The Pros And Cons Of Preventative War

A total war is a conflict which involves bringing together resources; this includes both industrial and military resources aiming at having an output that the enemy will not overcome at all (Castellano, 2016). The biggest difference that exists between a total war and a normal war is that there is really zero difference between those fighting in the same war and the civilians in this period; all these people are considered an enemy.

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

The key questions that motivate my paper are: In what ways did the great powers got involved and what were the consequences? In this paper, great powers mainly referring to the Unites States and the Soviet Union. Before we start, the definition of a great power that will be used in the rest of the paper. Per the definition, a great power is a sovereign state that is recognized as having the ability and expertise to exert its influence on a global scale. They characteristically possess military and economic strength as well as diplomatic and soft power influence, which may cause middle or small powers to consider the great powers’ opinions before

People of America, after reviewing all the evidence, Congress has come to a conclusion and will announce the verdict after restating the necessary proof. The peaceful citizens of America have claimed that war goes against many of their beliefs and morals as Christians. As children of Christ, one of their beliefs is that their blood shouldn't shed for an unnecessary war. This is a contradiction to the Bankers of America Association, who are pro-war because of the importance of manufactured goods that wouldn't be given to them. This is significant because in addition to not receiving the goods, they're also granting money to the Allies now knowing that they won’t be repaid. The other committee that is pro-war is the Society of Royal Britain.

President of the United States Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his impressive diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” He wielded that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy during the early twentieth century. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him was the superior muscle 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 nations ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms within the state. Powerful states employ all the elements of power to include diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and of course military to meet their national objectives. Although one might expect that militarily powerful states regularly triumph over weaker states in matters of war, superior military power does not guarantee a victory. This paper will show that states possessing weaker military power are capable of defeating militarily superior states that struggle to formulate sound military strategies for their armies, fail to generate the required military effectiveness on the battlefield, or cannot overcome the unpredictability of war.

There are many arguments for and against the reliability of military deterrence. The simplest definition of military deterrence is threatening to use force to discourage another state or country from doing something that is not in your favour. One main example of this in history is the Cold War commencing 1947 – 1991. During the cold war both the United States and the Soviet Union accumulated a large supply of nuclear weapons. It was in the Soviet Union’s interest that they would use the nuclear weapons thus creating a nuclear war and that that it was likely they would fight and win. On the other hand the United States has adopted the theory of nuclear/ military deterrence threatening the Soviet Union with retaliation and punishment if they

U.S. military operations are becoming more and more dangerous our troops to return home safely. This brings up the question “ Should the U.S. end all overseas military operations?” To me I care that they get injured and that some don't return but I think that even if I wanted all the operations to end they really can’t unless they eliminate all overseas threats which is virtually impossible. I mean there are people that strongly think they should and that everybody should just make peace. In reality there are crazy people out there that just think they can take the whole world and just make it their own.

I am going to show pre-emptive war with North Korea is wrong because according to Aquinas’ second criteria for Just War, the United States does not have just cause. North Korea has not attacked the United States or deprived them of their rights. With the state of North Korea’s nuclear program, they have not proved that they are a credible threat to the United States. Having a leader that is unpredictable does not provide a reason for a pre-emptive strike. Also, there are four other criteria that are commonly cited for just war in the modern era and I will be citing one of them- last resort. The United States has not arrived at a last resort situation and therefore does not have justifiable reason to pre-emptively strike North Korea.

Hegemonic stability theory can be defined as an international leader established from the last global war (a hegemon) that provides the international public goods of security and rule enforcement, allowing cooperation to take place. The lack of a hegemon, or a severely weakened, leads to a return of anarchic conditions and states suffer from fear in a security dilemma. Power transition can also explain preponderance theory. “A dissatisfied challenger rises in capabilities, the international system moves from stability-promoting structural clarity to crises-prone structural ambiguity” (Packer

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.

Throughout history, conflict had always broken out between enemies when the appearance of deterrence — the material and spiritual likelihood of using greater military power successfully against an aggressive enemy — vanished. From Carthage to the Confederacy, weaker bellicose states could convince themselves of the impossible because their fantasies were not checked earlier by cold reality. A stronger appearance of power, and of the willingness to employ it, might have stopped more conflicts before they began.

An unnecessary war is a critique of the possibility of war with Iraq. Mearsheimer calls Saddam Hussein cruel yet can be easily dissuaded. The author predicted then that if the United States is to invade Iraq, it will be because Iraq fails to comply with the United Nation inspection to the administrations liking. According to the author, the real reason the United States will invade Iraq is to topple Saddam Hussein because they believe that he is not dissuaded and that he may use WMDs. Advocates of the war acknowledge that the mission may take too long and become costly but a nuclear Iraq under Saddam Hussein is not acceptable. The notion that deterrence would not work and that Saddam Hussein should not

“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

War is a seen by those who are against it as the most devastating and dreaded type of human interaction ADDIN EN.CITE Hedges2003517Hedges (2003)5175176Hedges, C.War is a force that gives us meaning2003Gütersloh, GermanyRandom House9781400034635http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=k-KlOS_4b-8C HYPERLINK l "_ENREF_4" o "Hedges, 2003 #517" Hedges (2003). In the society, we leave in, discussions about war are held and preparations for warfare are a normal day-to-day occurrence. Proponents of war argue that nations get a meaning from war and not just carnage and destruction in it way. ADDIN EN.CITE Hedges2003517Hedges (2003)5175176Hedges, C.War is a force that gives us meaning2003Gütersloh, GermanyRandom House9781400034635http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=k-KlOS_4b-8C HYPERLINK l "_ENREF_4" o "Hedges, 2003 #517" Hedges (2003) argues that war gives life a meaning and purpose there by giving people a reason to leave. According to Hedges, with war an excitement hangs in the air. War provides a cause and a resolve to a country as it allows its citizens to be noble ADDIN EN.CITE Hedges2003517(Hedges, 2003)5175176Hedges, C.War is a force that gives us meaning2003Gütersloh, GermanyRandom House9781400034635http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=k-KlOS_4b-8C( HYPERLINK l "_ENREF_4" o "Hedges, 2003 #517" Hedges, 2003).

International change takes place when great powers rise and fall and followed by the shift in the balance of power (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003).