The Battle Of Inter State War

In his writing, he stated that war is intrinsically vast, communal (or political) and violent. It is an actual, widespread and deliberate armed conflict between political communities, motivated by a sharp disagreement over governance” (p.135)

“The Cause of War” is a book written by Australian author Geoffrey Blainey. The book is a collection of studies from wars since 1700’s and it analysis the relation of rivaling nations. The book is divided in four parts it starts discussing the weakness behind the current theories of peace, it then moves to talk the “ingredients” which are key for a nation to determine whether they will go to war or not. Third part of the group is about some misleading theories of war, and the last part just deals with the variety of war.

Mary Kaldor theory of ‘new wars’ proposes that because of the many changes the world has gone through since the concept of ‘wars’ was first defined, our understanding of wars is outdated. In the modern world, wars are fought using different methods and tactics than the ones that were at one point the standard. Today, both the state and the non-state actors contribute to wars. Wars were once fought for ideological reasons; modern wars, however, are fought in the name of identity politics. The goal of the ‘new wars’ is to achieve political power and control, whereas, old wars were fought by majorly physical means.

During the course of this analytical paper, we will look at the impact of warfare on world societies and people's consciousness, during the period of the 1500s in world history, called the Early Modern Period; also, we will discuss the consequences of the Great War. Additionally, apart from studying the altering methods of warfare and their magnitude, we will look up to different motivations of statesmen and peoples who declare wars or engage in several types of violent actions towards certain societies. Throughout the paper, we will stretch any pertinent evidence at appropriate points of what war leaders, intellectuals and common citizens view war and violence, which they experience during their life. Some of the examples include the Arabs that vastly expanded the world of Islam, yet were traditionally predatory in nature, which benefited more from the taxation of the conquered than from their conversion. There are also examples like the Mongol Empire, which was too, predatory, but differently from the Arab

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.

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

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.

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

The comprehension of the term ‘total war’ has had great significance towards the understanding as to how wars are fought, affect society and differ from other conflicts. The main issue that arises is conclusively defining total war and is continually differing between both historians and military combatants alike. Roger Chickering defines states “total war is distinguished by its intensity and extent. Theatres of operation span the globe; the scale of the battle is practically limitless” all the while adding “total war requires the mobilisation not only of armed forced but also of whole populations” This definition, while not quintessential is a good starting point for a definition due to its broadness and acceptance of the idea of the incapability to fully mobilise a society’s entire resource. David A. Bell states that it is often defined as ‘a war involving the complete mobilization of a society’s resources to achieve the absolute destruction of an enemy, with all distinction erased between combatants and non-combatants’ . However, he notes the limitations of such an idea including the inability for societies to meet such criterion, in particular, the ability for a society to completely utilise its resources towards the war effort. Ultimately, Jeremey black, while not giving a conclusive definition for the term, total war, does acknowledge different definitions by various individuals distilling many of their arguments and consequently outlining main characteristics of

Sun Tzu understood the nature of war as “the province of life or death,” and a “matter of vital importance to the state.”1 I agree. In my own experience, war awakens your primordial instincts and strips you of your self-rationalizations. Sun Tzu defined the character of war when he wrote, “water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions.”2 Accordingly, Sun Tzu’s principals of war offer a framework adequate to explain the nature and character of 21st century warfare, which I rationalize as a near-continuous battle of ideologies fought through asymmetric means to advance the values and interests of state and non-state actors.

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 book “The Sociology of War and Violence”, gives an insight of how war can be understood from different perspectives. While war is believed by some that people come together in solidarity, the chapters on nationalism and war as well as propaganda and war, analyzed important factors such as the understanding of war and its impact on societies culture at a macro level. It is easy to argue that we can easily assume war brings the best in individuals when society is facing mutual concerns and worries. When society comes together as one it brings a sense of solidarity and strength giving us a sense of power. This is a common feeling, for instance, lets consider us when it comes down to support our military; above all things, despite our differences in religion, socio-economic status, ages, gender, etc.… majority support their actions because they make sense and they are in the

This essay intends to define and give an overview of the ‘Principles of War', the philosophers that coined these principles and with examples from the various countries that used and have their own perspectives on the ‘Principles of War'.

Man, State and War is the seminal book by Kenneth N. Waltz that asks a very basic but important question: What causes wars? He also implicitly asks the question of how we can achieve the “Utopian” dream of peace. Waltz’s analysis pins the blame on a complex interaction of three entities, that he calls the “levels” of organization. Two of them are the eponymous Man and State, and the third is the interaction of the states themselves. Waltz talks about the three entities and how they are viewed as the three “images of international relations” and he views them both as a single entity and how that entity interacts with and influences the others. (Waltz 14) Waltz acknowledges that the root cause of war cannot be any one of the three levels or images, but the blame lies with the interrelationship of the two or more of them (14-15). In addition, Waltz asks a few more pertinent questions: What, if any, is the specific cause of war? Does there exist a solution to create a world without war, which may not be a world with peace, or is war inevitable, owing to it being an integral part of human nature? (14-15). Waltz’s assertion is that the current climate of the world, with international anarchy due to lack of a centralized authority coupled with nation-states only interested in their self-interests prevent realization of the ultimate utopian dream. Ultimately, His conclusion is that