Waltz 's Man, The State, And War

It is evident that two countries were primed for conflict, however, which side ignited the first initial blow, resulting and inflicting the ideology of War”.

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.

After this “master list” of sorts had been obtained, it was finally time to actually determine whether or not it was younger or older states which were more or less likely to participate in interstate conflict. This particular step was done by examining each war and cataloguing each state that participated in a specific war and then recording the age of the state when they fought in the conflict. In this study, a state’s age is defined by the most current year in which a state enjoyed its sovereign status prior to participating in the international conflict being catalogued. For example, in the case the United States of America it was the date its current constitution was enacted rather than its claim for independence. Due to this definition, the date used for the United States of America was 1789 rather than 1776. This system of defining state ages became paramount in its importance while collecting and cataloging information on states that had to rebuild themselves after World War II as a result of Nazi occupation. From here, the final steps of the study, in terms of data collection, was to organize these states by their ages when they participated in any of the listed conflicts. This was done by placing each country in intervals of ten years and went up to one hundred years. Any states that were older than one hundred years were placed in one group. Also it should be mentioned that in this study a “young” state is defined by being

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 has been designed to show a ghastly frame that sets out for propaganda, defeats, and victories. Involving multiple aspects, war exhibits a product of both human choice and human actions. “And a person's definition of war often expresses the person's broader political philosophy, such as limiting war to a conflict between nations or state. Alternative definitions of war can include conflict not just between nations but between schools of thought or ideologies.” (Moseley, Alexander.

War is not a common phenomenon anymore after the post cold war era. According a research conducted on active armed conflict across the world at the Uppsala University in Sweden, of all the 101 active armed conflicted between the late 80s and mid 90s, only six were actually between two different states (Solenberg &Wallensteen, 1997). These statistics clearly indicates that the conflict in today's world is more internal and ethnic based.

War is a human endeavor. Humanity continually pursues solutions to counter evolving threats with the end of preserving power while also enabling peace. Civilizations resort to war to maintain their perception of this equilibrium. Defined threats and adversaries have changed throughout history, however, the essence of human nature and the base concept of conflict itself have not. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories on warfare capture the relationship between humanity and its application of war, remaining relevant in today’s era through their pensive explanations of timeless philosophical principles regarding the concept of war. These theories regarding war in politics, the key factors affecting war, and the extent that war is applied are inherently interconnected, providing insight on the relationships between humanity and its application of war.

In the world today, ideological differences are the root causes of many conflicts between individuals or nations and if allowed to aggravate, it becomes the brush strokes for a canvas that turn out to be the portrait of an all-out warfare. However, before countries engage in militarism, it is prudent that the leadership takes pragmatic steps towards a peaceable resolution because the misconception among architects of conflict is to further private agenda for their personal benefit. In a blind quest for gratification, these benefits are an opportunity cost for the larger society who is the unfortunate recipient of the ensuing anarchy. Nothing is fair in war; casualties caught up within the crossfire

The most prevalent reasons for states going to war are security, interest, standing, and revenge; of these, I posit that security is the most frequent. For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on warfare occurring since the onset of the 20th century, however many of the core arguments retain efficacy through the countless centuries of human warfare. States don’t trust one another; even the best relationships between states are mired in spycraft with, or in opposition to one another. To summarize Waltz, drive for security is something that all states want, and need, as long as there are multiple states and at least one of them is looking for power.

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 moments in our history where the citizens of the world stand up and for their beliefs, their honor, and themselves. They come together to reform the existing government that is holding them back from achieving their desired lifestyle. When this occurs, most likely, war is inevitable to follow. When war comes to a country, death and destruction is destined. Leaders and rules change, but the pride of its citizens prevails and becomes

The idea of war, just war, wars of aggression or any of the innumerable ways humans convey and justify war is certain an intangible. War has been part of human society for thousands of years, and it is unlikely that some sort of cultural or human conflict will ever be completely erased (Brodie, 1974, p. 276). One very standard definition of war states that it is a quarrel between nations conducted by force - essentially derived when two groups are unable to communicate reasonably and meaningfully and also when a group or individual's nature is collectively aggressive or violent, encouraging war for oppressive purposes. (Somerville, 1975, p. 199). Historically, it was often easier to define what 'war' meant, but as we the 20th century changed the economic, cultural and political structure of the world, the idea of well-defined war becomes murky (Horgan, 2008). One obvious commonality throughout the historical record is the justification and/or cause of conflict. Points of view differ, but there is always a publicly justifiable reason for cultures to make war upon each other.

So the theory suggests that because democracies externalise their interstate norms, they resolve disputes with other states like them in a peaceful way. Hence domestic inner-state policies influence their foreign policies. However, this proclamation is disputed by C. Layne who argues that the ‘crux’ of this theory is that if the assumption that democracies promote their peaceful inner-state norms and beliefs, then they shouldn’t ever threaten other democracies, especially not in a crisis. I will use the case study of the ‘Trent affair’ to provide evidence of how war was avoided. I will argue that in this case, war was avoided not because of the domestic pacific influence on foreign policy but because of other strategic reasons.

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper

In the fields of International Relations, there are two important theories, idealism and realism. They are two contrasting and competing approaches in study of international relations. Idealism is “what could be”, planning the world as what they wish for it to become. Realism is “what actually is”, seeing the world as it actually is. People may ask, which one is more preferable? Though it’s a decision of one’s own perception that will never come to a correct answer, I argue that realism is more preferential because peace that idealists promote isn’t applicable for everything in this complicated world, making idealism too normative.