The Nature Of Armed Conflict

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)

War can be defined as “an active struggle between competing entities. It’s truly hard to tell who is right or wrong during a war. Both sides are fighting for what they believe in and what is true to their heart. In the end there is always two things promised – destruction and death. These two objects can explain the result in every facet of war from the physical to emotional.

War: a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. War is inevitable. Especially in the cases in which one country has a desire to break free from another country and/or its influences. This, at least, was the basic reason as to why the Vietnam war and the Revolutionary war started. As a matter of fact, these two wars are strangely similar. The Revolutionary war and the Vietnam war are alike because, they had similar war strategies, they had similar characteristics, and most importantly, they had the same reasons for going to war. Moreover, these two wars are strangely alike.

There were many wars in the past, but what do we mean by war? It is A period of fighting between countries or groups Through history, wars have had different kinds of effects on the societies impacted by the wars for many reasons. There were many important wars throughout the history like the American civil war, over 600,00 soldiers were killed, the war started in South Carolina on April 12, 1861. The war was fought between southern and northern states of the United States. The southern states didn't want to be part of the United States anymore because they thought as the country expands they would gain less power be and decided to make their own country called the confederate state of America which was made up of 11 southern states (South

Through separate publications, Geoffrey Parker and Victor Hanson describe principal foundations (Parker) and a prominent element (Hanson) that serve as the basis for their argument in defining a Western Way of War. However, both men fall short in clearly describing what is a true Western Way of War. Both the principal foundations by Parker and the prominent element by Hanson, while insightful, only delineate a single type of warfare that was used by the armies of Europe and the United States, however they fail to capitalize on the basis of their argument because neither man legitimately compares that type of warfare to any other method of fighting that was used, or is currently used, by other nations around the world. Hence, there is no

According to Hedley Bull, war is “organized violence waged by sovereign states” which was the outcome of a “process of limitation or confinement of violence” via the ethical doctrine of just war theory. Clausewitz classified warfare as not just an act, but also a social institution for obtaining ulterior objectives (e.g. political) and strategic lines of command within and between states. He defined the social relationship between forces and the elements of war (rationality, chance and violence). Martin Shaw claims that contemporary warfare has completely evolved so that the “core of the new mode of warfare is a different general relationship between war fighting and the political, economic, and cultural-ideological domains.” (Nowaczynski, J. (2012, December). E-International Can

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.

‘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.

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 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

War is a conflict carried out by force of arms, between nations, states or between parties within a nation which can be on land, sea or in the air, always caused by something. It’s a clash of interests which results in violent armed struggles and can affect

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.

Furthermore,war is a state of conflict between different groups that potentially end with death. The action of fighting is used for many untold reasons, none of which are worth fighting for. However, if people could learn how to use their words more effectively, less fighting would take place. War is like a loop it never stops, it continues to go round and round

By nature the war is considered to be political, fundamentally interactive and most importantly something exceptionally violent. If any of these elements are absent, it might be constituted to something else instead of a war because it has got a certain nature to be called as a war and must meet a certain criteria. While on the other hand, the character of war is something that keeps on changing as per the manifestations and changing phenomena of the real world. The character of war is political that keeps on taking place among various societies. Politics plays a great role and character in shaping the society. While the conduct of war is highly affected by cultural, political, ethical, legal, technological as well as social factors along with the factors associated with the organization of military. However, the place and time keeps on playing great role in deciding the character of wars .