The Popular Reasons For States Going To War

attitude....Complete destruction of Poland is the military aim. To be fast is the main thing.

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

Why does one nation strike against another? It strives to rise in social, political, and economical power. In over fifty countries around the world, Steven Kenzer reported government change, revolution, and social disturbance, one being in Hawaii. Hawaii was in the middle of a huge argument between modern ways of thinking and acting, and tradition. A small group of conspirators attempted to overthrow Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii’s government.

President Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his extraordinary, worldly diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” During the early twentieth century, he brandished that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy in support of his country’s political objectives. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him as a diplomat and Commander in Chief was the superior power of the United States military. “Historically, power has been measured by such criteria as population size and territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. Hard power enables countries to wield carrots and sticks to get what they want.”1 Power, a nation’s ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms or elements within a state. Powerful states strive to employ all the elements of power, including diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and most importantly military to further their national objectives. Although a reasonable person might expect that a militarily powerful state routinely triumphs over the weaker state in matters of war, superior military power only guarantees a victory on paper, not in any real war. This paper will show that when one considers a state’s relative military power, weaker states are capable of defeating more powerful states that struggle to formulate

Charles Tilly’s article “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime” creates an analogy between the creation of European states and acting out an organized crime. Earlier in our course, we learned about Max Weber, who defined a state as “a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Tilly argues that the word “protection” in relation to physical force has positive and negative connotations, leading to illegitimate use of power during the period time that Tilly is discussing. Tilly’s analysis eventually tells the reader that war is always a major part of state politics; specifically that war making and state making are interdependent.

Revenge could lead someone to do things that aren’t usually thought of, in a way it drives people crazy. Most people wouldn’t bring any harm upon someone or wouldn’t ever imagine doing something horrible to others until revenge is wanted. For example in A Long Way Gone Ishmael says that he’s killing the rebels as revenge for what they did to his family. Normally a thirteen

There are many different types of people in this world. Some are kind and considerate, who always thinks of others before thinking of themselves. Then there are people who are unforgiving and cruel, like Montresor in Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado”.

Ann Park Lanphar, author of “The problem of Revenge in Medieval Literature”, states “The desire to return an injury insult, to pay back, to even the score, and thus to gain justice for oneself is a basic human impulse.”(Lanphar, 2010). However, those who choose that path can and will be punished. In fact, the Japanese Government issued a decree in 1873 prohibiting vengeance. The decree states “Furthermore, in extreme cases the undesirable situation often arises that one person wantonly and deliberately kills another in the name of revenge without regard for the rights and wrongs of the case or the justification for his act.”(Mills, 1976). Although it agrees that revenge is a natural human impulse, in no way does it make it acceptable. The government clarifies that you will be punished in saying “Let it be plainly understood that anyone who ignores this injunction and adheres to old customs, taking the laws into his own hands to kill for revenge, will be subject to a penalty appropriate to his offence.” (Mills, 1976). By overlooking the right path to take and choosing to avenge results in punishment, therefore those who chose it can not feel any progress to their

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

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.

need for revenge. Perhaps we feel that we need to keep revenge alive at any

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.

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.

Justice is part of revenge; as also for revenge is part of justice. “Justice” comes from a Latin word that means “straight, fair, equal”, it’s the quality of being righteous and loyal towards one’s state, although serves the interests of the stronger (Hourani, 1962), while revenge is the act of taking retaliation for injuries or wrongs. What ever the circumstances are being the individual who experiences a unjust act, results in the hunt for one of these two things: Justice or revenge. What are the key differences between the two? Justice can be defined as the concept of moral rightness, which is based on the rules of law, fairness, ethics, and equality among the governed citizens. Revenge, on the other hand, refers to an action taken by

Unlike Waltz, whose argument is that every state should be driven by a fear that war may happen at anytime because there is no international government to prevent them, Wendt takes a completely different approach by arguing that the potential of war is only likely when roles are not established. Waltz’